Luddites have been predicting the collapse of the job market due to advanced technology for two hundred years, will they finally be proved right?
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/holy-hal-robot-stole-my-job-1B8057232
QuotePAUL WISEMAN , AP
Holy HAL! A robot stole my job
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmsnbcmedia4.msn.com%2Fj%2Fstreams%2F2013%2FJanuary%2F130123%2F1B5639968-130123_robot_hmed_0702p.streams_desktop_large.jpg&hash=4bb5ca4827c4a26b2d0b2b9088adce8affc7fced)
Five years after the start of the Great Recession, the toll is terrifyingly clear: Millions of middle-class jobs have been lost in developed countries the world over.
And the situation is even worse than it appears.
Most of the jobs will never return, and millions more are likely to vanish as well, say experts who study the labor market. What's more, these jobs aren't just being lost to China and other developing countries, and they aren't just factory work. Increasingly, jobs are disappearing in the service sector, home to two-thirds of all workers.
They're being obliterated by technology.
Year after year, the software that runs computers and an array of other machines and devices becomes more sophisticated and powerful and capable of doing more efficiently tasks that humans have always done. For decades, science fiction warned of a future when we would be architects of our own obsolescence, replaced by our machines; an Associated Press analysis finds that the future has arrived.
"The jobs that are going away aren't coming back," says Andrew McAfee, principal research scientist at the Center for Digital Business at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and co-author of "Race Against the Machine." "I have never seen a period where computers demonstrated as many skills and abilities as they have over the past seven years."
The global economy is being reshaped by machines that generate and analyze vast amounts of data; by devices such as smartphones and tablet computers that let people work just about anywhere, even when they're on the move; by smarter, nimbler robots; and by services that let businesses rent computing power when they need it, instead of installing expensive equipment and hiring IT staffs to run it. Whole employment categories, from secretaries to travel agents, are starting to disappear.
"There's no sector of the economy that's going to get a pass," says Martin Ford, who runs a software company and wrote "The Lights in the Tunnel," a book predicting widespread job losses. "It's everywhere."
The numbers startle even labor economists. In the United States, half the 7.5 million jobs lost during the Great Recession were in industries that pay middle-class wages, ranging from $38,000 to $68,000. But only 2 percent of the 3.5 million jobs gained since the recession ended in June 2009 are in midpay industries. Nearly 70 percent are in low-pay industries, 29 percent in industries that pay well.
In the 17 European countries that use the euro as their currency, the numbers are even worse. Almost 4.3 million low-pay jobs have been gained since mid-2009, but the loss of midpay jobs has never stopped. A total of 7.6 million disappeared from January 2008 through last June.
Experts warn that this "hollowing out" of the middle-class workforce is far from over. They predict the loss of millions more jobs as technology becomes even more sophisticated and reaches deeper into our lives. Maarten Goos, an economist at the University of Leuven in Belgium, says Europe could double its middle-class job losses.
Some occupations are beneficiaries of the march of technology, such as software engineers and app designers for smartphones and tablet computers. Overall, though, technology is eliminating far more jobs than it is creating.
To understand the impact technology is having on middle-class jobs in developed countries, the AP analyzed employment data from 20 countries; tracked changes in hiring by industry, pay and task; compared job losses and gains during recessions and expansions over the past four decades; and interviewed economists, technology experts, robot manufacturers, software developers, entrepreneurs and people in the labor force who ranged from CEOs to the unemployed.
The AP's key findings:
For more than three decades, technology has reduced the number of jobs in manufacturing. Robots and other machines controlled by computer programs work faster and make fewer mistakes than humans. Now, that same efficiency is being unleashed in the service economy, which employs more than two-thirds of the workforce in developed countries. Technology is eliminating jobs in office buildings, retail establishments and other businesses consumers deal with every day.
Technology is being adopted by every kind of organization that employs people. It's replacing workers in large corporations and small businesses, established companies and start-ups. It's being used by schools, colleges and universities; hospitals and other medical facilities; nonprofit organizations and the military.
The most vulnerable workers are doing repetitive tasks that programmers can write software for — an accountant checking a list of numbers, an office manager filing forms, a paralegal reviewing documents for key words to help in a case. As software becomes even more sophisticated, victims are expected to include those who juggle tasks, such as supervisors and managers — workers who thought they were protected by a college degree.
Thanks to technology, companies in the Standard & Poor's 500 stock index reported one-third more profit the past year than they earned the year before the Great Recession. They've also expanded their businesses, but total employment, at 21.1 million, has declined by a half-million.
Start-ups account for much of the job growth in developed economies, but software is allowing entrepreneurs to launch businesses with a third fewer employees than in the 1990s. There is less need for administrative support and back-office jobs that handle accounting, payroll and benefits.
It's becoming a self-serve world. Instead of relying on someone else in the workplace or our personal lives, we use technology to do tasks ourselves. Some find this frustrating; others like the feeling of control. Either way, this trend will only grow as software permeates our lives.
Technology is replacing workers in developed countries regardless of their politics, policies and laws. Union rules and labor laws may slow the dismissal of employees, but no country is attempting to prohibit organizations from using technology that allows them to operate more efficiently — and with fewer employees.
Some analysts reject the idea that technology has been a big job killer. They note that the collapse of the housing market in the U.S., Ireland, Spain and other countries and the ensuing global recession wiped out millions of middle-class construction and factory jobs. In their view, governments could bring many of the jobs back if they would put aside worries about their heavy debts and spend more. Others note that jobs continue to be lost to China, India and other countries in the developing world.
But to the extent technology has played a role, it raises the specter of high unemployment even after economic growth accelerates. Some economists say millions of middle-class workers must be retrained to do other jobs if they hope to get work again. Others are more hopeful. They note that technological change over the centuries eventually has created more jobs than it destroyed, though the wait can be long and painful.
A common refrain: The developed world may face years of high middle-class unemployment, social discord, divisive politics, falling living standards and dashed hopes.
'Jobless recovery' a misnomer
In the U.S., the economic recovery that started in June 2009 has been called the third straight "jobless recovery."
But that's a misnomer. The jobs came back after the first two.
Most recessions since World War II were followed by a surge in new jobs as consumers started spending again and companies hired to meet the new demand. In the months after recessions ended in 1991 and 2001, there was no familiar snap-back, but all the jobs had returned in less than three years.
But 42 months after the Great Recession ended, the U.S. has gained only 3.5 million, or 47 percent, of the 7.5 million jobs that were lost. The 17 countries that use the euro had 3.5 million fewer jobs last June than in December 2007.
This has truly been a jobless recovery, and the lack of midpay jobs is almost entirely to blame.
Fifty percent of the U.S. jobs lost were in midpay industries, but Moody's Analytics, a research firm, says just 2 percent of the 3.5 million jobs gained are in that category. After the four previous recessions, at least 30 percent of jobs created — and as many as 46 percent — were in midpay industries.
Other studies that group jobs differently show a similar drop in middle-class work.
Some of the most startling studies have focused on midskill, midpay jobs that require tasks that follow well-defined procedures and are repeated throughout the day. Think travel agents, salespeople in stores, office assistants and back-office workers like benefits managers and payroll clerks, as well as machine operators and other factory jobs. An August 2012 paper by economists Henry Siu of the University of British Columbia and Nir Jaimovich of Duke University found these kinds of jobs comprise fewer than half of all jobs, yet accounted for nine of 10 of all losses in the Great Recession. And they have kept disappearing in the economic recovery.
Webb Wheel Products makes parts for truck brakes, which involves plenty of repetitive work. Its newest employee is the Doosan V550M, and it's a marvel. It can spin a 130-pound brake drum like a child's top, smooth its metal surface, then drill holes — all without missing a beat. And it doesn't take vacations or "complain about anything," says Dwayne Ricketts, president of the Cullman, Ala., company.
Thanks to computerized machines, Webb Wheel hasn't added a factory worker in three years, though it's making 300,000 more drums annually, a 25 percent increase.
"Everyone is waiting for the unemployment rate to drop, but I don't know if it will much," Ricketts says. "Companies in the recession learned to be more efficient, and they're not going to go back."
In Europe, companies couldn't go back even if they wanted to. The 17 countries that use the euro slipped into another recession 14 months ago, in November 2011. The current unemployment rate is a record 11.8 percent.
European companies had been using technology to replace midpay workers for years, and now that has accelerated.
"The recessions have amplified the trend," says Goos, the Belgian economist. "New jobs are being created, but not the middle-pay ones."
In Canada, a 2011 study by economists at the University of British Columbia and York University in Toronto found a similar pattern of middle-class losses, though they were working with older data. In the 15 years through 2006, the share of total jobs held by many midpay, midskill occupations shrank. The share held by foremen fell 37 percent, workers in administrative and senior clerical roles fell 18 percent and those in sales and service fell 12 percent.
In Japan, a 2009 report from Hitotsubashi University in Tokyo documented a "substantial" drop in midpay, midskill jobs in the five years through 2005, and linked it to technology.
Developing economies have been spared the technological onslaught — for now. Countries like Brazil and China are still growing middle-class jobs because they're shifting from export-driven to consumer-based economies. But even they are beginning to use more machines in manufacturing. The cheap labor they relied on to make goods from apparel to electronics is no longer so cheap as their living standards rise.
One example is Sunbird Engineering, a Hong Kong firm that makes mirror frames for heavy trucks at a factory in southern China. Salaries at its plant in Dongguan have nearly tripled from $80 a month in 2005 to $225 today. "Automation is the obvious next step," CEO Bill Pike says.
Sunbird is installing robotic arms that drill screws into a mirror assembly, work now done by hand. The machinery will allow the company to eliminate two positions on a 13-person assembly line. Pike hopes that additional automation will allow the company to reduce another five or six jobs from the line.
"By automating, we can outlive the labor cost increases inevitable in China," Pike says. "Those who automate in China will win the battle of increased costs."
Foxconn Technology Group, which assembles iPhones at factories in China, unveiled plans in 2011 to install one million robots over three years.
A recent headline in the China Daily newspaper: "Chinese robot wars set to erupt."
Where did the jobs go?
Candidates for U.S. president last year never tired of telling Americans how jobs were being shipped overseas. China, with its vast army of cheaper labor and low-value currency, was easy to blame.
But most jobs cut in the U.S. and Europe weren't moved. No one got them. They vanished. And the villain in this story — a clever software engineer working in Silicon Valley or the high-tech hub around Heidelberg, Germany — isn't so easy to hate.
"It doesn't have political appeal to say the reason we have a problem is we're so successful in technology," says Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning economist at Columbia University. "There's no enemy there."
Unless you count family and friends and the person staring at you in the mirror. The uncomfortable truth is technology is killing jobs with the help of ordinary consumers by enabling them to quickly do tasks that workers used to do full time, for salaries.
Use a self-checkout lane at the supermarket or drugstore? A worker behind a cash register used to do that.
Buy clothes without visiting a store? You've taken work from a salesman.
Click "accept" in an email invitation to attend a meeting? You've pushed an office assistant closer to unemployment.
Book your vacation using an online program? You've helped lay off a travel agent. Perhaps at American Express Co., which announced this month that it plans to cut 5,400 jobs, mainly in its travel business, as more of its customers shift to online portals to plan trips.
Software is picking out worrisome blots in medical scans, running trains without conductors, driving cars without drivers, spotting profits in stocks trades in milliseconds, analyzing Twitter traffic to tell where to sell certain snacks, sifting through documents for evidence in court cases, recording power usage beamed from digital utility meters at millions of homes, and sorting returned library books.
Technology gives rise to "cheaper products and cool services," says David Autor, an economist at MIT, one of the first to document tech's role in cutting jobs. "But if you lose your job, that is slim compensation."
Even the most commonplace technologies — take, say, email — are making it tough for workers to get jobs, including ones with MBAs, like Roshanne Redmond, a former project manager at a commercial real estate developer.
"I used to get on the phone, talk to a secretary and coordinate calendars," Redmond says. "Now, things are done by computer."
Technology is used by companies to run leaner and smarter in good times and bad, but never more than in bad. In a recession, sales fall and companies cut jobs to save money. Then they turn to technology to do tasks people used to do. And that's when it hits them: They realize they don't have to re-hire the humans when business improves, or at least not as many.
The Hackett Group, a consultant on back-office jobs, estimates 2 million of them in finance, human resources, information technology and procurement have disappeared in the U.S. and Europe since the Great Recession. It pins the blame for more than half of the losses on technology. These are jobs that used to fill cubicles at almost every company — clerks paying bills and ordering supplies, benefits managers filing health-care forms and IT experts helping with computer crashes.
"The effect of (technology) on white-collar jobs is huge, but it's not obvious," says MIT's McAfee. Companies "don't put out a press release saying we're not hiring again because of machines."
What hope is there for the future?
Historically, new companies and new industries have been the incubator of new jobs. Start-up companies no more than five years old are big sources of new jobs in developed economies. In the U.S., they accounted for 99 percent of new private sector jobs in 2005, according to a study by the University of Maryland's John Haltiwanger and two other economists.
But even these companies are hiring fewer people. The average new business employed 4.7 workers when it opened its doors in 2011, down from 7.6 in the 1990s, according to a Labor Department study released last March.
Technology is probably to blame, wrote the report's authors, Eleanor Choi and James Spletzer. Entrepreneurs no longer need people to do clerical and administrative tasks to help them get their businesses off the ground.
In the old days — say, 10 years ago — "you'd need an assistant pretty early to coordinate everything — or you'd pay a huge opportunity cost for the entrepreneur or the president to set up a meeting," says Jeff Connally, CEO of CMIT Solutions, a technology consultancy to small businesses.
Now technology means "you can look at your calendar and everybody else's calendar and — bing! — you've set up a meeting." So no assistant gets hired.
Entrepreneur Andrew Schrage started the financial advice website Money Crashers in 2009 with a partner and one freelance writer. The bare-bones start-up was only possible, Schrage says, because of technology that allowed the company to get online help with accounting and payroll and other support functions without hiring staff.
"Had I not had access to cloud computing and outsourcing, I estimate that I would have needed 5-10 employees to begin this venture," Schrage says. "I doubt I would have been able to launch my business."
Technological innovations have been throwing people out of jobs for centuries. But they eventually created more work, and greater wealth, than they destroyed. Ford, the author and software engineer, thinks there is reason to believe that this time will be different. He sees virtually no end to the inroads of computers into the workplace. Eventually, he says, software will threaten the livelihoods of doctors, lawyers and other highly skilled professionals.
Many economists are encouraged by history and think the gains eventually will outweigh the losses. But even they have doubts.
"What's different this time is that digital technologies show up in every corner of the economy," says McAfee, a self-described "digital optimist." "Your tablet (computer) is just two or three years old, and it's already taken over our lives."
Peter Lindert, an economist at the University of California, Davis, says the computer is more destructive than innovations in the Industrial Revolution because the pace at which it is upending industries makes it hard for people to adapt.
Occupations that provided middle-class lifestyles for generations can disappear in a few years. Utility meter readers are just one example. As power companies began installing so-called smart readers outside homes, the number of meter readers in the U.S. plunged from 56,000 in 2001 to 36,000 in 2010, according to the Labor Department.
In 10 years? That number is expected to be zero.
BS
What is probably getting destroyed is the guaranteed chance to get a job as an uneducated undermotivated bum.
Quote from: Tamas on January 24, 2013, 09:49:55 AM
What is probably getting destroyed is the guaranteed chance to get a job as an uneducated undermotivated bum.
Which is a real problem. A rather large percentage of the world population are uneducated bums or various levels of motivation. What exactly are we going to do with these people as technical skills become more and more necessary and stupid work gets more automated? I mean there are teller-free banks, even the service industry is losing jobs now.
Quote from: Valmy on January 24, 2013, 09:55:08 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 24, 2013, 09:49:55 AM
What is probably getting destroyed is the guaranteed chance to get a job as an uneducated undermotivated bum.
Which is a real problem. A rather large percentage of the world population are uneducated bums or various levels of motivation. What exactly are we going to do with these people as technical skills become more and more necessary and stupid work gets more automated? I mean there are teller-free banks, even the service industry is losing jobs now.
fair point and I am worried a bit about that sometimes but I also realize there had to be a lot of very similar discussions when the cotton mills and factories started rolling
Quote from: Tamas on January 24, 2013, 10:01:14 AM
fair point and I am worried a bit about that sometimes but I also realize there had to be a lot of very similar discussions when the cotton mills and factories started rolling
Hey I am not saying there is no solution or that we are all doomed just that it is a problem we have not solved yet.
Duh. I've been saying this for ages. Glad others notice what seems obvious.
Quote from: Tamas on January 24, 2013, 09:49:55 AM
What is probably getting destroyed is the guaranteed chance to get a job as an uneducated undermotivated bum.
The article says its middle class jobs being lost with working class jobs rising.
Though IMO this lower class increase is likely a blip due to a shift back from China being the current trend. It'll be reversed in time.
The oft repeated idea that everyone in the country can go to university, get a good education and take up high end jobs just doesn't work in reality. I don't see it being practical at all. There'll always be the uneducated less academically minded masses- and despite the views of some on the right they're not useless, they're needed to buy stuff and consume....but they can't do that if they don't have jobs.
Quotefair point and I am worried a bit about that sometimes but I also realize there had to be a lot of very similar discussions when the cotton mills and factories started rolling
A bit of a different situation there.
In the time of the luddites and their stereotypical image (I've been doing some reading lately and they do get a fair bit of bad press, they weren't all....well...luddites in the modern definition of the word) it was just Britain who was advancing to this higher level of development. There was still a world of uneducated, unskills people out there to buy their stuff. Additionally technology was such that it still took an awful lot of people to build everything.
These days the amount of the world out there that are nothing but mouths for the world economy is decreasing rapidly, everyone is getting in on the modern country action, at the same time the amount of possible workers is increasing machines are decreasing the amount of possible jobs.
Unless there's some major technological revolution which changes things massively I really can't see a way out.
I am wary about the term "middle class" its like to Americans 80s car factory workers are termed middle class. Fuck that.
Quote from: Tyr on January 24, 2013, 10:12:24 AM
Duh. I've been saying this for ages. Glad others notice what seems obvious.
Others have been talking about this well before you were born. ;)
Quote from: Tyr on January 24, 2013, 10:12:24 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 24, 2013, 09:49:55 AM
What is probably getting destroyed is the guaranteed chance to get a job as an uneducated undermotivated bum.
The article says its middle class jobs being lost with working class jobs rising.
The article defines middle class by income, not by education.
Time to retire the term working class. It used to make some sense in the past when there was a distinct propertied class but nowadays everyone works.
Quote from: Tyr on January 24, 2013, 10:12:24 AM
In the time of the luddites and their stereotypical image (I've been doing some reading lately and they do get a fair bit of bad press, they weren't all....well...luddites in the modern definition of the word) it was just Britain who was advancing to this higher level of development. There was still a world of uneducated, unskills people out there to buy their stuff.
No there wasn't because the professions impacted by the industrial revolution like blacksmiths or handknitters didn't export to underdeveloped markets. Even where industrialization was highly uneven those kinds of workers were adversely impacted because they couldn't reach consumers in distant international markets. (and of course industrialization and development remains extremely uneven today as well). Indeed, the industrialization of textiles in Britain, far from displacing non-existent British artisanal textile exporters to India, actually replaced Indian artisinal textile producers, who previously had exported to Britain.
So does this mean I'm finally getting my robot butler?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 24, 2013, 10:36:10 AM
No there wasn't because the professions impacted by the industrial revolution like blacksmiths or handknitters didn't export to underdeveloped markets. Even where industrialization was highly uneven those kinds of workers were adversely impacted because they couldn't reach consumers in distant international markets. (and of course industrialization and development remains extremely uneven today as well). Indeed, the industrialization of textiles in Britain, far from displacing non-existent British artisanal textile exporters to India, actually replaced Indian artisinal textile producers, who previously had exported to Britain.
:unsure:
I'm not sure how you're replying to what I said there. What's the "no there wasn't"?.
That sounds like another big point in why it was a totally different situation. Britain was the only one industrialising. Technology destroyed jobs and if the whole world had suddenly industrialised at once things would have been different, but as it was though Britain could take on a huge amount of the world's manufacturing, creating loads of jobs,
Quote from: Tyr on January 24, 2013, 10:48:29 AM
I'm not sure how you're replying to what I said there. What's the "no there wasn't"?.
That sounds like another big point in why it was a totally different situation. Britain was the only one industrialising. Technology destroyed jobs and if the whole world had suddenly industrialised at once things would have been different, but as it was though Britain could take on a huge amount of the world's manufacturing, creating loads of jobs,
Technology destroyed some jobs and created others. One can only speculate what would happen if simultaneous development of the entire world occurred - it is possible that massive wealth effects would have induced much higher levels of global consumption thus raising all boats. Or perhaps not - one hypothetical claim is as good as another. The fact is that did not occur and never has occurred; indeed the inequality in development across nations is far more pronounced now than it was then.
Quote from: Valmy on January 24, 2013, 09:55:08 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 24, 2013, 09:49:55 AM
What is probably getting destroyed is the guaranteed chance to get a job as an uneducated undermotivated bum.
Which is a real problem. A rather large percentage of the world population are uneducated bums or various levels of motivation. What exactly are we going to do with these people as technical skills become more and more necessary and stupid work gets more automated? I mean there are teller-free banks, even the service industry is losing jobs now.
They will have to work as servants for the wealthy, as liveried retainers perhaps :cool:
I'm certain there will be plenty of work. The process of adjustment though, as ever, will be very painful and concentrated on some unfortunate groups.
Quote from: Tamas on January 24, 2013, 10:01:14 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 24, 2013, 09:55:08 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 24, 2013, 09:49:55 AM
What is probably getting destroyed is the guaranteed chance to get a job as an uneducated undermotivated bum.
Which is a real problem. A rather large percentage of the world population are uneducated bums or various levels of motivation. What exactly are we going to do with these people as technical skills become more and more necessary and stupid work gets more automated? I mean there are teller-free banks, even the service industry is losing jobs now.
fair point and I am worried a bit about that sometimes but I also realize there had to be a lot of very similar discussions when the cotton mills and factories started rolling
There are a few key differences now. The pace is ever faster and jobs lost across all fields.
But also, and as I've mentioned before, many (most!) people are simply incapable of performing creative or complex tasks. Even in a perfect world where retraining is instantaneous, if technology makes obsolete enough low-skilled jobs many simply won't be able to work at all.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 24, 2013, 11:22:44 AM
They will have to work as servants for the wealthy, as liveried retainers perhaps :cool:
I'm certain there will be plenty of work. The process of adjustment though, as ever, will be very painful and concentrated on some unfortunate groups.
Ah, but why would the wealthy want to employ them instead of leasing a state of the art robo-maid than can cook, give them a nice massage, vaporize any threat in milliseconds and even perform open heart surgery if necessary?
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 24, 2013, 11:22:44 AM
They will have to work as servants for the wealthy, as liveried retainers perhaps :cool:
I'm certain there will be plenty of work. The process of adjustment though, as ever, will be very painful and concentrated on some unfortunate groups.
Why would the wealthy want a bunch of servants around? They were an unbelievable pain and now they are largely unnecessary.
There may indeed be plenty of work but what exactly is not known at this time. The process of adjustment may be very painful but what are we adjusting to? It may be obvious to some future generations but it is not now. Why do we need the mass of largely unskilled labor our societies have always required in the future?
The first comment was a joke, my fault, the internet is not a good place for that sort of comment.
Why do you assume that the " mass of largely unskilled labor" is unable to change its ways? I think they can and support state-led initiatives so that training and retraining is always a possibility.
One area which I think is bound to see a lot of growth in the next few decades (at least in the rich world) is personal care for the elderly and disabled. Because of automation we now have the resources freed up to look after these people properly, as ever the change is taking place in a wasteful and disjointed manner, but it is an improving trend.
I'm sure we can think of other areas of jobs growth, but I'm off out to dinner with my family, so will leave it at that :cool:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 24, 2013, 11:22:44 AM
They will have to work as servants for the wealthy, as liveried retainers perhaps :cool:
More like the elderly <_<
I think divisions of labour and capital are re-emerging and there's a generational aspect <_<
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 24, 2013, 01:01:38 PM
One area which I think is bound to see a lot of growth in the next few decades (at least in the rich world) is personal care for the elderly and disabled. Because of automation we now have the resources freed up to look after these people properly, as ever the change is taking place in a wasteful and disjointed manner, but it is an improving trend.
Ah, yeah, I think you're right.
But I think there's a problem with distribution property and the political power of the elderly. Tunbridge Wells is our Versailles <_<
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 24, 2013, 01:01:38 PM
The first comment was a joke, my fault, the internet is not a good place for that sort of comment.
Oh for godsake I was being tongue-in-cheek as well. Just pointing out even servants are not wanted anymore. Just wait until the prostitutes lose their jobs to Holodecks.
QuoteWhy do you assume that the " mass of largely unskilled labor" is unable to change its ways? I think they can and support state-led initiatives so that training and retraining is always a possibility.
Yes...but training for what? And training for jobs a person of below average intelligence can do? That is the question here.
QuoteOne area which I think is bound to see a lot of growth in the next few decades (at least in the rich world) is personal care for the elderly and disabled. Because of automation we now have the resources freed up to look after these people properly, as ever the change is taking place in a wasteful and disjointed manner, but it is an improving trend.
That is just a short term trend. I am talking about huge shifts in the way we think about labor and work in society.
QuoteI'm sure we can think of other areas of jobs growth, but I'm off out to dinner with my family, so will leave it at that :cool:
I am certain there will be some need for human workers the issue is the volume of need versus the population in general.
It's frustratingly gratifying that people are finally starting to come around to the viewpoint I held TEN FUCKING YEARS AGO.
Quote from: Valmy on January 24, 2013, 01:11:41 PM
That is just a short term trend. I am talking about huge shifts in the way we think about labor and work in society.
I think our ageing society is a huge shift in the way we think about labour. And it's a very long-term trend from what I can see, unless everyone starts dying younger. Also I doubt we'll be able to sufficiently ameliorate the effects of ageing, so we'll need more and more care (as Labour's Shadow Health Secretary argued, dealing with long-term care's as consequential now as the NHS was in 1948).
I can't wait till we invent robot-lawyers
I don't see robots replacing the oldest profession. :hmm:
Quote from: Josephus on January 24, 2013, 04:11:55 PM
I can't wait till we invent robot-lawyers
Don't joke till Ide, Mihali and I are safely ensconced :o
I don't necessarily get the concern about robots become too good at absolutely everything. If that really happens, why exactly would we be concerned about lack of jobs? It seems like a good thing if robots could magically give us everything we need with no labor. Society would probably have to be way more redistributionist to make sure that everyone could enjoy the robot windfall, but on the whole the only concern seems to be lack of sense of purpose on the part of humans.
Sitting around doing nothing all day is not as much fun as you'd think.
Quote from: DGuller on January 24, 2013, 04:14:56 PM
I don't see robots replacing the oldest profession. :hmm:
Farming?
60 Minutes had a good piece on this subject a couple weeks ago...they were showing a warehouse operation, very similar to how an Amazon.com type place must operate...with pretty much all of the item-selection, and movement across the warehouse floor, done by robots.
Edit: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50138922n
Quote from: DGuller on January 24, 2013, 04:21:21 PM
Society would probably have to be way more redistributionist to make sure that everyone could enjoy the robot windfall
Agreed. If the value of labor drops to zero then we would have to toss the entire notion of property rights out the window.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 24, 2013, 01:07:32 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 24, 2013, 11:22:44 AM
They will have to work as servants for the wealthy, as liveried retainers perhaps :cool:
More like the elderly <_<
I think divisions of labour and capital are re-emerging and there's a generational aspect <_<
I would agree with that and believe that is about time that we started taxing property properly.
As regards the generational thing, people in my generation need to realise that things have changed and that at least some of their ill-gotten gains should be spent on helping their children establish themselves. Most people I know are doing that..........though that doesn't help young people from families with few financial or social resources.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 24, 2013, 04:47:51 PM
As regards the generational thing, people in my generation need to realise that things have changed and that at least some of their ill-gotten gains should be spent on helping their children establish themselves. Most people I know are doing that..........though that doesn't help young people from families with few financial or social resources.
Yeah. The only people I know (in their late twenties) getting a house have done so with a huge amount of help (way, way more than the deposit) from their parents and they're quite successful types too. It helps that they're all only children too <_<
Being from a Catholic family, I'll be renting for some time :lol:
Personally I think if you object to a planning application your back garden should be subject to compulsory purchase by local housing associations, solely for immigrant single parents.
@valmy - I think you are talking about the long term, whereas I'm talking about the medium-term and some are getting a little bit too excited about the short-term. I'm with Keynes on the long term. I have no idea what will happen if robots get to be so good that they can replace humans in the myriad of niggling little oddjobs that need to be done. In general I disapprove of work so personally i would hope for a utopian situation where, freed of the constraints of paid employment, people would do what interested them instead.
Quote from: Josephus on January 24, 2013, 04:11:55 PM
I can't wait till we invent robot-lawyers
Internet based research tools have already effectively cut out the need for most junior lawyers and articled students.
Back in the day when we had to do things like noting up cases using paper copies of reporter services noting up one leading case could take days of labour. Now it is accomplished with the push of a button cutting out the need for firms to hire armies of young lawyers.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 24, 2013, 01:58:10 PM
It's frustratingly gratifying that people are finally starting to come around to the viewpoint I held TEN FUCKING YEARS AGO.
Yeah, but these people are seriously thinking about the shift and its ramifications. You were just using it as an excuse not to try hard at anything.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 24, 2013, 04:52:07 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 24, 2013, 04:47:51 PM
As regards the generational thing, people in my generation need to realise that things have changed and that at least some of their ill-gotten gains should be spent on helping their children establish themselves. Most people I know are doing that..........though that doesn't help young people from families with few financial or social resources.
Yeah. The only people I know (in their late twenties) getting a house have done so with a huge amount of help (way, way more than the deposit) from their parents and they're quite successful types too. It helps that they're all only children too <_<
Being from a Catholic family, I'll be renting for some time :lol:
Personally I think if you object to a planning application your back garden should be subject to compulsory purchase by local housing associations, solely for immigrant single parents.
Yeah, but home ownership has been such a short-term blip in your country's history that it can probably slip away without too much of a cultural quake.
The only one that makes a good point in the article (IMO) is Peter Lindert (no surprise there). That is , given sufficient time, the economy - including the labor market - should be able to adjust to labor saving technological change, but if the pace of change is too fast the adjustment mechanism can't catch up in time to avoid signicant lasting unemployment.
That could be happening here but it is too early to tell.
I read that and kept waiting for the social analysis to pop in, but it never did. To at least some extent, "recovery" after a technological revolution involves societal change- as the author pointed out, these jobs aren't coming back, so the trick here isn't to sit and wait for something that's never going to happen; it's to find another niche for these workers to occupy.
The service sector itself is a product of societal change- increased prosperity led to a skyrocketing demand for things such as prepared meals that were previously a luxury for the elite.
Quote
As regards the generational thing, people in my generation need to realise that things have changed and that at least some of their ill-gotten gains should be spent on helping their children establish themselves. Most people I know are doing that..........though that doesn't help young people from families with few financial or social resources.
No they shouldn't. Rich parents already do that way too much, gives their kids a huge advantage and totally screws over poor kids. We need rich parents to be more selfish. Force their kids to learn to look after themselves.
For instance I would have loved to have done an internship during and just after university....but couldn't afford to do it. How mad is that; not being able to afford to work. All because rich kids are willing to do it for free, money means nothing to them, so nobody pays interns.
Thinking about elderly care being a big growth sector- I can't help but find this slightly disturbing. Really seems to be a sign of a society which is teetering on the brink, that we would be only surviving by leeching off the last remnants of our more succesful days.
A crazy idea I've been read about before and am thinking of here (which most of you will probally hate)- perhaps we do need to drastically shorten the working week. Make it so that 5 jobs must become 7 so as to redistribute the limited supply of jobs more fairly.
Outright forbidding someone to work more than 30 hours seems a bit draconian and weird of course....perhaps a system whereby over a certain amount of hours worked the amount you are taxed increases? Basically we can't force people to work shortened hours but we can heavily encourage it.
Yes, yes. I remember last time we discussed this. "I'm the only person at my company who can do X" and all that. Look at the bigger picture though, don't just consider high level professional jobs. For the lower level stuff workers do become far more interchangeable.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 24, 2013, 06:58:52 PM... so the trick here isn't to sit and wait for something that's never going to happen; it's to find another niche for these workers to occupy...
But that's the thing. Does such niche exist? Personally I don't think so.
A few sectors could see high demand, sure. For example care for the elderly. But that assumes the latter could afford such services in a world with collapsing pension schemes.
Quote from: Tyr on January 24, 2013, 07:30:31 PM
No they shouldn't. Rich parents already too that way too much, gives their kids a huge advantage and totally screws over poor kids. We need rich parents to be more selfish. Force their kids to learn to look after themselves.
For instance I would have loved to have done an internship during and just after university....but couldn't afford to do it. How mad is that; not being able to afford to work. All because rich kids are willing to do it for free, money means nothing to them, so nobody pays interns.
I'm not sure how you would define 'rich' exactly but I would guess my parents would count by your definition... my parents made it clear to me that once I was done with college I needed to be entirely self-supporting. I'm proud to say that I have never gone back to them for one further cent... and to Shielbh's point earlier I didn't need any help buying a house, and my brother, who is about to buy his first house, won't need any either. As best as I can tell that's fairly typical here, but then again our cost of living and home ownership is drastically lower than yours. Anyway, I also know of other folks who had well-off parents and were also expected to fend for themselves so I don't believe I'm a unique snowflake here... and I'm endlessly grateful to my parents for that policy of theirs and have repeatedly thanked them for it in recent years.
Quote
Thinking about elderly care being a big growth sector- I can't help but find this slightly disturbing. Really seems to be a sign of a society which is teetering on the brink, that we would be only surviving by leeching off the last remnants of our more succesful days.
Both my current company and my former one depend critically on this sector so watch what you say please. :sleep:
Quote from: Iormlund on January 24, 2013, 07:33:43 PM
A few sectors could see high demand, sure. For example care for the elderly. But that assumes the latter could afford such services in a world with collapsing pension schemes.
To expand on the comment I made in my last post: most companies that serve this market are trying desperately to corner the well-off elderly demographic right now. For example, my previous company was heavily dependent on providing services funded by Medicare and Medicaid--especially the latter--and in the 2008-2009 timeframe when states started slashing those budgets, the company almost went bankrupt and ended up having to sell out to a PE firm in order to stay afloat. All of the targeted growth since has been toward the much more lucrative private pay market, and they've since done well and have mostly recovered.
Oh, and they also recently closed down nearly all of their international operations. The cost of doing business in The Netherlands and France: unacceptable. :)
I don't know how plausible that is anymore though Cal. It's now very normal for people to have to do unpaid internships of at least a few months to get into many industries (some, especially in the City, are far more meritocratic). If you've not got a supportive wealthy family, or a supportive normal, London-based family then that makes it difficult for lots of people.
In the UK the other problem is that we don't build enough houses (not helped by the fact that people who own houses tend to be older so they vote, they tend to benefit from the increase of prices due to shortages and homeowners are far more likely to object to new building developments). I think to keep up with household growth over the last decade we needed to build a million houses more than we did. Currently we're building about half the amount needed to keep up with the population.
Either we need to build far, far more houses or we need to do something so the economy's more spread in the country and there's increased demand in areas like the North which have the stock. The government suggested liberalising planning laws a couple of times - but it's very controversial especially with Tory voters.
Quote from: Caliga on January 24, 2013, 07:45:19 PM
I'm proud to say that I have never gone back to them for one further cent... and to Shielbh's point earlier I didn't need any help buying a house, and my brother, who is about to buy his first house, won't need any either. As best as I can tell that's fairly typical here, but then again our cost of living and home ownership is drastically lower than yours. Anyway, I also know of other folks who had well-off parents and were also expected to fend for themselves so I don't believe I'm a unique snowflake here... and I'm endlessly grateful to my parents for that policy of theirs and have repeatedly thanked them for it in recent years.
Yeah, but you live in the US. You can get a McMansion for a bus token and a Snickers Bar.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 24, 2013, 05:19:46 PM
Quote from: Josephus on January 24, 2013, 04:11:55 PM
I can't wait till we invent robot-lawyers
Internet based research tools have already effectively cut out the need for most junior lawyers and articled students.
Back in the day when we had to do things like noting up cases using paper copies of reporter services noting up one leading case could take days of labour. Now it is accomplished with the push of a button cutting out the need for firms to hire armies of young lawyers.
It's a start.
Quote from: Tyr on January 24, 2013, 07:30:31 PM
Thinking about elderly care being a big growth sector- I can't help but find this slightly disturbing. Really seems to be a sign of a society which is teetering on the brink, that we would be only surviving by leeching off the last remnants of our more succesful days.
But isn't that true?
Quote from: Caliga on January 24, 2013, 07:45:19 PM
I'm not sure how you would define 'rich' exactly but I would guess my parents would count by your definition... my parents made it clear to me that once I was done with college I needed to be entirely self-supporting. I'm proud to say that I have never gone back to them for one further cent... and to Shielbh's point earlier I didn't need any help buying a house, and my brother, who is about to buy his first house, won't need any either. As best as I can tell that's fairly typical here, but then again our cost of living and home ownership is drastically lower than yours. Anyway, I also know of other folks who had well-off parents and were also expected to fend for themselves so I don't believe I'm a unique snowflake here... and I'm endlessly grateful to my parents for that policy of theirs and have repeatedly thanked them for it in recent years.
Yeah but what Tyr is talking about is the same as extended college. The rich parents are backing their kids while they intern to get the jobs they need. If that was how it worked here I bet your parents would have done that.
As far as the housing thing Britain has this completely insane realestate situation and is not really comparable.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 24, 2013, 04:16:28 PM
Quote from: Josephus on January 24, 2013, 04:11:55 PM
I can't wait till we invent robot-lawyers
Don't joke till Ide, Mihali and I are safely ensconced :o
Faelinn and ulmont too!
I appreciate the thought, but I'm done for already. Doc review will be nearly completely automated faster than I reckon most expect--after all, I am more pessimistic and hence realistic about technological unemployment. I expect clients will insist on automation due to cost, even if it makes mistakes--though really, while machine mistakes might be more egregious, after having QCd documents for almost a year, I doubt completely that they would be nearly as numerous. Further, I'm closer to the apex of this particular crummy hill than some, in that I have displayed basic competence, which is to say high school level literacy and the ability to perceive color, I'm not up for project manager or similar, principally because such positions are rare and also because I haven't routinely worked the 70 hour week you need to qualify for them (I am hoping for a more permatemp existence however). So when time's up on doc review, I'll hopefully have some employment outside of the legal field, or my time striving for the lower middle class will be up too. :(
Quote from: JoanThat is , given sufficient time, the economy - including the labor market - should be able to adjust to labor saving technological change
But will it adjust this time? It cannot, in any conventional means. I see no road ahead that puts those made redundant by technological progress back to work in a meaningful sense. The service sector existed, and existed in much its modern form, well prior to deinudstrialization--it was an obvious outlet. But where is the fourth sector to which we should look?
(This doesn't mean I'm a luddite, btw. Technological unemployment is potentially the greatest thing to ever occur to the human race since we figured out the germ theory of disease. But the obvious, inevitable, and fundamental changes to society will, I fear, be fought against at every turn, so that 30, 40, 50% or even greater true unemployment rates will be the rule for a generation or more.)
The only definite way out I can see is massive population decline and genetic engineering to make sure everyone is a genius who can do something useful with all their free time. :(
Man, fuck nihilism.
Nihilism is the way of the future. There's no way forward for civilization.
Quote from: Neil on January 24, 2013, 11:10:10 PM
Nihilism is the way of the future. There's no way forward for civilization.
You sure are emo for an omnipotent deity.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 24, 2013, 11:15:52 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 24, 2013, 11:10:10 PM
Nihilism is the way of the future. There's no way forward for civilization.
You sure are emo for an omnipotent deity.
I've seen the future, and mankind isn't in it. I'm a much better judge of what's going to happen then you are, and that makes me better at judging what is and isn't a good thing to believe.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 24, 2013, 11:15:52 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 24, 2013, 11:10:10 PM
Nihilism is the way of the future. There's no way forward for civilization.
You sure are emo for an omnipotent deity.
Mythology is filled with emo, vain, insecure deities.
not getting paid to internships seems to be a matter for the law: change the law so that renumeration for work done is required.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on January 25, 2013, 03:14:13 AM
not getting paid to internships seems to be a matter for the law: change the law so that renumeration for work done is required.
The laws are made by the rich. ;)
There has been talk of such. With the tories in power though it won't be coming to pass any time soon.
Quote from: Tyr on January 25, 2013, 03:30:26 AM
The laws are made by the rich. ;)
There has been talk of such. With the tories in power though it won't be coming to pass any time soon.
Typical Mining Union thinking. :rolleyes:
Unpaid internships provide employers a low-cost way of mitigating the information asymetry inherent in the labor market. One would think at a time of record unemployment rates folks would be trying to reduce the barriers to job creation, not raise them.
Some firms use them instead of entry-level staff though - they never hire any interns they just have 3 or 6 month internships running to do the basic work. Generally some of the more meritocratic industries, who genuinely want the best people, as opposed to free labour (law firms, City companies) generally do pay interns a wage so that background doesn't stop people.
But the way they've become so widespread makes them a problem in terms of social mobility. If you're not either rich or from London then there are simply some sectors you can't enter.
As an aside, our unemployment rate isn't at a record high.
Quotenot getting paid to internships seems to be a matter for the law: change the law so that renumeration for work done is required.
Yeah. There are good reasons for keeping unpaid internships legal, but the government's at the moment trying to persuade companies to pay them the minimum wage.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 25, 2013, 09:27:06 AM
As an aside, our unemployment rate isn't at a record high.
Because you have unpaid internships. :contract:
The internship only lasts 3 to 6 months? That seems manageable for people who are not rich. I mean you do not have massive college tuitions so it looks massively easier and cheaper than steering an American kid to a top job. Seems like you guys have a sweet deal from where I sit.
The housing costs are not so sweet though.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 25, 2013, 09:30:36 AM
Because you have unpaid internships. :contract:
:lol: I've read many explanations for how our employment rate keeps increasing despite the shrinking economy. Never come across that reason.
Quote from: Valmy on January 25, 2013, 09:31:54 AM
The internship only lasts 3 to 6 months? That seems manageable for people who are not rich. I mean you do not have massive college tuitions so it looks massively easier and cheaper than steering an American kid to a top job.
Well if you're in a firm that doesn't hire people at the end of them then you've got to do a few. The costs living in London with no income for a while are a pretty high burden for a normal family.
We do have high costs to university now - though not in the same way as in the US. I think a kid going to a top university now would leave with debt of around £36 000 and would probably have had some help from their parents with living costs.
The market solution to the problem of free short term labor internships is for the information to get out to the public that those certain companies do not offer paid positions at the end of the internships.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 24, 2013, 09:46:29 PM
But will it adjust this time? It cannot, in any conventional means. I see no road ahead that puts those made redundant by technological progress back to work in a meaningful sense. The service sector existed, and existed in much its modern form, well prior to deinudstrialization--it was an obvious outlet. But where is the fourth sector to which we should look?
I don't see why not.
Let's leaven this discussion with some actual facts and data. Seasonally adjusted employment levels in the United States stand at 143.3 million as compared to a pre-crisis peak of 146.6 million, but sharply from the 138.0 million pre-crisis trough. This looks a lot like a regular, if rather sharp business cycle downturn effect - if there is some broader job-destroying trend going on, it isn't showing up in the data.
The data is a little more supportive of the technoscare story if we look at a long run employment rates. Employment rates of working age men in the US is now at 72%, which is a record low. But it is up from the post-crisis trough of 71% and not that far off the cycical trough of 76.5% in 1983. What if we include women? Then the number is 67% for 2012, as compared to 66% in 1983. That would suggest again that what we seeing on jobs is still simply a nasty business cycle effect, which is in the modern era is more balanced genderwise.
A delicate question to pose you is to what extent your perception is being shaped by your own experiences. The legal business is not necessarily representative of the economy as a whole. A distinguishing characteristic of the post-Carter US economy was the rise in the FIRE sector of the economy, a rise that accelerated in Clinton's second term and the Bush years. There is reason to believe that the FIRE sector simply grew well beyond the point of rational sustainability and that the present job losses in that sector represents a return to normalcy, and not some much broader trend of technological hollowing out.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 25, 2013, 09:36:13 AM
We do have high costs to university now - though not in the same way as in the US. I think a kid going to a top university now would leave with debt of around £36 000 and would probably have had some help from their parents with living costs.
What? Well that changes things considerably.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 25, 2013, 10:39:46 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 24, 2013, 09:46:29 PM
But will it adjust this time? It cannot, in any conventional means. I see no road ahead that puts those made redundant by technological progress back to work in a meaningful sense. The service sector existed, and existed in much its modern form, well prior to deinudstrialization--it was an obvious outlet. But where is the fourth sector to which we should look?
I don't see why not.
Let's leaven this discussion with some actual facts and data. Seasonally adjusted employment levels in the United States stand at 143.3 million as compared to a pre-crisis peak of 146.6 million, but sharply from the 138.0 million pre-crisis trough. This looks a lot like a regular, if rather sharp business cycle downturn effect - if there is some broader job-destroying trend going on, it isn't showing up in the data.
The data is a little more supportive of the technoscare story if we look at a long run employment rates. Employment rates of working age men in the US is now at 72%, which is a record low. But it is up from the post-crisis trough of 71% and not that far off the cycical trough of 76.5% in 1983. What if we include women? Then the number is 67% for 2012, as compared to 66% in 1983. That would suggest again that what we seeing on jobs is still simply a nasty business cycle effect, which is in the modern era is more balanced genderwise.
A delicate question to pose you is to what extent your perception is being shaped by your own experiences. The legal business is not necessarily representative of the economy as a whole. A distinguishing characteristic of the post-Carter US economy was the rise in the FIRE sector of the economy, a rise that accelerated in Clinton's second term and the Bush years. There is reason to believe that the FIRE sector simply grew well beyond the point of rational sustainability and that the present job losses in that sector represents a return to normalcy, and not some much broader trend of technological hollowing out.
FIRE sector?
*quickly checks google*
Ah - Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate.
Yeah, there might be something to that. Though the thought makes me glad that I'm in a legal sector unconnected to any of those areas.
Yeah, you're in criminal law. You'll just get screwed over by the Redford Tories so that she can feed your pension to the ATA.
Quote from: Neil on January 25, 2013, 11:27:30 AM
Yeah, you're in criminal law. You'll just get screwed over by the Redford Tories so that she can feed your pension to the ATA.
That's what I'm worried about. <_<
Quote from: Barrister on January 25, 2013, 11:04:42 AM
Yeah, there might be something to that. Though the thought makes me glad that I'm in a legal sector unconnected to any of those areas.
Personally, I plan to be law-abiding, just to put you out of work. :P
Quote from: Barrister on January 25, 2013, 11:41:33 AM
Quote from: Neil on January 25, 2013, 11:27:30 AM
Yeah, you're in criminal law. You'll just get screwed over by the Redford Tories so that she can feed your pension to the ATA.
That's what I'm worried about. <_<
Why worry? You know it's going to happen, and you know there's nothing you can do to change it. Unfortunately, your plan didn't work. It sucks, but those are the realities of the time we live in. The golden age is over. Rather than worrying, see if you can come up with a new plan.
Quote from: Barrister on January 25, 2013, 11:04:42 AM
Though the thought makes me glad that I'm in a legal sector unconnected to any of those areas.
Doesn't affect you personally but it affects the market. The competition for good government legal jobs is more intense now that the demand for private legal services by financial clients has cooled.
But I don't see this necessarily implying the imminent annhiliation of the entire legal profession by robots. More likely its a signal that comparative enrollment rates in law school vs. engineering programs (for example) should return to historical norms.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 25, 2013, 12:43:25 PM
... the imminent annhiliation of the entire legal profession by robots.
:mmm:
Now there's an idea I can get behind.
Somebody just got an Alberta boner.
Quote from: Valmy on January 24, 2013, 01:11:41 PM
Oh for godsake I was being tongue-in-cheek as well. Just pointing out even servants are not wanted anymore. Just wait until the prostitutes lose their jobs to Holodecks.
Is that true? They often aren't live-ins but plenty of people have housecleaners/nannies/babysitters.
Quote from: garbon on January 25, 2013, 01:47:50 PM
Is that true? They often aren't live-ins but plenty of people have housecleaners/nannies/babysitters.
In the sense that Dick was talking about. Generally people want as few of those sorts of people in their business as they can.
If the unskilled masses can't sell their work they'll have to work for themselves. Subsistence farming or starvation (mostly starvation).
Quote from: Neil on January 25, 2013, 01:43:52 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 25, 2013, 12:43:25 PM
... the imminent annhiliation of the entire legal profession by robots.
:mmm:
Now there's an idea I can get behind.
:lmfao:
Quote from: The Brain on January 25, 2013, 02:37:19 PM
If the unskilled masses can't sell their work they'll have to work for themselves. Subsistence farming or starvation (mostly starvation).
Subsistence farming requires access to arable land.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 25, 2013, 02:42:31 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 25, 2013, 02:37:19 PM
If the unskilled masses can't sell their work they'll have to work for themselves. Subsistence farming or starvation (mostly starvation).
Subsistence farming requires access to arable land.
Hence my last observation.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 25, 2013, 01:45:29 PM
Somebody just got an Alberta boner.
I'm just saying... Doesn't that sound like a world you'd want to live in?
Why starve when you can just take the rich man's food?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 25, 2013, 03:10:38 PM
Why starve when you just take the rich man's food?
Take? If the rich don't give them food I'm sure the robot armies could take care of any troublemakers.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 25, 2013, 03:10:38 PM
Why starve when you just take the rich man's food?
Because the rich man's dependents are more heavily armed than you are.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 25, 2013, 03:12:29 PM
Because the rich man's dependents are more heavily armed than you are.
That's always been true, but rebellions from below have often been rather deadly for the rich. Even the anarchist craze of the 19th century made their mark.
Quote from: Neil on January 25, 2013, 03:29:14 PM
That's always been true, but rebellions from below have often been rather deadly for the rich. Even the anarchist craze of the 19th century made their mark.
Arms procurement and ammunition resupply would be orders of magnitude easier for the haves than for the have nots.
Quote from: Neil on January 25, 2013, 01:43:52 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 25, 2013, 12:43:25 PM
... the imminent annhiliation of the entire legal profession by robots.
:mmm:
Now there's an idea I can get behind.
Remind me: what was Dick Nixon's job after he lost the 1960 election?
:contract:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 25, 2013, 03:12:29 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 25, 2013, 03:10:38 PM
Why starve when you just take the rich man's food?
Because the rich man's dependents are more heavily armed than you are.
In Brain's Brave Neofeudalist World, they're also severely outnumbered.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 25, 2013, 03:44:54 PM
In Brain's Brave Neofeudalist World, they're also severely outnumbered.
Automatic weapons. :contract:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 25, 2013, 03:44:54 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 25, 2013, 03:12:29 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 25, 2013, 03:10:38 PM
Why starve when you just take the rich man's food?
Because the rich man's dependents are more heavily armed than you are.
In Brain's Brave Neofeudalist World, they're also severely outnumbered.
In a scenario where the labor of the unskilled masses isn't worth anything significant the masses are unlikely to have significant fighting power compared to the other side.
The masses wouldn't be completely unskilled, there would be plenty of people in their ranks because of ideology, family connections, or simply their skills were made redundant. The haves might win the struggle, but they'd still be better off in a modern society where they share a portion of their wealth in exchange for stability.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 25, 2013, 04:16:29 PM
The masses wouldn't be completely unskilled, there would be plenty of people in their ranks because of ideology, family connections, or simply their skills were made redundant. The haves might win the struggle, but they'd still be better off in a modern society where they share a portion of their wealth in exchange for stability.
Hence"If the rich don't give them food ..." in reply #86. I think it's likely the rich will since they do today.
That appears to contradict your statement in reply #80.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 25, 2013, 04:23:39 PM
That appears to contradict your statement in reply #80.
Yeah? You're gay.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 25, 2013, 03:38:38 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 25, 2013, 01:43:52 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 25, 2013, 12:43:25 PM
... the imminent annhiliation of the entire legal profession by robots.
:mmm:
Now there's an idea I can get behind.
Remind me: what was Dick Nixon's job after he lost the 1960 election?
:contract:
Not to mention before the war. :weep:
I'm just saying: I don't like your priesthood and I think it's a bad thing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 25, 2013, 03:36:52 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 25, 2013, 03:29:14 PM
That's always been true, but rebellions from below have often been rather deadly for the rich. Even the anarchist craze of the 19th century made their mark.
Arms procurement and ammunition resupply would be orders of magnitude easier for the haves than for the have nots.
But the have-nots aren't fighting a war. They're just trying to kill some haves.
Quote from: The Brain on January 25, 2013, 03:55:54 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 25, 2013, 03:44:54 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 25, 2013, 03:12:29 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 25, 2013, 03:10:38 PM
Why starve when you just take the rich man's food?
Because the rich man's dependents are more heavily armed than you are.
In Brain's Brave Neofeudalist World, they're also severely outnumbered.
In a scenario where the labor of the unskilled masses isn't worth anything significant the masses are unlikely to have significant fighting power compared to the other side.
You forget that the unskilled masses in the US are already armed to the teeth. You know - to keep their government honest so that this sort of thing doesnt happen.
USA!
Quote from: Neil on January 25, 2013, 04:37:50 PM
But the have-nots aren't fighting a war. They're just trying to kill some haves.
They're trying to seize resources.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 25, 2013, 04:58:33 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 25, 2013, 03:55:54 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 25, 2013, 03:44:54 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 25, 2013, 03:12:29 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 25, 2013, 03:10:38 PM
Why starve when you just take the rich man's food?
Because the rich man's dependents are more heavily armed than you are.
In Brain's Brave Neofeudalist World, they're also severely outnumbered.
In a scenario where the labor of the unskilled masses isn't worth anything significant the masses are unlikely to have significant fighting power compared to the other side.
You forget that the unskilled masses in the US are already armed to the teeth. You know - to keep their government honest so that this sort of thing doesnt happen.
If they pose a threat against the rich then it seems likely that they could find jobs protecting the rich.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 25, 2013, 05:04:45 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 25, 2013, 04:37:50 PM
But the have-nots aren't fighting a war. They're just trying to kill some haves.
They're trying to seize resources.
I'm not so sure. That wasn't really the case with the Anarchists. Sure, they had some kind of political ideal, but the practical effect of their movement was all about the murders.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 25, 2013, 03:54:25 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 25, 2013, 03:44:54 PM
In Brain's Brave Neofeudalist World, they're also severely outnumbered.
Automatic weapons. :contract:
Yeah, those aren't exactly rare or expensive.
Quote from: Neil on January 25, 2013, 05:22:14 PM
I'm not so sure. That wasn't really the case with the Anarchists. Sure, they had some kind of political ideal, but the practical effect of their movement was all about the murders.
The Anarchists were bored suburban dilletantes. We're talking about a scenario in which the great majority of the world's population face imminent starvation. The # 1 priority becomes digestible calories.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 25, 2013, 05:25:08 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 25, 2013, 05:22:14 PM
I'm not so sure. That wasn't really the case with the Anarchists. Sure, they had some kind of political ideal, but the practical effect of their movement was all about the murders.
The Anarchists were bored suburban dilletantes. We're talking about a scenario in which the great majority of the world's population face imminent starvation. The # 1 priority becomes digestible calories.
In that case, the rich get eaten. But given that we live in a world where almost noone goes hungry, I don't think that's a plausible scenario.
Besides, I was talking about the Anarchists.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 25, 2013, 09:14:18 AM
Quote from: Tyr on January 25, 2013, 03:30:26 AM
The laws are made by the rich. ;)
There has been talk of such. With the tories in power though it won't be coming to pass any time soon.
Typical Mining Union thinking. :rolleyes:
Unpaid internships provide employers a low-cost way of mitigating the information asymetry inherent in the labor market. One would think at a time of record unemployment rates folks would be trying to reduce the barriers to job creation, not raise them.
You realize that people willing to work, literally, for free is one such barrier to job creation, right?
Fwiw, the law already does regulate internships--they are not supposed to be free labor, and such work is in fact unlawful--and a big percentage of "internships" do not meet muster, but are generally left unchallenged because of bargaining power asymmetries.
Quote from: Neil on January 25, 2013, 03:07:36 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 25, 2013, 01:45:29 PM
Somebody just got an Alberta boner.
I'm just saying... Doesn't that sound like a world you'd want to live in?
Oh yes.
It's easy to hate lawyers, until you need them to defend you against a frivolous lawsuit.
Seems like that would make one hate them more.
Quote from: garbon on January 25, 2013, 07:25:04 PM
Seems like that would make one hate them more.
Indeed, and that's the point. Lawyers are like witch doctors. If you don't give them your money, they'll put a curse on you: The curse of the lawsuit. Paying a lawyer is like paying a gangster for protection in that he's protecting you from himself, and that the lot of them should be killed.
Quote from: Valmy on January 25, 2013, 09:31:54 AM
The internship only lasts 3 to 6 months? That seems manageable for people who are not rich. I mean you do not have massive college tuitions so it looks massively easier and cheaper than steering an American kid to a top job. Seems like you guys have a sweet deal from where I sit.
The housing costs are not so sweet though.
Even supporting oneself for 3 months in a new city can be hard when you've no money coming in. Often people literally can't even afford to get to job interviews if they're far away. One of the retarded points of our system is if you're trying to better yourself by going into education or doing an internship then you become inellegiable for unemployment benefits even.
That's not to say things are totally impossible. I've seen stories about guys who manage to live in super low cost hostels, intern by day and moonlight at a minimum wage job by night. But if there are multiple interns at a company but only one job at the end of it would a guy having to do such really be at his best？
The perception of "haves" and "have nots" is a social construct. "Haves" tend to end up that way because the have-nots have an inherent power vacuum. Money might win the war, but charisma earns money to win it. If the trust in "haves" breaks down enough, they will be dethroned. No amount of money can substitute for an inability to lead. See: Syria.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 25, 2013, 05:22:29 PM
Yeah, those aren't exactly rare or expensive.
What does it matter how much something costs when a person has nothing to offer for it? Remember we're talking about a world in which labor has zero value.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 26, 2013, 12:33:53 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 25, 2013, 05:22:29 PM
Yeah, those aren't exactly rare or expensive.
What does it matter how much something costs when a person has nothing to offer for it? Remember we're talking about a world in which labor has zero value.
Okay, are these people naked and starving?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 25, 2013, 10:39:46 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 24, 2013, 09:46:29 PM
But will it adjust this time? It cannot, in any conventional means. I see no road ahead that puts those made redundant by technological progress back to work in a meaningful sense. The service sector existed, and existed in much its modern form, well prior to deinudstrialization--it was an obvious outlet. But where is the fourth sector to which we should look?
I don't see why not.
Let's leaven this discussion with some actual facts and data. Seasonally adjusted employment levels in the United States stand at 143.3 million as compared to a pre-crisis peak of 146.6 million, but sharply from the 138.0 million pre-crisis trough. This looks a lot like a regular, if rather sharp business cycle downturn effect - if there is some broader job-destroying trend going on, it isn't showing up in the data.
The data is a little more supportive of the technoscare story if we look at a long run employment rates. Employment rates of working age men in the US is now at 72%, which is a record low. But it is up from the post-crisis trough of 71% and not that far off the cycical trough of 76.5% in 1983. What if we include women? Then the number is 67% for 2012, as compared to 66% in 1983. That would suggest again that what we seeing on jobs is still simply a nasty business cycle effect, which is in the modern era is more balanced genderwise.
You're leavening the discussion with facts and data not pertaining to the question posed. I actually agree with you for 90% of this--the current crisis is a failure of aggregate demand due to massive private sector deleveraging, which in turn was caused by massive wealth destruction (really misallocation) in the popping of a series of asset bubbles.
It is not, directly, primarily or even significantly due to technological unemployment--however I think there might be some good research to be done in correlating automation and offshoring (which is similar to automation for us, but dissimilar in that using foreigner serfs at least creates wealth and expands markets somewhere, however minimally and dismally) with the stagnation that seems to have been one of the root causes of the increased private sector borrowing in the first place (the other being a financial sector that should have been decimated like a Roman legion of old). I mention this because while employment may have held somewhat steadier than you'd expect, if you expect total disaster, it is also fact that the jobs which have replaced and are replacing manufacturing and office work are not the same kind of jobs with the same stability and the same compensation. Household income is practically flat since like 1985 or something. And that there are even relatively fewer shitty jobs today does signify a problem.
But, anyway, my immediate concern is not the cause or even the outcome of the current crisis but the inevitability of human labor's replacement. You didn't answer the question--what jobs will we do when everything that can be translated into machine instructions is?
QuoteA delicate question to pose you is to what extent your perception is being shaped by your own experiences. The legal business is not necessarily representative of the economy as a whole. A distinguishing characteristic of the post-Carter US economy was the rise in the FIRE sector of the economy, a rise that accelerated in Clinton's second term and the Bush years. There is reason to believe that the FIRE sector simply grew well beyond the point of rational sustainability and that the present job losses in that sector represents a return to normalcy, and not some much broader trend of technological hollowing out.
On these points--indeed, the legal business is not, although I find the field interesting (for reason besides the obvious :P ) in that the trends shaping, and devastating, the legal market are more pronounced here but may not be unique. Degree/license overproduction is occurring in a lot of professional and paraprofessional fields--pharamacy schools are following law schools, for example; more surprisingly, albeit anecdotally, biology and other science departments; I've even heard that nursing schools may be generating a glut, but this is far from confirmed. Much of this can be blamed on business cycle and misallocation (which is still disastrous for those misallocating, I'll add). But what's happening seems to be adding up to a highly educated mass of young people and nowhere to put them--and youth unemployment is much higher than established folks, moreso than is historically normal. If this is the case, if the a large percentage of people are being misallocated, this suggests more than a business downturn that will eventually be made better. This suggests structural change that is shutting those already outside the structure out completely.
But I could be wrong. This could be ordinary effects of a recession. I can speak with a lot more certainty about the legal field, which could be a special case of massive overproduction brought on by a unique combination of a famously greedy profession, government ineptitude, feckless liberal arts majors, and tasks uniquely suited to automation. (On the other hand, I appreciate that without computerization of the workplace, my job would not even exist, at least in its present form--and it would be far less tolerable without the other computers I use to keep me from going mad with boredom! But there is no compelling reason to believe a sufficiently well-programmed computer could not likewise do my job, and without any need to listen to music or podcasts.)
Anyway, I think I'm still on firm ground to posit that: even if large-scale technological unemployment is not here, it must be coming. I can say this with a great degree of certainty because technological improvements, since the industrial revolution, have always reduced the need for human labor. If the demand for human labor is less than the aggregate labor offered by the economy, wages will on average fall and will in fact approach zero because there won't be jobs to put unneeded labor to use. This is especially true as hard limits to human capabilities are reached and fewer people are qualified or even have the intellectual capacity to perform the tasks that still have a demand for human labor.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 26, 2013, 02:40:56 AM
You didn't answer the question--what jobs will we do when everything that can be translated into machine instructions is?
Repair and maintenance. In twenty years' time, all high schools will become vo techs.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 26, 2013, 10:36:58 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 26, 2013, 02:40:56 AM
You didn't answer the question--what jobs will we do when everything that can be translated into machine instructions is?
Repair and maintenance. In twenty years' time, all high schools will become vo techs.
And thus we shall be become maintenance-slaves to our robot overlords. :(
At least, until machine instruction allows them to perform maintenance on themselves. Then we die out, and the Terminators take over.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 26, 2013, 10:36:58 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 26, 2013, 02:40:56 AM
You didn't answer the question--what jobs will we do when everything that can be translated into machine instructions is?
Repair and maintenance. In twenty years' time, all high schools will become vo techs.
My old High School is a STEM school now. Thank god I'm not going there now. They would actually expect real work from me, instead of the bullshit I used to give them.
Well it's true that IT is one of the strongest fields out there in terms of demand.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 26, 2013, 10:36:58 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 26, 2013, 02:40:56 AM
You didn't answer the question--what jobs will we do when everything that can be translated into machine instructions is?
Repair and maintenance. In twenty years' time, all high schools will become vo techs.
This will take drastically less people then doing the work itself though.
Quote from: Tyr on January 26, 2013, 11:14:00 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 26, 2013, 10:36:58 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 26, 2013, 02:40:56 AM
You didn't answer the question--what jobs will we do when everything that can be translated into machine instructions is?
Repair and maintenance. In twenty years' time, all high schools will become vo techs.
This will take drastically less people then doing the work itself though.
Seems America doesn't want to encourage abortion anymore, so I'm all out of ideas for the labor force.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 26, 2013, 11:23:06 PM
Seems America doesn't want to encourage abortion anymore, so I'm all out of ideas for the labor force.
Abortion means fewer consumers so unlikely to solve the problem.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 26, 2013, 11:38:06 PM
Abortion means fewer consumers so unlikely to solve the problem.
Every abortion is one less resume to compete against.