The Long-Term Jobs Killer Is Not China, It’s Automation • Hacker News Board

Re: The Long-Term Jobs Killer Is Not China, It’s Automation

#151

Post by 1982734234 » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 12:59 PM UTC

I think we have to deal with reality first, rather than delving into hypothetical situations where robots control the world. Currently, many countries are growing their population despite the reduction in jobs. Secondly, corruption in the government, and businesses that manipulate the government, is funneling money into a small group of people.

These are two issues that will actually help with both creating jobs and ensuring decent pay. Nobody really knows what will happen in the future. If there are robots that can do all of our work, who says that only extremely rich people will be able to afford them? Which technologies have stayed permanently unaffordable where there is consumer demand? Not that many.

Re: The Long-Term Jobs Killer Is Not China, It’s Automation

#152

Post by otakucode » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 1:02 PM UTC

tmnvix wrote: post #31

edblarney wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It should be added that wages going up and the emergence of a middle class was not a direct result of increased productivity. " I fully agree that the labour movement was essential. BUT - wages did definitely rise far before labour got going - and wages could not rise as they did without underlying productivity gains. But yes - the labour movement was essential.

> ...wages could not rise as they did without underlying productivity gains Absolutely. The challenge with automation is ensuring that the increased productivity benefits all of society (not necessarily equally). As useful as capitalism is, it doesn't really have a mechanism for doing this properly. The solution will always have to be political.

It's not like this is something far off. Wages have been frozen since 1980. And productivity has increased at a breakneck pace. From 1950-1980, when productivity gains were slow and incremental, the median wage rose by 75%. Between 1980 and 2010, it rose by 1% while companies posted record-breaking profits and the median income of the top 10% rose by 475%. The average wage increased alongside productivity gains, but due to the extremely skewed distribution, that hides the fact that the gains of computers and automation technology benefitted only the very top.

I think a large part of it has to do with how disruptive computers and software are. One person can walk in and write some software that makes an employee 50x as productive. How do you compensate that? They enabled your employee to create profoundly more value. If compensation is in any way tied to the value of the work being done, the compensation should obviously be similarly profound. You have to divorce value of work and compensation from one another completely to avoid ending up paying software creators very highly and practically creating a special class for them.

Re: The Long-Term Jobs Killer Is Not China, It’s Automation

#153

Post by 1982734234 » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 1:05 PM UTC

torpfactory wrote: post #12

I think we are destined for a future of political and social instability in the world if we continue to define labor and its compensation as we do now. We currently don't have a social understanding for navigating a world where little human labor is required. The resentment of the winners (capital owners) by the losers (jobless masses) may lead to great upheaval, to be harnessed by willing politicians of short-sighte…

When you refer to capital owners, it has a historic context related to land and farms and large amounts of money. Robots, on the other hand, aren't necessarily going to cost lots of money. If everybody can own a robot, nobody has to worry about being employed.

The real issues won't change though. Those people who are considered rich will be rich because they own land in nice areas, or have a military-backed monopoly on natural resources.

The first issue is due to population size, and the second issue is an eternal issue of war that can't be avoided.

Re: The Long-Term Jobs Killer Is Not China, It’s Automation

#154

Post by 1982734234 » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 1:07 PM UTC

shams93 wrote: post #103

torpfactory wrote: post #12

I think we are destined for a future of political and social instability in the world if we continue to define labor and its compensation as we do now. We currently don't have a social understanding for navigating a world where little human labor is required. The resentment of the winners (capital owners) by the losers (jobless masses) may lead to great upheaval, to be harnessed by willing politicians of short-sighte…

We need to have an AI tax that redistributes wealth back to the "ordinaries" so they can have the resources to be creative. Even if machines can generate writing and music there's no real point of view to fully machine generated material. You can do the thing they said don't quit your day job to do.

What are the things that need to be invented when robots do everything for you?

Re: The Long-Term Jobs Killer Is Not China, It’s Automation

#155

Post by JustSomeNobody » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 1:08 PM UTC

Idle hands are the Devil's workshop.

We're going to have to find ways to help people stay busy/occupied. Otherwise, society will just turn nasty.

Re: The Long-Term Jobs Killer Is Not China, It’s Automation

#156

Post by ivm » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 1:15 PM UTC

ako wrote: post #127

visarga wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The resentment of the winners (capital owners) by the losers (jobless masses) may lead to great upheaval, That's why we need to place the means of production in the hands of the people, not just of capitalists. > What will it mean to work and contribute to society in the future of machines? Self-supporting human society, a mix of small companies, skilled people and experts, using automation as well, that works to s…

Marx speaking...

> According to distributists, property ownership is a fundamental right, and the means of production should be spread as widely as possible, rather than being centralized under the control of the state (state socialism), a few individuals (plutocracy), or corporations (corporatocracy). Distributism, therefore, advocates a society marked by widespread property ownership.

> Distributism has often been described in opposition to both socialism and capitalism, which distributists see as equally flawed and exploitive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism

Re: The Long-Term Jobs Killer Is Not China, It’s Automation

#157

Post by coldcode » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 1:20 PM UTC

twblalock wrote: post #5

It's interesting that many politicians, including Trump and Sanders, want policies to prevent jobs from leaving the US, but have no policy proposals around automation. If you want manufacturing jobs to stay in the US, regulating automation would be far more effective than trying to prevent companies from outsourcing jobs. (Incidentally, a lot of jobs that have been outsourced probably would have been automated if out…

Being against automation does not make for good sound bites. But if the business of America is business (I forgot who said that, maybe Hoover or Coolidge?) and automation makes more profit, then it will happen assuming society doesn't fall apart first.

Re: The Long-Term Jobs Killer Is Not China, It’s Automation

#158

Post by cm2187 » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 1:21 PM UTC

king_magic wrote: post #144

cm2187 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Losing their job is a violent and unpleasant process but a sort of necessary one as a society. I have seen that first hand many times. It forces people to reconsider their career, move to another more promising industry, move to another city or another country. That's how the economy adapts to change and resources are allocated efficiently. What I have seen often too is bankers wealthy enough to be able to live on th…

Sorry, but have you ever really witnessed firsthand the difficulty of being forced "to reconsider one's career, move to another more promising industry, or move to another city or another country"? The economy might adapt to change, but people aren't able to nearly as well. You say "capitalist's creative destruction", but it's really "greed-driven devastation".

But are you suggesting we should keep people employed doing manual tasks to spare them the unpleasant experience of reconsidering their career? Are you suggesting that industrialisation or automation is greed? You can reverse a lot of technological advance that way. And we see that in many socialist economies, where zombie-like industries have been subsided well after they should have disappeared (like mining in the North of France).

Re: The Long-Term Jobs Killer Is Not China, It’s Automation

#159

Post by mcv » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 1:21 PM UTC

torpfactory wrote: post #12

I think we are destined for a future of political and social instability in the world if we continue to define labor and its compensation as we do now. We currently don't have a social understanding for navigating a world where little human labor is required. The resentment of the winners (capital owners) by the losers (jobless masses) may lead to great upheaval, to be harnessed by willing politicians of short-sighte…

Exactly. The problem is that automation is the problem. Automation should be the solution. The goal of automation should not be to save labor costs for corporations and make people unemployed, it should be to increase productivity and make people have to work less, so they get more time to enjoy life.

Best way to accomplish this, I think, is to have a Basic Income. Give everybody enough to live, and increase that the more machines take over our work.

Re: The Long-Term Jobs Killer Is Not China, It’s Automation

#160

Post by mcv » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 1:24 PM UTC

padobson wrote: post #141

visarga wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone could have his own small farm, fab and robots. No need to rely on "big men" competing for karma points from the peasants.

Everything old is new again. It's going to be some damn thing when everyone in the South takes your idea and they build up their civilization around free robotic labor, and then when we hit AI sentience and start ensuring the civil rights of robots the entire South has to be burned to the ground again to free the sentient robots from their owners.

You don't have to make machines sentient, you know. Some people seem to think the goal of AI and robotics should be to make more humans, but we already have plenty of humans. We should make machines that do our work more efficiently so we don't have to do it anymore.

We can still do the fun stuff of course, like writing and art, and get famous and all that.