Live data from Hacker News

We’re not going to have a jobless recovery. We’re going to have a jobless future

buzzmachine.com

251–260 of 270 posts

Re: We’re not going to have a jobless recovery. We’re going to have a jobless future

#251
post #103
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Our new economy is shrinking because technology leads to efficiency over growth." I disagree with this premise. IMHO, it is much simpler: we as individuals lived beyond our means for 20+ years by borrowing money against our houses and against our personal word (e.g. credit cards). We as governments lived beyond our means in terms of direct spending as well future spending promises (e.g. promising retirement/pension/…

This is absolutely right. Average personal savings rates in India and China: 30% and 50% (and that's of their gross income). Average personal savings in the USofA: -2%. We've lived so far beyond our means that it had to catch up to us. The real scare for me is the potential for another, larger bubble: the "Credit Bubble". A bubble exists when asset price inflation rises beyond what incomes can sustain. A bubble repre…

> Average personal savings rates in India and China was: 30% and 50%

Yes, but if you take into account the 9% inflation in India, the savings might be a net loss.

As was pointed out to me earlier in another HN discussion, the only reason why the Indian government guarantees a seemingly too good to believe interest rate of 9% for the savings accounts of their senior citizens is because that rate cancels out inflation.

Re: We’re not going to have a jobless recovery. We’re going to have a jobless future

#252
post #6

Plenty of others have predicted the rise of unemployment in proportion to increased automation, and they've been wrong before. Maybe this time they'll be right. I don't know; I'm not economist nor do I possess a crystal ball. What I do know is that this whole situation is terribly discouraging for young people fresh out of school. My partner, for instance, recently graduated with a degree in civil engineering from a…

> My partner, for instance, recently graduated with a degree in civil engineering from a very challenging private school.

The challenge of civil engineering is that you need to be professionally licensed. As you know, a new graduate has only taken the EIT (Engineer in Training) exam. You need four or five years professional experience before you can sit for the PE exam. In fact, in at least one state (Massachusetts?), you need to submit at least four inches thick of completed engineering calculations to prove your experience. The PE exam is very difficult, especially for structural engineering. I have friends who failed twice (the passing curve is statistically determined after all tests are scored, in some regions).

That being said, I have a Civil Engineering degree, and I never was paid to do any engineering calculations.

What most people who do not go through an ABET-accredited engineering 4-yr program do not know -is that an engineering degree is a superb background for building problem solving skills. The entire curriculum is based on problem solving and later, problem definition.

I believe that if your partner so chooses, he could develop fluency in the programming language of his choice. The most important thing though is that either he wants to do software development or already had programming skills.

You cannot motivate someone by burning them, the fire must be lit inside them, by them.

Consider checking out this: http://www.kolbe.com/

$$ skills survey much better than MBTI

Re: We’re not going to have a jobless recovery. We’re going to have a jobless future

#253
post #245
post #24

"Our new economy is shrinking because technology leads to efficiency over growth." Anyone who wants to make the claim that technology is net killing jobs has to be prepared to answer the question: why now? Technology has been killing (but not net killing) jobs for centuries. It's possible that technology could start to net kill jobs. But why now, when it hasn't in the past?

I'm a little late to this party, but: Short answer: technology destroys jobs for dumb people and creates jobs for smart people. Until now this has been okay, because there have still been enough dumb jobs for all the dumb people. But as technology continues to progress, we (without genetic engineering or eugenics) run into the point where we have more dumb people than useful things for them to do. There are no jobs d…

> Short answer: technology destroys jobs for dumb people and creates jobs for smart people.

It sounds like you're only considering high-tech jobs, like computer programmers or engineers. Those aren't all the jobs that technology creates, not by a long shot. Think about pizza deliverers, call center workers, fast food workers, etc.

Re: We’re not going to have a jobless recovery. We’re going to have a jobless future

#255
post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, we could start charging the banks for carrying excess capital. I know, I know, everyone will start screaming about crappy balance sheets and all, but they're just sitting on boatloads of cash.

The problem isn't cash, its capital goods, and flooding the system with cash will just cause damage to companies who are to small to move fast enough to acquire large amounts of the flood.

Elaborate? You're being vague, and from what I've seen we have no problems with the capital we produce.

Re: We’re not going to have a jobless recovery. We’re going to have a jobless future

#256
post #24

"Our new economy is shrinking because technology leads to efficiency over growth." Anyone who wants to make the claim that technology is net killing jobs has to be prepared to answer the question: why now? Technology has been killing (but not net killing) jobs for centuries. It's possible that technology could start to net kill jobs. But why now, when it hasn't in the past?

The Great Stagnation - http://www.amazon.com/Great-Stagnation-Low-Hanging-Eventuall... We've picked all the low hanging fruit - in technology and resources. Our cars haven't really change much in 100 years. Same basic engine, just added computers (we did that in the _1970'_). We're only incrementally improving technology (cars with navigation). Our current innovations (Twitter, FB, Google) don't produce many jobs and…

Speaking only to the car comments -- although they put in question the rest.

Bull. There have been significant improvements to cars in just the last several years, and the 1970s (and before) were a complete disaster for cars. There has been great progress. Today's cars are way better than anything preceding them, beginning with build quality, through handling and braking, and ending with emissions. Not perfect, but vast improvements.

Is there more to do? Sure.

These things take time, and the progress may seem slow to many of us, but massive infrastructure changes cannot be accomplished quickly. Hey ... who is going to deny a poor person the desire for transportation, even if it is with a crappy old car. As much as we might want it to be faster, societal change is slow.

Re: We’re not going to have a jobless recovery. We’re going to have a jobless future

#257
post #24

"Our new economy is shrinking because technology leads to efficiency over growth." Anyone who wants to make the claim that technology is net killing jobs has to be prepared to answer the question: why now? Technology has been killing (but not net killing) jobs for centuries. It's possible that technology could start to net kill jobs. But why now, when it hasn't in the past?

The efficiency of our production is rising for centuries indeed. Once, a peon on a field could hardly produce for his own family, a modern day farmer can supply food for thousands of people.

Same can be seen in almost all industries.

For centuries this trend was offset with appearance of new kinds of production. New fields opened new markets and new places for work.

Lets ignore the current situation and ponder where does it lead us. It is inevitable that in the future most of day-to-day stuff we use will be produced by robots with minimal up to none human oversight.

There is only that much that we can consume. There is only that much of different kinds of produciton we can require. And we can not all be working in a creative capacity, inventing new stuff and inventing new markets. Inavitably a day will come when it will be technologically possible to supply all day-to-day the needs of world's population with stuff and services supplied mostly by robots.

What will happen then?

From several hundreds years ago, when people produced mostly for themselves, to the distant future when we all be serviced by robots and efficient production chains we see a definite trend. Somewhere along the path there should be disruptive events for this to happen, when a 'tension' produced by efficiency leads to massive losses of jobs.

For most of the time during the whole history the argument "it is not different then the previous time it happen" will be valid, but there will be definitely times it wont be the case. And it is possible that now is one of those times. Rise in effeciency must lead to loss of jobs eventurally. May be the time is now.

Oh, and this future is not necesserily a very dark one. After all, having most stuff produced effectively only means that most of the population will not have to work. Mey be it will lead to large portion of the population being a "dead weight", burning their life in leasure, and small energetic minority engaging in moving us forward, I don't know. May be it will lead to a large production 'surplus' that we will use to colonize the solar system and beyond? May be something else...

But I think we need to start thinking of what the society will look like when most people will not have to work to lead a decent life? What incentives will we need to invent to still have enough people to move forward? How to prevent degradation? I don't think artificial limits on automation and technology is the answer, but we might eventually come to this. I can see a politician introducing a SaveTheJobsBill to outlaw massively automated factories. We need to start thinking about it now, before it actually happens.

Re: We’re not going to have a jobless recovery. We’re going to have a jobless future

#258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll take your bet, but you might want to look at this chart before you hand me your money. http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&#... And this one. http://wastedenergy.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/20080301worl...

> I'll take your bet, but you might want to look at this chart before you hand me your money. Yes, there was a serious recession in 2009. In 2010, world GDP increased by 3.9%, according to preliminary World Bank figures.

Historically, since WWII each rapid spike of oil prices over 2006 100$/barrel for a few months is followed with a recession one year later. If the trend stays true, 2012 will be a recession year.

Re: We’re not going to have a jobless recovery. We’re going to have a jobless future

#259
Although the world population has more than doubled from the middle of the twentieth century, technology has doubled many times more, and continues to at a much faster rate than our rate of consumption and reproduction. This exponential increase means that is only a matter of time until the efficiency of technology overtakes the amount of jobs that a society needs to produce more than it needs.

Technology will net kill jobs someday if it isn't already. It remains to be seen whether that is happening now, or if this unemployment is just the symptom of a country that has borrowed too much.

Re: We’re not going to have a jobless recovery. We’re going to have a jobless future

#260
post #6

Plenty of others have predicted the rise of unemployment in proportion to increased automation, and they've been wrong before. Maybe this time they'll be right. I don't know; I'm not economist nor do I possess a crystal ball. What I do know is that this whole situation is terribly discouraging for young people fresh out of school. My partner, for instance, recently graduated with a degree in civil engineering from a…

> My partner, for instance, recently graduated with a degree in civil engineering from a very challenging private school. The challenge of civil engineering is that you need to be professionally licensed. As you know, a new graduate has only taken the EIT (Engineer in Training) exam. You need four or five years professional experience before you can sit for the PE exam. In fact, in at least one state (Massachusetts?)…

Thanks for the advice. You are absolutely right that motivation has to come from within. A fair amount of research shows that the happiest and most productive people are intrinsically motivated. My partner's true passion is transportation engineering and, more specifically, sustainable mass transportation -- but, as you note, it's a difficult field to break into.

A poster upthread linked a video about getting work. The speaker advocates doing free or nearly free work in whatever interests you most, the theory being that these activities will eventually pay off. I think it's a fabulous if rather unorthodox idea. Since we're financially stable with my income, I've told him to give it a shot.

Post reply on HN