What the Fourth Industrial Revolution Looks Like • Hacker News Board

Re: What the Fourth Industrial Revolution Looks Like

#61

Post by danilocampos » Tue, Apr 14, 2015, 8:48 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #59

oliveira12345 wrote: post #5

"Yet rather than putting people out of work, this will supposedly free them up for more creative, skilled tasks, rather than subjecting them to menial, low-skilled work" This is a lie. It pretends that the factory owner will continue to pay the wages of existing employees and also the acquisition-and-maintenance of new CPS machines. Simply a lie. It pretends that the employees will be free "for more creative skilled…

You're thinking wrong. You're thinking that people can only be employed to do stuff of a certain level. That's false. Instead, you should think in terms of a society spending people. Take farming, for instance. We had about 35% of our people working on farms. Then mechanization came to agriculture, and now we have maybe 2% of our people working on farms. What will all the poor farmhands do? Starve? Well, it turns out…

It's hardly an accident that one of the most successful capitalist systems in the history of the world has, since the automation of agriculture, shifted to storing millions of people (read: excess labor) in a vast, growing prison system.

Re: What the Fourth Industrial Revolution Looks Like

#62

Post by oliveira12345 » Tue, Apr 14, 2015, 8:56 PM UTC

hellameta wrote: post #55

oliveira12345 wrote: post #5

"Yet rather than putting people out of work, this will supposedly free them up for more creative, skilled tasks, rather than subjecting them to menial, low-skilled work" This is a lie. It pretends that the factory owner will continue to pay the wages of existing employees and also the acquisition-and-maintenance of new CPS machines. Simply a lie. It pretends that the employees will be free "for more creative skilled…

First, as a prediction, it cannot be a 'lie'. Second, it's a prediction that actually makes sense. If menial jobs are reduced - the only way to earn money will be to perform less trivial tasks, or, to put it another way, 'more creative, skilled tasks'. It's either that or we're all going down the drain. Which option do you think is more likely?

Explained in comment above: the prediction contains contradictions.

It may not be an option for everyone to make a "more creative skilled task" as it usually implies an extensive education including university and nowadays even a master (or more)... So even when people are willing to take another higher-skilled-career, that may not be an option for example for 40+ with kids... (no time to do it)

> Which option do you think is more likely?

We can look at poorer countries and see that necessity forces people to survive by whatever means exist. When they can they work. When there is no work, people have to resort to illegal means of survival, leading to eventual political instability and well, sometimes war... nothing good.

Re: What the Fourth Industrial Revolution Looks Like

#63

Post by oliveira12345 » Tue, Apr 14, 2015, 9:14 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #59

oliveira12345 wrote: post #5

"Yet rather than putting people out of work, this will supposedly free them up for more creative, skilled tasks, rather than subjecting them to menial, low-skilled work" This is a lie. It pretends that the factory owner will continue to pay the wages of existing employees and also the acquisition-and-maintenance of new CPS machines. Simply a lie. It pretends that the employees will be free "for more creative skilled…

You're thinking wrong. You're thinking that people can only be employed to do stuff of a certain level. That's false. Instead, you should think in terms of a society spending people. Take farming, for instance. We had about 35% of our people working on farms. Then mechanization came to agriculture, and now we have maybe 2% of our people working on farms. What will all the poor farmhands do? Starve? Well, it turns out…

Thanks for your explanation - there is a brighter future through your ideas.

What measures could/should be taken to minimize the social impact of this?

Would something along the lines of making special regulation so that the factory, in the verge of firing the workers, should pay a special compensation to contribute to the formation of those workers? A special tax on mecha-factory-robots ?

Re: What the Fourth Industrial Revolution Looks Like

#64

Post by AnimalMuppet » Tue, Apr 14, 2015, 9:39 PM UTC

oliveira12345 wrote: post #63

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're thinking wrong. You're thinking that people can only be employed to do stuff of a certain level. That's false. Instead, you should think in terms of a society spending people. Take farming, for instance. We had about 35% of our people working on farms. Then mechanization came to agriculture, and now we have maybe 2% of our people working on farms. What will all the poor farmhands do? Starve? Well, it turns out…

Thanks for your explanation - there is a brighter future through your ideas. What measures could/should be taken to minimize the social impact of this? Would something along the lines of making special regulation so that the factory, in the verge of firing the workers, should pay a special compensation to contribute to the formation of those workers? A special tax on mecha-factory-robots ?

I think that responsible companies (there are a few) should do this, but probably it's going to take government. It could be done as part of the unemployment insurance, for example. It could also be done as part of the educational system.

But that requires competent government, so here's where I turn into a pessimist. What's actually likely to happen is that we lay off people and just drop them, and they become unemployable, not because of lack of talent, but because of lack of training.

Re: What the Fourth Industrial Revolution Looks Like

#65

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, Apr 14, 2015, 10:54 PM UTC

scrumper wrote: post #58

dragonwriter wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Still, basic income isn't entirely good: it denies people the ability to meet a basic need - that of being valued for their contribution to society or some other enterprise. No, it doesn't. Basic income does not prohibit people from working and being paid for their work; in fact, one of the arguments for BI is that it among the things it can replace is the minimum wage, allowing work that has positive value but whi…

That feels like an artificial distinction. Probably I misunderstand BI, but doesn't it play out like this: No BI scenario: Company pays 50 groats a year to a worker to create TPS reports based on its sense of the value of having those reports completed. 100 groats annually, maybe. BI scenario: State pays everyone 10 groats a year. Company now pays 40 groats to its TPS writers (or maybe 35, plus 5 groats extra in tax…

> No BI scenario: Company pays 50 groats a year to a worker to create TPS reports based on its sense of the value of having those reports completed.

[...]

> BI scenario: State pays everyone 10 groats a year. Company now pays 40 groats to its TPS writers

How does that conclusion work?

We've already established that in the absence of the BI, the intersection of the supply and demand curves for companies to hire people to write TPS reports is at 50 groats a year. Howe does giving everyone 10 groats per year of income independent of groat writing decrease the market clearing cost of groat writing? Considering the supply (labor) supply alone, it shouldn't decrease the marginal utility cost of groat writing, but given that, like most things, income has a declining marginal utility, the baseline income should increase the financial equivalent to that cost, and thus shift the demand curve in a way that would increase the market clearing cost. Where's the countervailing supply side effect that more than makes up for this? I suppose its possible depending on tax rates and how they are distributed that the marginal value to the company of TPS reports could be decreased, resulting in a shift in the demand curve that has the effect of reducing the market clearing price, but that's not obviously correct.

In any case, at the same time, work that has a marginal value to the employer less than the pre-BI minimum wage becomes a viable form of employment with BI if the minimum wage is removed. (The BI provides the minimum condition guarantee, removing the need for a minimum wage to provide an assurance that at least those employed have a minimum condition guarantee.)

Re: What the Fourth Industrial Revolution Looks Like

#66

Post by flycaliguy » Wed, Apr 15, 2015, 4:35 AM UTC

jjoonathan wrote: post #13

oliveira12345 wrote: post #5

"Yet rather than putting people out of work, this will supposedly free them up for more creative, skilled tasks, rather than subjecting them to menial, low-skilled work" This is a lie. It pretends that the factory owner will continue to pay the wages of existing employees and also the acquisition-and-maintenance of new CPS machines. Simply a lie. It pretends that the employees will be free "for more creative skilled…

It is a lie and it is insulting to expect that it will slip past most people (it's a "some of the people all of the time" lie). I agree with everything except your last sentence. Some alternatives to socialism: * basic income * putting teeth back in overtime laws and shortening the workweek * "Communes" that arise naturally as the rising cost of rent-seeking exceeds the falling inefficiency of small-scale production.…

One interesting aspect of basic income is that it would create a large number of people who are now free to become politically active. People can sit in the streets with no end in sight en masse. Sounds like a revolution in the making.

Re: What the Fourth Industrial Revolution Looks Like

#67

Post by scrumper » Wed, Apr 15, 2015, 2:34 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #65

scrumper wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That feels like an artificial distinction. Probably I misunderstand BI, but doesn't it play out like this: No BI scenario: Company pays 50 groats a year to a worker to create TPS reports based on its sense of the value of having those reports completed. 100 groats annually, maybe. BI scenario: State pays everyone 10 groats a year. Company now pays 40 groats to its TPS writers (or maybe 35, plus 5 groats extra in tax…

> No BI scenario: Company pays 50 groats a year to a worker to create TPS reports based on its sense of the value of having those reports completed. [...] > BI scenario: State pays everyone 10 groats a year. Company now pays 40 groats to its TPS writers How does that conclusion work? We've already established that in the absence of the BI, the intersection of the supply and demand curves for companies to hire people…

My conclusion is simply that the going rate (market clearing price) for TPS writers is 50 groats a year, meaning that our TPS clerk can expect 50GPY for his labor. Since the employee gets 10GPY from the state, the company now only needs to pay him 40GPY to ensure he's equally well compensated. The money for BI has to come from somewhere, so I don't think it's a plausible conclusion that salaries would stay the same while everyone gets a chunk of extra money from the state. Further support comes from the rationality of employers who would prefer to ensure employees were equally paid in total in both a no-BI and BI scenario.

I think your point is that declining marginal utility of income in a BI scenario means that companies have to pay proportionately more to make up for the decline in utility caused by everyone having more income. I don't have what I assume is your background in economics to argue that point with theory, but it fails a basic plausibility test for me: your claim is that it's more likely that employers will pay more in direct salaries to workers who are receiving money from the state than it is that they will pay less. It doesn't hold up in today's world either: compare salaries in Scandinavian countries, where the state provides huge benefits to citizens against the USA where there is essentially no support from government.

Re: What the Fourth Industrial Revolution Looks Like

#68

Post by YokoZar » Thu, Apr 16, 2015, 4:50 AM UTC

phkahler wrote: post #53

YokoZar wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first industrial revolution was entirely about replacing high-skilled manual laborers with relatively low-skilled factory workers. There's no inherent economic law requiring such a shift to be a net drain on employment - sometimes 100 people manning power looms can do something cheaper than 90 skilled weavers. Sometimes not, though: the clothes end up just being cheaper as a result and net employment in the cloth…

>> There's no inherent economic law requiring such a shift to be a net drain on employment - Yes, there is. I just presented it with the TCO thing. What has been happening so far is that the displaced workers were offered jobs somewhere else because there was another need they could fill. The net drain does happen. It happens within the set of people working at a company, and the industry. Only if there is unmet dema…

It's not necessarily the case that cost-lowering innovations will drive demand for labor down, even without increases in capacity. Usability innovations are often of this variety.

If I can hire two people who work half as fast but at 1/4 the price each because they require no special skills, I can profitably produce the same goods with half the input costs and a net doubling of the employment I create.

Such innovations certainly exist, and there are even some reasons to expect they'll be more common in the future: an uneven distribution of income means more places to find cheaper labor.

Re: What the Fourth Industrial Revolution Looks Like

#69

Post by hellameta » Sat, Apr 18, 2015, 10:55 PM UTC

oliveira12345 wrote: post #62

hellameta wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, as a prediction, it cannot be a 'lie'. Second, it's a prediction that actually makes sense. If menial jobs are reduced - the only way to earn money will be to perform less trivial tasks, or, to put it another way, 'more creative, skilled tasks'. It's either that or we're all going down the drain. Which option do you think is more likely?

Explained in comment above: the prediction contains contradictions. It may not be an option for everyone to make a "more creative skilled task" as it usually implies an extensive education including university and nowadays even a master (or more)... So even when people are willing to take another higher-skilled-career, that may not be an option for example for 40+ with kids... (no time to do it) > Which option do you…

I agree with your points. Yes, the current generation of displaced workers will be in trouble and yes if the changes are quick the result won't be pretty (re: illegal means of survival). Despite this history also shows that the long run is likely to go the way I proposed(?). I guess the real difference is that my approach is too macro.

Edit: Also, what about the opposite force? You can't displace workers and expect them to still consume as they did before. So regardless of how good technology gets I find it hard to reason that it should displace people at apocalyptic rate. If you put these workers in too tough of a position too quickly, they won't buy the very products they used to make. So entire industries themselves are restrained - otherwise everyone loses, including the industries that would supposedly gain. Sorry if I worded this poorly.