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

The brave new world of robots and lost jobs

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 245 posts

Re: The brave new world of robots and lost jobs

#41

Post by douche »

neuromancer2701 wrote: post #9

My current theory is that this “automation bomb” won't really happen in the sense that 5 million Truckers are going to get laid off all of a sudden. Especially in the case of Truckers the average age is getting higher and higher every year because Millennials have said that is not a job they want. So my theory is that as Baby Boomer/Early Gen Xers retire automation will step in and fill the employment gap. So there w…

One of the problems is that there aren't any openings in these jobs - at least not for somebody who isn't already trained and experienced. This is common across many fields. Nobody wants to invest in training anymore, so there are tons of openings for skilled workers with certifications and 5-10 years of experience, but few entry-level positions that would get you to those 5-10 years of experience.

Re: The brave new world of robots and lost jobs

#42

Post by zigzigzag »

cousin_it wrote: post #12
ppod wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't all of the money that was going into the operating cost of the robot still end up in human pockets? Instead of going to the worker it goes to robot developers, robot maintainers, and energy companies. Then the argument it increases inequality, but that's been the case since industrial machinery happened, as Piketty showed.

Don't think about money, that only confuses things. Think about resources instead. Imagine that the worker burns oil to survive, and the robot also burns oil to function. Now replacing the worker with the robot makes the economy burn twice as much oil for the same amount of production (assuming the worker goes on welfare). If you think in terms of money and pockets, the picture will be more complicated, but the end r…

But robots don't burn bread. Their ongoing input costs are only a tiny fraction of a human's, that's why people buy robots even though their up front cost is usually much higher than hiring a person.

Re: The brave new world of robots and lost jobs

#43

Post by cousin_it »

usrusr wrote: post #29
cousin_it wrote: post #6

Simon Funk [1] makes a great point that in a mixed capitalist/welfare state, automation decreases efficiency. Imagine a worker, earning the bare minimum to survive, who gets replaced by a robot with slightly lower operating cost. Now the robot is consuming slightly fewer resources that the worker would have, but the worker doesn't stop consuming resources in turn! Unless you're willing to kill the worker, he goes on…

One more for the huge but reliably fruitless pile of good arguments for an unconditional basic income: with an UBI, it becomes possible for the worker to outprice the robot even at a rate below the survival minimum. E.g. to consume 1.5x resources total compared to bare survival, which would still be less than the nearly 2x of unemployed+robot. (edit:typo)

I guess it's more of an argument for a universal wage subsidy, but I'd be happy with UBI as well.

Re: The brave new world of robots and lost jobs

#44

Post by MichaelBurge »

baq wrote: post #40
cousin_it wrote: post #6

Simon Funk [1] makes a great point that in a mixed capitalist/welfare state, automation decreases efficiency. Imagine a worker, earning the bare minimum to survive, who gets replaced by a robot with slightly lower operating cost. Now the robot is consuming slightly fewer resources that the worker would have, but the worker doesn't stop consuming resources in turn! Unless you're willing to kill the worker, he goes on…

that's easily(?) fixed with a flat tax on efficient robots.

While we're at it, let's tax people whenever they write a Python script to read information out of a spreadsheet instead of hiring an intern.

Re: The brave new world of robots and lost jobs

#45

Post by Noseshine »

zigzigzag wrote: post #42
cousin_it wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't think about money, that only confuses things. Think about resources instead. Imagine that the worker burns oil to survive, and the robot also burns oil to function. Now replacing the worker with the robot makes the economy burn twice as much oil for the same amount of production (assuming the worker goes on welfare). If you think in terms of money and pockets, the picture will be more complicated, but the end r…

But robots don't burn bread. Their ongoing input costs are only a tiny fraction of a human's, that's why people buy robots even though their up front cost is usually much higher than hiring a person.

The point is that the robot replaces the worker only on the business level - but in the economy the worker is still there! And in today's world either often gets no job or a worse job.

Re: The brave new world of robots and lost jobs

#46

Post by sverige »

humanrebar wrote: post #26
thatfrenchguy wrote: post #2

What if people with jobs worked less ?

For jobs where 40 hours per week has basically the same productivity as 30 hours per week, that's fine. For jobs where context is important (medicine, software), 'working less' will cause a disproportionate hit to productivity. Some problems you can't throw more people at. That's more or less the thesis of the Mythical Man-Month, and it applies to many careers. Though there are probably plenty of careers (like drivin…

No, you can't lighten the work load for trucking (without automation). Over the road truck driving doesn't benefit from reducing hours and hiring more, since OTR drivers basically live in their trucks for three or four weeks at a time to maximize flexibility in moving freight. You would need more trucks to accomplish that, and there's already a driver shortage since there aren't enough Millenials willing to do the job.

The other thing is that driver pay has declined considerably over the past 25 years (stagnant since the early 90s, minus inflation), so it would cost trucking companies more (more trucks, more drivers) while decreasing wages for individual drivers. OTR truck drivers are paid by the mile.

Third, the increased costs for moving freight would end up increasing the costs to consumers for all goods moved by trucks, which is pretty much everything.

Re: The brave new world of robots and lost jobs

#47

Post by cousin_it »

Noseshine wrote: post #32
cousin_it wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The burning of resources by robots doesn't by itself contribute to a higher living standard, unless you're measuring the living standard of robots :-)

You are correct, yet I don't see the connection between your reply and the comment you replied to? Nor even to the parent-parent comment. I'm baffled. Similarly for maxerickson's comment here. "Living" is about using resources, if "saving" them is the goal a dead planet is the best solution, or at least removal of all consumers of the resource in question. I don't see any "robot vs. worker" component in that statemen…

Living is about converting resources to utility. The argument assumes that you care about overall efficiency of such conversion.

Re: The brave new world of robots and lost jobs

#48

Post by simonh »

cousin_it wrote: post #6

Simon Funk [1] makes a great point that in a mixed capitalist/welfare state, automation decreases efficiency. Imagine a worker, earning the bare minimum to survive, who gets replaced by a robot with slightly lower operating cost. Now the robot is consuming slightly fewer resources that the worker would have, but the worker doesn't stop consuming resources in turn! Unless you're willing to kill the worker, he goes on…

I fail to see how it's the employer screwing anyone over. Should automation be outlawed? What kinds of automation? It's a problem that society needs to deal with, sure, and some of that might involve some regulation of automation, or some social support for manual jobs, but there's nothing inherently immoral about automation. If a company reduces it's work force through automation there's nothing immoral about that. If they don't do it, someone will start up a rival company that automates from the get-go and drive them out of business.

This is what's killing the French economy right now because their labour laws mean employers are biased against hiring new workers. If they have to lay them off it costs a fortune. So existing French companies are locked into high cost structures and are being driven up against the wall by competitors with higher levels of automation on the one hand and massive redundancy costs on the other.

I am not in any way arguing for unregulated market forces and let the devil take the hindmost. We do need a balanced and sustainable solution that allows business to thrive and gainfully employ the population and automation is making that harder, but the key word there is sustainable. A French model that tries to freeze the current labour economy in aspic isn't sustainable.

Re: The brave new world of robots and lost jobs

#49

Post by TeMPOraL »

superswordfish wrote: post #30
cousin_it wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't think about money, that only confuses things. Think about resources instead. Imagine that the worker burns oil to survive, and the robot also burns oil to function. Now replacing the worker with the robot makes the economy burn twice as much oil for the same amount of production (assuming the worker goes on welfare). If you think in terms of money and pockets, the picture will be more complicated, but the end r…

This logic is full of holes. A robot can, by not needing to rest, be vastly more productive than the same person. The robot can be designed to never make a mistake too. Indeed, automation of all aspects of bread production would increase the bread supply. And the person needed bread either way, so unless you're saying that their death is the alternative, what they do with their day is irrelevant. And about fuel, I gu…

I think the argument is solid, but not that impactful. Sure, worker + robot = seems like more energy used than worker alone. But robots will be more efficient, probably impressively so if you factor in energy savings on human commute and maintaining "habitable" (for lack of better word) conditions in the workplace. Lights, HVAC, safety equipment, etc. Given that, it's not inconceivable that welfare humans + working robots could use less energy than working humans alone!

But that's all besides the point. Even if energy usage E(humans+robots) = 2 x E(humans) (and I suspect it's more like factor 1.1x), it's still worth the cost for the quality-of-life increase for those humans. Economy should not be about optimizing its random and fluctuating "productivity" function. It's about improving quality of life for humans.

Re: The brave new world of robots and lost jobs

#50

Post by [deleted] »

cousin_it wrote: post #36
superswordfish wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This logic is full of holes. A robot can, by not needing to rest, be vastly more productive than the same person. The robot can be designed to never make a mistake too. Indeed, automation of all aspects of bread production would increase the bread supply. And the person needed bread either way, so unless you're saying that their death is the alternative, what they do with their day is irrelevant. And about fuel, I gu…

The argument is talking about the marginal case [1] where the robot is about as cost-effective as the worker it's displacing. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_concepts

[deleted]
Post reply on HN