Technology, automation and unemployment

[nick2004]

Technology and efficiency brings unemployment. There is no way to avoid that.

Take Amazon as an example. Thousands of brick and mortar stores have closed because of Amazon. This brings unemployment not only to their owners and sales-people, but also to a number of people who indirectly worked on these stores, for example cleaners, renovators, even people who sold Christmas ornaments. The total cumulative impact of Amazon, direct and indirect, to local economies is enormous.
On the other hand, the American warehouses of Amazon are largely automated, so they need a few workers only.

The same happens in many other sectors, Amazon is just an example.

Of course, there is no way back. Technological solutions are convenient and efficient.

I don't think that "education" is a solution to this. On the contrary, many professional fields, which require a lot of education, also face similar challenges from technology. Today, there are no fields that lack educated professionals, so "education" cannot be the solution to the problem.

So, the question is: what can be done? Even in theory?

Most politicians do not even try to find an answer. I believe that this is the main reason that people are upset in many countries in the west. Some right-wing politicians blame immigrants and globalization and the companies who left for lower wages elsewhere, and yes, these problems might be real in some cases. However, I believe that the major problem is automation and technology. And it is going to get worse in the next 10 years.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Technology and efficiency brings unemployment. There is no way to avoid that.

Take Amazon as an example. Thousands of brick and mortar stores have closed because of Amazon. This brings unemployment not only to their owners and sales-people, but also to a number of people who indirectly worked on these stores, for example cleaners, renovators, even people who sold Christmas ornaments. The total cumulative impact of Amazon, direct and indirect, to local economies is enormous.
On the other hand, the American warehouses of Amazon are largely automated, so they need a few workers only.

The same happens in many other sectors, Amazon is just an example.

Of course, there is no way back. Technological solutions are convenient and efficient.

I don't think that "education" is a solution to this. On the contrary, many professional fields, which require a lot of education, also face similar challenges from technology. Today, there are no fields that lack educated professionals, so "education" cannot be the solution to the problem.

So, the question is: what can be done? Even in theory?

Most politicians do not even try to find an answer. I believe that this is the main reason that people are upset in many countries in the west. Some right-wing politicians blame immigrants and globalization and the companies who left for lower wages elsewhere, and yes, these problems might be real in some cases. However, I believe that the major problem is automation and technology. And it is going to get worse in the next 10 years.

It is going to be all about who first owns the robots.

If it is the individual then we are mint, if governments own them we still have a chance but there are huge risks, if the corporations own them we are fecked so badly it doesn't bear thinking about. At the moment it looks like the corporations are going to own them.

 

[caid]

Introduce a basic living wage and cut full time positions to 25ish hours a week. Incentivise voluntary / community work

Theres no real way around it, outside of social care and possibly a bit of overseeing there really isn't going to be many jobs in the medium to long term

 

[Arruda]

Deus-Ex?

 

[matherto]

The more pertinent question is are we going to make the horror stories of the movies real and create AI that becomes self aware and takes over everything?

We, the 99% will just be left to waste but the 1% owning the robots might get a bit of a rude awakening.

I'm not actually sure which side of the divide I'd rather be on.

 

[nick2004]

The more pertinent question is are we going to make the horror stories of the movies real and create AI that becomes self aware and takes over everything?

We, the 99% will just be left to waste but the 1% owning the robots might get a bit of a rude awakening.

I'm not actually sure which side of the divide I'd rather be on.

AI is a possibility, but at this point:

1. We don't really know if it is feasible. And if it is, when.

2. We can't really predict if it will have positive or negative impact.

Of course, science fiction usually contains negative predictions ... because this sells! It's so much easier to make you scared than make you optimistic and happy. We have evolved from lower life forms, so our first instinct is to find the danger and to avoid it. However, the best things we have achieved as human beings are based on logic, not on blind instincts. Doesn't it make sense that a logical computer will have a positive impact to the future of humanity? After all, AI is not going to evolve from spiders, snakes and monkeys! :-)

 

[matherto]

AI is a possibility, but at this point:

1. We don't really know if it is feasible. And if it is, when.

2. We can't really predict if it will have positive or negative impact.

Of course, science fiction usually contains negative predictions ... because this sells! It's so much easier to make you scared than make you optimistic and happy. We have evolved from lower life forms, so our first instinct is to find the danger and to avoid it. However, the best things we have achieved as human beings are based on logic, not on blind instincts. Doesn't it make sense that a logical computer will have a positive impact to the future of humanity? After all, AI wouldn't have involved from spiders, snakes and monkeys! :-)

The basic calculations for the best things we've achieved were based on logic yes but the impulse to create them was based on our instincts. We aren't a logical species by our nature. Our base instinct is to survive to pass on our genes above all else and yet we're hellbent on our own destruction, where's the logic in that?

I know science fiction is purely that, fiction but it's not without merit for the possible ramifications of advancing technology to the point it grows beyond our capabilities and decides we're redundant in the grand scheme of existence.

 

[donkeyfish]

Jobs create themselves, they arise fundamentally from consumer demand. This sounds like the story of spinning jenny.

 

[nick2004]

The basic calculations for the best things we've achieved were based on logic yes but the impulse to create them was based on our instincts. We aren't a logical species by our nature. Our base instinct is to survive to pass on our genes above all else and yet we're hellbent on our own destruction, where's the logic in that?

I know science fiction is purely that, fiction but it's not without merit for the possible ramifications of advancing technology to the point it grows beyond our capabilities and decides we're redundant in the grand scheme of existence.

Yes, I agree. On the other hand, from what I have read (mainly from Daniel Kahneman) we have two systems inside us that help us make decisions. One system is fast, automatic, and has evolved first (our instincts). The second system is slow, deliberate and evolved much later (our logic). Most of the time we use the automatic system because it is sooooooooo much faster and easier. We only use the second system (logic) when we have to solve a new problem, and this is slow and painful, so we tend to avoid using it, if we can. A computer with AI will obviously have only the second system (logic). I am not sure if this is feasible, and if it is, I'd hope that it would lead to positive outcomes. I like logic... I'd prefer logic from instincts!

 

[Carolina Red]

Here's a very optimistic look at the situation...
https://www.google.com/amp/www.forb...iggest-job-creators-in-history/?client=safari

I'm not so optimistic about it myself though.

 

[adexkola]

A lot of things cannot be automated. We underestimate the amazing capabilities of the human being at work. We are years from creating machines that combine our dexterity, quick thinking, visual/audio recognition/pattern-making and ingenuity.

 

[Omar Little]

Look like mechanical engineering is the way to go, if you want a job in the future. The more machines there are, the more engineers will be needed to fix them and maintain them. If there's one thing machines are going to do, it's break down. Machines are just stupid bits of metal that are only as good as the person who designed them and the person who maintains them.

 

[Dir Wangem]

We'll just pivot into a different direction and figure something out. Unemployment is far down on my list of worries.

I'm more worried about unstable AI and the greed that drives humanity. Historically, we're way overdue a big war.

 

[Pexbo]

Yes, I agree. On the other hand, from what I have read (mainly from Daniel Kahneman) we have two systems inside us that help us make decisions. One system is fast, automatic, and has evolved first (our instincts). The second system is slow, deliberate and evolved much later (our logic). Most of the time we use the automatic system because it is sooooooooo much faster and easier. We only use the second system (logic) when we have to solve a new problem, and this is slow and painful, so we tend to avoid using it, if we can. A computer with AI will obviously have only the second system (logic). I am not sure if this is feasible, and if it is, I'd hope that it would lead to positive outcomes. I like logic... I'd prefer logic from instincts!

On the contrary, AI doesn't only use logic at all. Depending on the type of AI it uses heuristics and slowly optimises itself by generalising examples. Using only logic is impossibly slow to solve most complex tasks.

 

[nick2004]

On the contrary, AI doesn't only use logic at all. Depending on the type of AI it uses heuristics and slowly optimises itself by generalising examples. Using only logic is impossibly slow to solve most complex tasks.

In a way you are right, but actually not!

It is still type 2 thinking, the slow, deliberate, logical type of thinking. It is not type 1 reaction: an automatic response based on billions of years of gene survival scheming in an inhospitable environment. AI has no genes that need to survive, and hasn't gone through billions of years of killing to survive.

 

[nick2004]

A lot of things cannot be automated. We underestimate the amazing capabilities of the human being at work. We are years from creating machines that combine our dexterity, quick thinking, visual/audio recognition/pattern-making and ingenuity.

But the problem is not the full AI that we may have some time in the future.

The problem is the loss of jobs that is caused by automation we already have. I already gave the example of Amazon. Record numbers of people are out of the workforce already. And some are desperate. That's why they voted for Trump. They want something (anything!) to change.

"Record 94,708,000 Americans Not in Labor Force"
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...cans-not-labor-force-participation-rate-drops

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

"Record 94,708,000 Americans Not in Labor Force"

Wouldn't read too much into those sweeping statistics. Has a lot to do with an aging population -- most of those will be people who have retired.

The actual unemployment rate in the US is still relatively high, but it's nowhere near a third of their population!

 

[nick2004]

Wouldn't read too much into those sweeping statistics. Has a lot to do with an aging population -- most of those will be people who have retired.

The actual unemployment rate in the US is still relatively high, but it's nowhere near a third of their population!

But then you also have to count all these people who work part time but they wish they had a full time job ... and they can't find any so they gave up searching.

From my experience, the job problem is quite large, in many countries in the west. Much worse than it has ever been in the past 50 years.

Also, the uncertainty faced by most people who do have full time jobs, is nothing like the past.

 

[Pexbo]

In a way you are right, but actually not!

It is still type 2 thinking, the slow, deliberate, logical type of thinking. It is not type 1 reaction: an automatic response based on billions of years of gene survival scheming in an inhospitable environment. AI has no genes that need to survive, and hasn't gone through billions of years of killing to survive.

They can be programmed to, so that's incorrect.

 

[Sky1981]

It's gonna happen, technology can't be stopped. When supply < demand there will be war, as history suggest.

It's inevitable, all the political protectionism is just delaying the inevitable, when the hunger strikes the bowel then there can be only one solution.

At the end of the day no technology can stop hunger.

 

[nick2004]

They can be programmed to, so that's incorrect.

Even bacteria are constantly in a war of survival. I can't see why (and how) could anyone program this to a computer. The computer does not need to survive, nor to consume oxygen, nor to have any biological or chemical reactions. As a human, you need food to get your mitochondria to create energy. Basically, most of your functions as a human being are ruled by this simple need and most of your "programming" is fine-tuned to help you survive and find food. Computers do not require all this biological machinery, so 99% of the "programming" of a living organism is completely irrelevant to them.

 

[nick2004]

It's gonna happen, technology can't be stopped. When supply < demand there will be war, as history suggest.

It's inevitable, all the political protectionism is just delaying the inevitable, when the hunger strikes the bowel then there can be only one solution.

At the end of the day no technology can stop hunger.

The present epoch is completely different from any of the past eras.

We never had so much knowledge!

Science has helped us understand that there was a Big Bang and then the universe expanded and at some point life appeared on Earth and since then it Evolves using physical and biological processes. We now know almost all the steps of this journey.

The amazing thing is that human beings process logic, and self-awareness, and consciousness, and they can actually make decisions against Evolution (for example decide not to have children, although they are rich and healthy).

So.... we do not have to follow the past. We can create a future that does not repeat the mistakes of the past.

 

[Moby]

an automatic response based on billions of years of gene survival scheming in an inhospitable environment. AI has no genes that need to survive, and hasn't gone through billions of years of killing to survive.

What billions of years? Humans are barely 200,000 years old.

 

[2 man midfield]

It should be making life easier. Technology does the work for us, we all take it easy. I wish I was born in the 50s or 60s sometimes.

 

[Akshay]

Technology and efficiency brings unemployment. There is no way to avoid that.

No, they don't. What they do is shift employment from certain sectors / professions to others. For those who have trained their whole life in a particular skill and can't / don't want to start anew, it's going to result in unemployment. At the same time it's going to create new job opportunities for those entering the job market or experienced in whatever is now in demand.

The only options are to either leave it to market forces, or redistribute income from those who benefited to those who didn't.

 

[Sky1981]

The present epoch is completely different from any of the past eras.

We never had so much knowledge!

Science has helped us understand that there was a Big Bang and then the universe expanded and at some point life appeared on Earth and since then it Evolves using physical and biological processes. We now know almost all the steps of this journey.

The amazing thing is that human beings process logic, and self-awareness, and consciousness, and they can actually make decisions against Evolution (for example decide not to have children, although they are rich and healthy).

So.... we do not have to follow the past. We can create a future that does not repeat the mistakes of the past.

Oh it's the same. Different era same story. Technology means less job, less job means scarcity, not enough food = man eat man.

 

[Javi]

Look like mechanical engineering is the way to go, if you want a job in the future. The more machines there are, the more engineers will be needed to fix them and maintain them. If there's one thing machines are going to do, it's break down. Machines are just stupid bits of metal that are only as good as the person who designed them and the person who maintains them.

That might be true for 20th century machines, but you should definitely read up on AI.
____________________________

The automation problem has two different angles:
a.) the «job question»
b.) the «income distribution question»

Imo the job question will handle itself they way it did over they last centuries, but unlike the OP states it has all to do with education, to even state that there are no fields that lack educated professionals is just simply a fantasy statement. The whole automation process will only shift the fields humans work in, but these shifts of course require a different education (as in programming 101 for example will be a basic necessity for most).

Here's where the current unemployment comes in as mostly older folks mostly don't have a competitive education and therefore fail to meet employers demands. This is a structural problem that is nothing but a logical consequence of the increasing technology and globalisation that our economic set up brought upon us. This of course has created unprecedented levels of wealth all over the planet but from the perspective of those losing out just should be distributed more evenly.

The income distribution question is the bigger problem anyway because proprietaries of productions means will get larger and larger ROI as automation proceeds which will increase the rich-poor income gap even more and poses a threat for a demand based economy. The only answer I can see to this will be govt. redistribution.

 

[Revan]

Universal Basic Income is the easiest solution. I am not sure about what is the best solution (I am not sure that there is a good solution at all in the first place) though.

I think that a better education is a bonus though. If people won't have jobs anyway, better for them to be smart and to be able to invent their jobs than resting on their arse and complaining. Also, less working hours.

What I disagree with OP though is that technology brings unemployment. At least, this hasn't been historically the case (and still isn't) but with the inevitable rise of AI/ML, I think that it is almost sure that this will happen.

 

[rcoobc]

I think that a better education is a bonus though. If people won't have jobs anyway, better for them to be smart and to be able to invent their jobs than resting on their arse and complaining. Also, less working hours.

I think maybe different education. Teaching people to be lazier and take up more hobbies. Also teaching people to program, teaching people to be do clever and technical things with their hands (fixing robots rather than stacking shelves).

Universal Basic Income is the easiest solution. I am not sure about what is the best solution (I am not sure that there is a good solution at all in the first place) though.

What I disagree with OP though is that technology brings unemployment. At least, this hasn't been historically the case (and still isn't) but with the inevitable rise of AI/ML, I think that it is almost sure that this will happen.

It's going to create huge unemployment. As CGPGrey says, cars didn't bring better jobs for horses.

All taxi drivers will be gone.
All telemarketers and most telephone support staff will be gone,
Most checkout staff will be gone.
Most retail assistants will be gone.
Most baristas will be gone

Now most of those people won't be unemployable elsewhere. They will look to become office workers, mechanics, etc, causing huge wage decreases there. In turn, those people will look to become lawyers, programmers, armed service men. etc.

It's going to be very tough, and the UK will be completely unprepared for it, having just come out of 20 years of no wages

 

[Sassy Colin]

Luddite

 

[NotworkSte]

Wouldn't read too much into those sweeping statistics. Has a lot to do with an aging population -- most of those will be people who have retired.

The actual unemployment rate in the US is still relatively high, but it's nowhere near a third of their population!

It's fairly low right now, however it's masking a lot of underemployment. In a Forbes 2015 article citing GAO, 40% of US workforce is either contract or part time. These all count toward employment statistics. I know the issues it causes, my wife is a contractor for a large IT company. She does a full time job. She has been contracting for a year and go a 1 year renewal. This large IT company simply won't flip these employees to what we would consider permanent. There is budget reasons for this I know, but keeping her contractor means no 401k, no health insurance. she relies on me for that.

 

[jackofalltrades]

Imagine the effect of 3-D printing if it turns out to be as good as some people hope/say/predict.

 

[Revan]

The more pertinent question is are we going to make the horror stories of the movies real and create AI that becomes self aware and takes over everything?

We, the 99% will just be left to waste but the 1% owning the robots might get a bit of a rude awakening.

I'm not actually sure which side of the divide I'd rather be on.

A sentient general-purpose AI shouldn't worry us at the moment. It probably will come (likely within this century), but at the moment we are far off from there, and so we cannot have good plans on how to not allow it being hostile etc.

What should worry us is the next technological revolution which is almost here. It won't be from a general purpose AI, but still there will be extremely intelligent AI (probably put into robots) who will be doing a lot of jobs better than us. And I am not thinking here only for low-level jobs (like taxi driving), heck, doctors should be scared because in a few years we will have AI who will do their job better than doctors themselves.

 

[Pexbo]

A sentient general-purpose AI shouldn't worry us at the moment. It probably will come (likely within this century), but at the moment we are far off from there, and so we cannot have good plans on how to not allow it being hostile etc.

What should worry us is the next technological revolution which is almost here. It won't be from a general purpose AI, but still there will be extremely intelligent AI (probably put into robots) who will be doing a lot of jobs better than us. And I am not thinking here only for low-level jobs (like taxi driving), heck, doctors should be scared because in a few years we will have AI who will do their job better than doctors themselves.

Programmers too. What with the automation of software development on it's way.

 

[Revan]

Programmers too. What with the automation of software development on it's way.

Oh, definitely. At least low-level programmers are probably fecked too.

Really, there is potential trouble for pretty much any profession there. Surprisingly, for old professions (like builders) the future might be a bit better, but at the same time, 3D printing might totally feck them.

 

[Pexbo]

Oh, definitely. At least low-level programmers are probably fecked too.

Really, there is potential trouble for pretty much any profession there. Surprisingly, for old professions (like builders) the future might be a bit better, but at the same time, 3D printing might totally feck them.

I think when philosophers started to predict the impact of automation years ago, many of them saw machines working for everyone and the problems being rogue machines that pose a direct threat to humans on an individual basis. It looks much likelier (almost inevitable) that it's just be the case that the rich/poor divide grows at an exponential rate. The 1% becomes the 0.0001% and once the general public are no longer needed for the menial tasks, the upper echelons of society will no longer care too much about looking after them, they'll become a burden with zero benefits. What happens then will be a real worry.

 

[caid]

I think when philosophers started to predict the impact of automation years ago, many of them saw machines working for everyone and the problems being rogue machines that pose a direct threat to humans on an individual basis. It looks much likelier (almost inevitable) that it's just be the case that the rich/poor divide grows at an exponential rate. The 1% becomes the 0.0001% and once the general public are no longer needed for the menial tasks, the upper echelons of society will no longer care too much about looking after them, they'll become a burden with zero benefits. What happens then will be a real worry.

I dont know tbh,
The current sytem is built quite heavily on people buying shit. If they have no money to buy shit from the 1% then .... its hard to say?
I think our current system has become a poor fit for the world we live in, with the internet effectively breaking the supply side of the equation and it not taking environmental costs into consideration and various other shortcomings that make it a poor fit for our needs going forward.
I think we need to rethink it regardless and the continued growth of automation and ai will force our hand.


I also struggle to think of any jobs that will be created by the rise of automation.
Someone mentioned maintenance and another person programming - they'll be both be automated. I'd be surprised if maintenance isn't already

 

[Bury Red]

Oh, definitely. At least low-level programmers are probably fecked too.

Really, there is potential trouble for pretty much any profession there. Surprisingly, for old professions (like builders) the future might be a bit better, but at the same time, 3D printing might totally feck them.

I've seen a few people talking about 3D printing of houses and the likes with the fanciest being this castle/playhouse video that cropped up on LinkedIn a few weeks ago.

It's not exactly rocket science though, more like a giant cake icing machine that won't be cost effective unless you're producing a great number of cookie cutter houses in which case conventional precasting will probably still be cheaper. The methods shown won't account for the need for steel reinforcement in more complex structures either so it's still got a way to go before it is threatening most of the construction industry.

I attended a lecture on 3D printing in my specialist area of construction last week and was chatting with the prof from Loughborough giving the lecture in the pub later and it really looks like it's still only a toy for modelling prototypes and the like at this stage and is unlikely to move into full scale manufacturing for a long time where we are concerned. It's great for prototypes as you can get rid of all the expensive set up costs normally associated with multiple prototypes like mould manufacture since you go straight from CAD to the finished model speeding up the testing process and allowing you to finalise quickly. There are limitations to the materials you can work with though whilst if you're looking for accuracy in the models and comparative stress strain behaviour especially along the laminations the lower cost deposition type equipment is not of a high enough resolution whilst the selective laser sintering or laser ablation machines cost £100k+ as a startup and are expensive to use for prototyping so it's likely to remain the realm of Uni researchers for another 10 to 20 years.

There were definitely bits of what I saw that had me thinking, if only we'd had that 10 or 15 years ago when we were trying to find methods to model and lab test components for a walling system and literally ended up carving some of the parts out of EPDM blocks or moulding epoxy resin into parts to run tests never sure whether the results were down to the real conditions or the Heath Robinson materials but not having the budget to create dies for extrusion moulding of components until we were sure we had the design right. The technology might accelerate changes in the component materials of construction by speeding up concept testing but it's a long way off making the changes in construction site working patterns that mechanised plant made in the last century.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

Unemployment is far down on my list of worries.

Unemployment is not a factor on it's own...but a key indicator to the worse worries in your list. The worse it gets, the more chances of worse things coming to fore.

 

[JustAFan]

So eventually the 1% will have a vast army of robots who do all their work. The rest of us will be unemployed and it won't matter because the 1%'s don't even need us to buy the products their robots make, since the robots will just make stuff that the 1% needs and not have to worry about selling things. After the rest of us finish off our wars to control what little bit of the natural resources left to us, we will be back to hunter/gatherers or maybe early agrarian type societies. Even if we attempt to rise up and smash our 1% overlords and their robot henchmen, we will be smashed. Unless of course we can feck up the robots with some high altitutde EMP bursts from stolen nuclear weapons.

I remember this one short story I read back in grade school, it went on and on describing these robots doing all this work, maintaining buildings, streets, growing food, making things for their human masters. Problem was the humans had all died years ago and the robots just kept on doing what they were programmed for.

 

[caid]

It doesn't need to go that way.
I dont think its even in the 1%'s interest for that future.
We are kind of sleepwalking into a few distinctly unpleasant futures but we still have the time to avoid them or at least lessen their impact to manageable levels.