Jobs lost from automation?

[Arius]

Well less state funded jobs would no doubt be a better thing for the economy in the long run.

I'm probably gonna get shooed off the anarchy forum but...  That's not entirely true.  There are three reasons government jobs are worse than private jobs.  First, government organizations are not subject to normal market pressures (all of 'em, funded by theft).  Second, government jobs increase the reach of the state.  Third, government jobs crowd-out actual solutions to economic problems.

Now, suppose the city reduces the police workforce by 10% but makes no additional change.  The demand for cops didn't drop, taxes don't change, and the monopoly on traffic regulation isn't broken.  I would imagine the police force will allocate its labor force to politically popular activities (drug enforcement and tickets).  The result will be fewer available individuals to respond to assaults and 'real' problems.  Basically, if the state doesn't give-up the monopoly on a service, when it downsizes the workforce providing that service, some demand will go unfulfilled.  Just reducing the number of government employees accomplishes very little.  I'm not saying the state shouldn't give-up the monopoly.  I'm saying that if the state retains the monopoly, downsizing the workforce will work against the economy (assuming the state's service has any value at all).

Alternatively, if the state's monopoly is broken, the state downsizes the workforce, and the level of taxation changes to reflect the new cost to the state, the long-run economic outcome should be good.

[PatrickC]

Now, suppose the city reduces the police workforce by 10% but makes no additional change.  The demand for cops didn't drop, taxes don't change, and the monopoly on traffic regulation isn't broken.

This point was a more 'off the cuff' comment on my part.. Since when does the state ever reduce the manpower of a dept, particularly one that is heavily unionised? And like you suggest it's unlikely to result in any reduction in taxes or demand.

My main point is that history repeatably shows us that technology and automation has always enriched us and never led to the impoverishment of people. People learn to adapt and change accordingly depending on market signals. Suggesting there is some uber tech that might suddenly cause massive unemployment, whilst theoretically possible, historically has proven to be unlikely. But if there is some anomally, rather than just 'job loss' that I haven't accounted for, then I'd be interested to hear.

[empyblessing]

 

I cannot see this technology even coming close to creating more jobs than it destroys. Police will be able to decrease the number of employees if there's less of a need to write citations and less money is generated.

Well less state funded jobs would no doubt be a better thing for the economy in the long run.

The trouble is with this negative opinion of technology, is that 'historically' it has been proved to be wrong each and every time it has been suggested. You are effectively viewing the future in the same way the Luddites did. It's frankly impossible to know exactly what will happen, but historically it's always been a net gain each time. You would have to provide some significant counter arguments rather than just pointing out the lost jobs themselves.

 

I've not stated that automation is a negative. It's the opposite. I was not implying that in anything I wrote. I support the full automation of everything that is possible to automate.

We become happy to experience happiness directly. The ends for science is technology in all its forms. The ends for truth is happiness. If the ends of a career is fast food worker than why is the turnover rate so high? The answer is that few people want to experience being a fast food worker and instead only work these menial jobs to provide their psychical needs at the cost of time and the deprivation of their psychological needs, in most cases.

 

[empyblessing]

 

Now, suppose the city reduces the police workforce by 10% but makes no additional change.  The demand for cops didn't drop, taxes don't change, and the monopoly on traffic regulation isn't broken.

This point was a more 'off the cuff' comment on my part.. Since when does the state ever reduce the manpower of a dept, particularly one that is heavily unionised? And like you suggest it's unlikely to result in any reduction in taxes or demand.

My main point is that history repeatably shows us that technology and automation has always enriched us and never led to the impoverishment of people. People learn to adapt and change accordingly depending on market signals. Suggesting there is some uber tech that might suddenly cause massive unemployment, whilst theoretically possible, historically has proven to be unlikely. But if there is some anomally, rather than just 'job loss' that I haven't accounted for, then I'd be interested to hear.

 

I see what you're saying now. Unemployment is bad for the economy and that must be a bad thing. I don't agree with that. Only under the current paradigm where being unemployed is a sin is unemployement a bad thing. The central argument is that there is nowhere left for workers to be displaced to if the service sector jobs become automated. Technology will allow for work to be voluntary not compulsory. 

Instead of wage slave jobs people will take up more passionate interests just as they did as children. The rise of the creative class -artists, writers, designers- will come out of this since these are the jobs which will never be automated. 

So no I don't support the economy. I support automating menial jobs and destroying the idea that you must work to eat. 

[Arius]

I support automating menial jobs and destroying the idea that you must work to eat. 

Amen.  The best approach yet tried is to minimize legal limitations to economic activity...that "free market" thing.

[PatrickC]

So no I don't support the economy. I support automating menial jobs and destroying the idea that you must work to eat.

Ok, so how else will people support themselves financially?.. I'm entirely with the idea that human labour becomes less intensive, as automation and technology improves.. But I havent managed to leap to the 'seemingly' scifi idea that the creative classes will meet their zenith and all menial labour (whatever that is exactly) will disappear.

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I'm not making the connections that I think you are.. You did infer that a loss of jobs would occur with new technology, suggesting this was a potential net negative.. Anyway, you'll have to explain those leaps to me, because it seemed (to me at least) that you missed out a chunk of important information.

[Alan C.]

Unemployment is a problem only when people, who are unable to support themselves and want to work, are prohibited from doing so because the State has imposed barriers.

If half of the population was "unemployed" because they saved enough money to retire then nobody would be concerned about such a high unemployment rate.

[PatrickC]

Unemployment is a problem only when people, who are unable to support themselves and want to work, are prohibited from doing so because the State has imposed barriers.

If half of the population was "unemployed" because they saved enough money to retire then nobody would be concerned about such a high unemployment rate.

Good point Alan.. That's a reasoanble description of voluntary unemployment of course.. However, I don't think this was the assumption being made earlier, unless as I said, I missed something perhaps.

[empyblessing]

 

Unemployment is a problem only when people, who are unable to support themselves and want to work, are prohibited from doing so because the State has imposed barriers.

If half of the population was "unemployed" because they saved enough money to retire then nobody would be concerned about such a high unemployment rate.

Good point Alan.. That's a reasoanble description of voluntary unemployment of course.. However, I don't think this was the assumption being made earlier, unless as I said, I missed something perhaps.

 

Food and housing could be provided for everyone right now for life. Nearly of the menial jobs could be automated RIGHT NOW. The technology exists now. There's no "maybe in the future" talk about it. 

 

[empyblessing]

 

So no I don't support the economy. I support automating menial jobs and destroying the idea that you must work to eat.

Ok, so how else will people support themselves financially?.. I'm entirely with the idea that human labour becomes less intensive, as automation and technology improves.. But I havent managed to leap to the 'seemingly' scifi idea that the creative classes will meet their zenith and all menial labour (whatever that is exactly) will disappear.

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I'm not making the connections that I think you are.. You did infer that a loss of jobs would occur with new technology, suggesting this was a potential net negative.. Anyway, you'll have to explain those leaps to me, because it seemed (to me at least) that you missed out a chunk of important information.

 

They won't support themselves financially. Why would they? If they want a job they can get it but work should in no way be connected to survival. 

[empyblessing]

http://robotswillstealyourjob.tumblr.com/post/41874750364/robot-economy-could-cause-up-to-75-percent-unemployment

These workers aren't displaced. The amount of jobs created is not greater than the jobs lost. Employment cannot be considered compulsory for survival. 

Something has to be put in place to help them live. Letting all the homeless men suffer and die because they can't get jobs that don't exist is just as immoral as killing a child because "he can't work."

[David L]

Yes, that's all the present society really cares about---work. It morphed into a total religion with the advent of capitalism, and until we confront this religion of work and understand it, we will continue down the present  path of working ourselves out of existence.

http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/p/34671/273068.aspx#273068

 

[Magenta]

From Economics in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt (http://mises.org/books/economics_in_one_lesson_hazlitt.pdf)

 

CHAPTER 7

The Curse of Machinery

 

 

Among the most viable of all economic delusions is the belief that

machines on net balance create unemployment. Destroyed a

thousand times, it has risen a thousand times out of its own ashes as

hardy and vigorous as ever. Whenever there is long-continued mass

unemployment, machines get the blame anew. This fallacy is still the

basis of many labor union practices. The public tolerates these practices because it either believes at bottom that the unions are right, or

is too confused to see just why they are wrong.

The belief that machines cause unemployment, when held with

any logical consistency, leads to preposterous conclusions. Not only

must we be causing unemployment with every technological improvement we make today, but primitive man must have started causing it

with the first efforts he made to save himself from needless toil and

sweat.

To go no further back, let us turn to Adam Smith’s The Wealth of

Nations, published in 1776. The first chapter of this remarkable book is

called “Of the Division of Labor,” and on the second page of this first

chapter the author tells us that a workman unacquainted with the use of

machinery employed in pin making “could scarce make one pin a day,

and certainly could not make twenty,” but that with the use of this

... (click the link for the full book for free)

 

[David L]

Robots Replace Waiters in China

http://www.infowars.com/robots-replace-waiters-in-china/

 

 

 

[MrCapitalism]

 

Robots Replace Waiters in China

http://www.infowars.com/robots-replace-waiters-in-china/

App economy is sizzling with potential. "

According to a study released earlier this year,
nearly 500,000 mobile-tech jobs have been created since the iPhone was
introduced in 2007.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/11/23/3110966/app-economy-potential-sizzles.html

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/11/23/3110966/app-economy-potential-sizzles.html#storylink=cpy

 

 

[PatrickC]

 

 

So no I don't support the economy. I support automating menial jobs and destroying the idea that you must work to eat.

Ok, so how else will people support themselves financially?.. I'm entirely with the idea that human labour becomes less intensive, as automation and technology improves.. But I havent managed to leap to the 'seemingly' scifi idea that the creative classes will meet their zenith and all menial labour (whatever that is exactly) will disappear.

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I'm not making the connections that I think you are.. You did infer that a loss of jobs would occur with new technology, suggesting this was a potential net negative.. Anyway, you'll have to explain those leaps to me, because it seemed (to me at least) that you missed out a chunk of important information.

 

They won't support themselves financially. Why would they? If they want a job they can get it but work should in no way be connected to survival. 

 

This is the "scifi" thinking I mentioned previously.. You have made a huge leap here, with no explanation, only an assumption that I should know.

Having said that, I have now read your signature introduction. Whilst it's unclear what 'basic human needs' even means and by who they are meant to get them from. I at least understand where your thinking is coming from.

[David L]

 

"Rise Of The Droids: Will Robots Eventually Steal All Of Our Jobs?"

 

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/rise-of-the-droids-will-robots-eventually-steal-all-of-our-jobs-2

[David L]

Robot serves up 360 burgers per hour

http://singularityhub.com/2013/01/22/robot-serves-up-340-hamburgers-per-hour/

[Alan C.]

Robot serves up 360 burgers per hour

That's a good thing.

So is this:

[MrCapitalism]

 

"Rise Of The Droids: Will Robots Eventually Steal All Of Our Jobs?"

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/rise-of-the-droids-will-robots-eventually-steal-all-of-our-jobs-2

 

So much for the religion of work...

 

 

[David L]

Chuckles. The article doesn't mention cyborgs. They are likely the coming "competitors" to the robot class for "jobs". :-)

[empyblessing]

http://www.aber.ac.uk/en/cs/research/cb/projects/robotscientist/

Robot scientists!

[Alan C.]

[empyblessing]

There have not been any convincing arguments against automation. Instead the same weak arguments about precedence that are used incesantly against anarchism and automation are used. 'It can't happen because it's never happened before' is a direct contradiction to everything that's ever been created. Put simply, if computers can be scientists, no job is safe. It's not a debate about whether technology causes unemployment, it's about how quickly it's happening. 

An advanced civilization does not keep slaves it builds them. 

[empyblessing]

 

 

 

So no I don't support the economy. I support automating menial jobs and destroying the idea that you must work to eat.

Ok, so how else will people support themselves financially?.. I'm entirely with the idea that human labour becomes less intensive, as automation and technology improves.. But I havent managed to leap to the 'seemingly' scifi idea that the creative classes will meet their zenith and all menial labour (whatever that is exactly) will disappear.

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I'm not making the connections that I think you are.. You did infer that a loss of jobs would occur with new technology, suggesting this was a potential net negative.. Anyway, you'll have to explain those leaps to me, because it seemed (to me at least) that you missed out a chunk of important information.

 

They won't support themselves financially. Why would they? If they want a job they can get it but work should in no way be connected to survival. 

 

This is the "scifi" thinking I mentioned previously.. You have made a huge leap here, with no explanation, only an assumption that I should know.

Having said that, I have now read your signature introduction. Whilst it's unclear what 'basic human needs' even means and by who they are meant to get them from. I at least understand where your thinking is coming from.

 

How is it unclear what basic humans needs is? You don't know what a human being needs to survive? If not than how do you live?

[empyblessing]

Robots will steal your job but that's OK. 

And menial labor is whatever you do for money. Work you do for the experience is exempt. 

 

Fox con to cut 1 million jobs? 

http://singularityhub.com/2012/11/12/1-million-robots-to-replace-1-million-human-jobs-at-foxconn-first-robots-have-arrived/

 

[PatrickC]

How is it unclear what basic humans needs is? You don't know what a human being needs to survive? If not than how do you live?

Bread, water and a blanket perhaps?

I really have no idea what other peoples basic needs are. I know my own of course, but that includes a laptop and an internet connection for me. The ability to choose my own diet and clothes, where I live etc.

I was curious since your introduction stated that these needs would be granted by right of birth. Who or what would grant this right and decide on what those needs were and how would it be enforced?

[empyblessing]

 

How is it unclear what basic humans needs is? You don't know what a human being needs to survive? If not than how do you live?

Bread, water and a blanket perhaps?

I really have no idea what other peoples basic needs are. I know my own of course, but that includes a laptop and an internet connection for me. The ability to choose my own diet and clothes, where I live etc.

I was curious since your introduction stated that these needs would be granted by right of birth. Who or what would grant this right and decide on what those needs were and how would it be enforced?

 

Human need can be quantified. Human need is not infinite. It's not some magical economic theory or other religious dogma floating around in the ether. Need is for food and shelter. Science would determine human need with little use for opinion. Your laptop is a psychological need.  If you start choking on a piece of food, you'll know exactly that human need works on a quantifiable, revaluable scale that can be determined with precision the same way that numbers are ordered. No human opinion is needed to value 2 as greater than 1. 

 

[Alan C.]

Human need can be quantified.

Even if that were possible, how will you satisfy those needs?

Most of the water on this planet isn't potable.

[empyblessing]

 

Human need can be quantified.

Even if that were possible, how will you satisfy those needs?

Most of the water on this planet isn't potable.

 

That's the real problem we're trying to solve, isn't it?

[Alan C.]

It's not a difficult problem to solve.

The real problem is the people who prevent problems from being solved.

[David L]

Honda Unveils All-new ASIMO with Significant Advancements

[Arius]

When the old can't take advantage of the young, capital must replace labor.

[David L]

 

When the old can't take advantage of the young, capital must replace labor.

 

Can you elaborate on what you mean? 

 

 

[Arius]

If you look at a demographic breakdown of the Japanese population, you'll notice that the bulk (60%+) of the people are past or nearing retirement age.  Additionally, the birth rate is below the replacement rate.  In fact, there is a larger percentage of the Japanese population moving into retirement than there is of the American population.  Ordinarily, the older people own businesses which the younger people operate to make a living.  Sometimes that ownership is abstracted through investment vehicles (retirement accounts or national pensions).  Now, Japan has a problem with that arrangement.  Namely, young people are in increasingly short supply.  There is no abundant source of youth labor for Japanese industry to consume.  As a consequence, Japan is the world leader in the manufacture and development of capital which replaces low-cost youth labor.  Also, young Japanese workers tend to start at a higher wage (relative to the national average) because there are very few low-skill positions available.

Like I said, when the labor isn't there to use, capital develops to fill the void.  Honestly, not having children (or having no more than one child) is the best thing anyone can do to create an economic incentive to improve the overall level of automation in society.