Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Technological Unemployment: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

slatestarcodex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 233 posts

Re: Technological Unemployment: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#61

Post by TeMPOraL »

bsbechtel wrote: post #56

Employment is only a result of an individual wanting someone else to do something for them, because they don't have the time or skill to do it themselves. In exchange for someone doing this thing for them, they compensate them with something of value, normally payment in the form of currency. When you consider employment from this angle, I find it extremely hard to believe that a day will come where the majority of h…

Sure. This kind of "employment" - or, rather, trade - is fundamental to humans as a socializing species. This can't go away without fundamentally changing what it means to be a human. But this is not the kind of "employment" people usually talk about.

What can, and should go away, is the need for employment to survive. I think we can also imagine the times in which employment isn't necessary in order not to suffer (crappy food, cold in winter, lack of healthcare), and to keep upward mobility open. The optimistic view of eliminating jobs is all about eliminating being forced to work to live a happy life, not about eliminating the entire possibility of work and trade.

Re: Technological Unemployment: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#62

Post by TeMPOraL »

onion2k wrote: post #22
landryraccoon wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's an emphasis on speed, accuracy, and working with more unknowns How is this not getting more work done? It sounds exactly like more work is getting done to me.

If you produce one report in a day, or a computer does it more accurately in 50ms and you don't need the person, the same amount of work is done.

Then you make the computer do a thousand reports in a day, and get a qualitatively new (not necessarily better) ability of working with real-time data. Increased productivity is an enabler for things that previously were not possible or did not make economical sense.

Re: Technological Unemployment: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#63

Post by paulpauper »

Regarding the horse example, there US horse population is 9 million. The demand for horses never went away despite automation and has remained steady. If one tried to extrapolate the early 20th century horse population trend to the future, there should presently be no horses alive.

Although the labor force participation rate is falling, the total labor force size has not (although it has flattened in recent years).

Rather than the total elimination of jobs, a more probable concern is the bifurcation of the labor force by IQ, with those with an IQ below a certain threshold barely getting by, stuck with low-paying jobs that barely pay ends meet. Due to economic and technological factors, this IQ threshold will likely gradually keep rising. http://greyenlightenment.com/two-nations-within-a-nation/

This is why the decline of manufacturing jobs has not hurt the overall labor market size, because such semi-skilled, medium-IQ jobs are being replaced by service sector jobs. However, the pay for these jobs is not as good.

Often what happens is the new technology will coexist with the older one, as the bank teller example shows. Other times the implementation is so slow that it is not a concern. I remember in 2007 McDonald's, Jack in the Box, and other fast-food chains began to install self-order machines, but the adoption was really slow, the machines were often broken, and the machines didn't replace the role of the cooks and cashiers. People needed help using the machines, necessitating staff. Same for those food store self-checkout machines. Rather than the machines eliminating the cashiers, they coexist. Some people like machines, but others don't. Machines break and someone has to supervise the machines in case someone needs help or tries to fool the machine by imputing the incorrect weight or item.

Overall, I am not too worried but I can see some cause for concern. Regarding post-scarcity and UBI, entitlement spending has been on an unstoppable rise for the past 50 years. We're already headed in that direction. SNAP, medicaid, disability, and section 8 housing is pretty close to a UBI and post-scarcity. The future is one where the government assumes a greater paternal role in helping those who are unable to keep up with an increasingly competitive economy.

Re: Technological Unemployment: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#64

Post by lmm »

bsbechtel wrote: post #56

Employment is only a result of an individual wanting someone else to do something for them, because they don't have the time or skill to do it themselves. In exchange for someone doing this thing for them, they compensate them with something of value, normally payment in the form of currency. When you consider employment from this angle, I find it extremely hard to believe that a day will come where the majority of h…

> I find it extremely hard to believe that a day will come where the majority of humans on this planet won't want help from other humans to accomplish their goals as they go about their daily lives.

If robots are better at helping people accomplish those goals then why would people ask other humans for help rather than robots? I already choose to book my holidays with machine rather than human assistance, pay for my groceries via machine rather than human.... For the moment I pay humans to do some things (cleaning, food preparation, art production, ...), but it seems entirely conceivable that machines could get better at all of those as well.

Re: Technological Unemployment: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#65

Post by adynatos »

crc32 wrote: post #49
adynatos wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

inequality is rising because some people are simply more skilled than others.

OK - would you agree that this presents us with an ethical problem? How about a societal/practical problem? Is an unequal society sustainable? What actions can be taken to mitigate the ethical and practical problems presented by inequality?

unequal society was sustainable exactly until now. there is no evidence whatsoever that it won't still be.

Re: Technological Unemployment: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#66

Post by paulpauper »

djrobstep wrote: post #50
erikrothoff wrote: post #5

It feels like we're moving away from jobs that are purely productive, to jobs that are more creative. I don't mean arts etc, but 50 years ago a company like Facebook/Snap/Gaming/Any digital entertainment really, could not exist because people were occupied work that was required for society to function. Now humans can start focusing on spending their day building things for the entertainment of other humans, and also…

No, we are moving from jobs that are actually productive, to bullshit jobs. Advertising doesn't produce anything useful in itself, it simply shifts and amplifies demand, and yet, Google, Facebook, and a vast slice of the rest of the economy is dedicated to producing ads. Even companies which are nominally dedicated to producing things of importance (eg pharmaceuticals) are mostly focussed on marketing. Then there's t…

This bullshit job argument has never made much sense to me, but I see the argument a lot. If companies care about maximizing productivity and profits, and given America's hyper-competitive economy and super-fickle stock market where the difference between meeting the earnings estimate versus missing it by a penny can make the difference between a stock being up 10% or down 10%, why would a company waste money on jobs that are bullshit. Obviously, they (the company) derive value from these jobs or else such jobs would not exist (or at least not for long).

Re: Technological Unemployment: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#67

Post by ThomPete »

erikrothoff wrote: post #5

It feels like we're moving away from jobs that are purely productive, to jobs that are more creative. I don't mean arts etc, but 50 years ago a company like Facebook/Snap/Gaming/Any digital entertainment really, could not exist because people were occupied work that was required for society to function. Now humans can start focusing on spending their day building things for the entertainment of other humans, and also…

Problem is that most of the people in the new industries make no money.

Whether you look at the app economy or you look at the influencer economy few people make most of the money.

Re: Technological Unemployment: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#68

Post by coldtea »

erikrothoff wrote: post #5

It feels like we're moving away from jobs that are purely productive, to jobs that are more creative. I don't mean arts etc, but 50 years ago a company like Facebook/Snap/Gaming/Any digital entertainment really, could not exist because people were occupied work that was required for society to function. Now humans can start focusing on spending their day building things for the entertainment of other humans, and also…

>It feels like we're moving away from jobs that are purely productive, to jobs that are more creative.

Yes. Those + unwanted human surplus (most of us in the future) or some UBI scheme.

Re: Technological Unemployment: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#69

Post by adynatos »

_delirium wrote: post #41
adynatos wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

inequality is rising because some people are simply more skilled than others.

More data supports the hypothesis that inequality is rising because some people have more money than others, and currently it's easier to earn significant returns from capital than from labor. Of course, not everyone agrees, but Piketty et al have some evidence for the hypothesis. Is there anyone with data-driven support for the claim that changes in overall inequality are primarily driven by divergence in high-skill…

and that money, where did it come from? look at fortune 500, what percentage inherited it? what percentage inherited it from someone further down the ancestral line than their parents? rich people without skill will squander their fortunes.

Re: Technological Unemployment: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#70

Post by barry-cotter »

mistermann wrote: post #40
andyjohnson0 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now humans can start focusing on spending their day building things for the entertainment of other humans, and also choosing careers based on what they feel is fun/satisfying for themselves. How long before we get to a situation where this is a realistic proposition for many people? Most people on HN live in a comfortable bubble. The reality right now is that the vast majority of jobs are not creative, fun, or sati…

Or worse. At least those dull and exhausting jobs could formerly afford you a reasonably content middle class lifestyle with a modest home, but that is increasingly out of reach of even some of the most successful in society at least in some countries, if you'd like to live where there are actually jobs. As we continue down this road to a winner takes all society, I'm not so sure this is what I'd call progress, and I…

Both a middle class lifestyle and a modest home are moving targets. People eat out a lot more than in the 70’s, they have larger homes and smaller families, they have safer and more reliable cars, they live longer.

As far as being able to live where the jobs are this is a problem caused by NIMBYs. This is not a problem they have in Japan.

Post reply on HN