Is Technology About to Decimate White-Collar Work?

[Nytegard]

I think one of the key lessons of 2016 is that globalization is politically unsustainable. Similarly automation will only be sustainable as long as human's who need to work have a place in the world. Revolution and "heads on a pike" are the consequence to automation without considering the needs of "the people".

I think this is inevitable, but the question becomes, when? We've already had 25% unemployment in this country with the great depression, and there wasn't a revolution of the poor and working class against the rich. And we've had terrible working conditions where workers revolted against their corporate masters, only to be shut down by the government (e.g. The Homestead Strike). The reality is, it will probably take much worse than both of those combined. I think it's going to be a gradual process. And that's why the wealthy today won't give a **** about customers, because that's not next quarters problem. Let unemployment go up a couple percent every year, as long as they profit more and more. And by the time people are ready to have that revolution, they most likely will be dead.

And that brings up another solution for them. The Elysium approach. They might not necessarily be living on a space station, but the wealthy always find a way to segregate themselves from real world problems everyone else has to face. As for UBI, and allowing people to focus on what they love? That's a pipe dream. If people are given $5000 a year, corporations will just figure out how to charge $6000 for basic living conditions. The most probable outcome is the rich are going to get richer, and poverty is going to increase for the rest of us. Most of us won't have time to work on art or anything else, because we'll be figuring out how to just survive.

 

[LBJM]

I think one of the key lessons of 2016 is that globalization is politically unsustainable. Similarly automation will only be sustainable as long as human's who need to work have a place in the world. Revolution and "heads on a pike" are the consequence to automation without considering the needs of "the people".

Not enough people are awake yet. As long as the UN is still around it's still politically Ok.

 

[[21CW]killerofall]

Humans are becoming the new horse.



Remember that robots don't need to be perfect, just better than humans. Automated cars are already better than humans.

I would imagine that by 2100, it will be hard for most people to find a job.

 

[nutzo]

You couldn't be more wrong, and the way you frame your prejudice indicates that you're basically regurgitating talking points from other folks without looking at the cold hard facts for yourself. So let me try to help change your mind. Tighten your sphincter brother because this is a long one. So... before I begin let's throw out some palabras (words) first:

Talk about regurgitating talking points.....

I have looked at the cold hard facts and human nature, and nothing you wrote changes what I've seen and read.

Socialism, like these studies can work in a small group of people who know each other or have a common culture.
It complete fails with large groups or strangers as most people will not sacrifice for others they do not know.

 

[nutzo]

I agree that trying to model anything after Star Trek shows a detachment from reality. I think just saying free market capitalism will solve this isn't very realistic either however. I mean here's the fundamental question to answer: What's the solution for when the number of people who need work and are willing to work to support themselves is substantially higher than the number of jobs available? In other words, the market for jobs you can make a living from is already saturated; you have a scenario where there simply aren't enough jobs to go around? You say capitalism is the best system, but I'm not sure it has an answer for that, automation may take us into uncharted territory there.

And forget iphones and beach houses, I'm talking about just being able to meet basic needs: food, shelter, etc.

The free market will create the jobs as long as the government gets out of the way.
90% of the population used to work on farms, now it's less then 5%
Lots of people used to be employed making type writers and rotary dial phones.
Many people here have jobs that didn't exist 40 years ago.
Nobody knows what new jobs will be created 10 or 20 years from now.

My long term guess is that pay will go up, and hours worked will go down.
Instead of 40-50 hours a week that many people now work, it will drop closer to 30 hours a week yet still pay the same per week.

Automation tends to increase prosperity and making products/services that used to be only for the rich available to everyone.
I can't wait until we have robots that can clean houses and do yard work. Then I might finally be able to afford to have that done for me.

 

[Nytegard]

The free market will create the jobs as long as the government gets out of the way.
90% of the population used to work on farms, now it's less then 5%
Lots of people used to be employed making type writers and rotary dial phones.
Many people here have jobs that didn't exist 40 years ago.
Nobody knows what new jobs will be created 10 or 20 years from now.

My long term guess is that pay will go up, and hours worked will go down.
Instead of 40-50 hours a week that many people now work, it will drop closer to 30 hours a week yet still pay the same per week.

Automation tends to increase prosperity and making products/services that used to be only for the rich available to everyone.
I can't wait until we have robots that can clean houses and do yard work. Then I might finally be able to afford to have that done for me.

The flaw in this thinking, is that eventually, you will reach a peak. The question really is, when/where is that peak? As you mentioned, previously different forms of major employment were replaced by newer forms, which prevented mass unemployment, but previous performance doesn't guarantee future performance (e.g. The housing credit crisis of 2008, where it was assumed that the market for loans would always go up, because it had always gone up).

 

[ChadD]

Management's job is not to schedule shifts and perform reviews, unless they're pathological micromanagers.

Good so for now on all you peons... show up to work when you feel like it. If the boss says a thing, tell them to stop micro managing you man.

Seriously I get that in some lines of work there is one shift to worry about and hours are pretty clear... for many however there are multiple shifts sometimes multiple timezones to cover and yes someone needs to ensure the work is done when it needs to be done. In other words ya managing staffing levels and coverage is one area where I do imagine AI could help.... reminds me of a job I had years ago where after a few trips to court my employer moved to a system an automated sick time call in system. It was of course a nightmare and didn't last long.

 

[Ski]

Holy copy pasta Batman! I read the first bit and saw a claim that 15% of the population in the US lives in poverty. An absurd meaningless claim since the poverty 'level' is simply continuously changed so that the bottom is always 'living in poverty'.

Not gonna bother to address the remaining since you just copy pasta'd it from some commie website, so you don't understand the argument well enough to be worth replying to.

I'll take that as a compliment if you think it's copy pasta'd. And quite frankly I don't really care what you believe or not, but the information is still relevant.

Talk about regurgitating talking points.....

I have looked at the cold hard facts and human nature, and nothing you wrote changes what I've seen and read.

Socialism, like these studies can work in a small group of people who know each other or have a common culture.
It complete fails with large groups or strangers as most people will not sacrifice for others they do not know.

Between your red herrings (bringing socialism into the conversation) and the fact you haven't even read any of the material that I've shown you (which is one of the hall marks of ignorance by the way) only reinforces my belief that to argue with you is like a cartographer debating with a flat earther.

 

[Wrecked Em]

Wow. I didn't realize there were this many buggy whip enthusiasts still alive.

 

[M76]

I like your idea, problem is managers don't, I had a job where I offered that as a solution, and was laid off anyway. When companies try to manage to 1/1000 of a penny, and yes they really do, all it comes to is they can save money or have to save money and let you go.

All this automation will have to be addressed, as there is already a huge number of people idled, everyone claims it's getting better, except it will surely get worse soon with robots, whenever you question people about this all you get is a glazed look like it's not my job.

Of course you can't implement this solution from the bottom up. Profit oriented companies won't do it by their own free will. Why would they want to increase their work force to do the same amount of work? This only works as a top down law, where the work week is defined as 32 hours / 4 days.

Not in the US, 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act implemented the 40 hour work week. 6 day work week might be true, but same hours regardless.

I don't know about the specifics of the US, I don't live in the US. Here it was 48 hours until '67, then 44 hrs. And finally in 1984 they introduced the 40 hour work week.

Most people are greedy and dumb. 4 day work week and 40 hours still. Me I’d love for 4-8s. I’m set up to where I can still pay bills and be comfortable on 32 hours.

Go figure there are a number issues that will delay my job being fully automated. Cost to the contractor being first.

This is also a problem, where people are only looking at things in context of their own example, how it relates to them. It's great that you have an ideal solution for yourself, but that's not the point here. The point is to not have mass poverty and unemployment and a subsequent crash due to a lack of a sizeable middle class with sufficient purchasing power to drive the economy.

 

[tetris42]

My long term guess is that pay will go up, and hours worked will go down.
Instead of 40-50 hours a week that many people now work, it will drop closer to 30 hours a week yet still pay the same per week.

Well what can I say, a logical conclusion is only as good as your assumptions. I think we'll see hours remain about the same and pay go down, along with number of jobs available.

 

[theBrownLlama]

whats for sure is that in 10 years time, the percentage of wealth that is controlled by the 1% would likely balloon to 75% or more.

and following the trend of companies not caring about their social impact (or in a way that is beneficial for the 99%) , even more cash is going to be locked up abroad, tax will still not be paid, gentrification will accelerate, and real wages will continue to dwindle.

perhaps the aim for a wage slave society is indeed what is being discussed during the Bilderberg meetings.

 

[Verge]

This is why the courts don't make shit available online.

AI could decimate the legal field.

 

[thejokker]

I think this is inevitable, but the question becomes, when? We've already had 25% unemployment in this country with the great depression, and there wasn't a revolution of the poor and working class against the rich. And we've had terrible working conditions where workers revolted against their corporate masters, only to be shut down by the government (e.g. The Homestead Strike). The reality is, it will probably take much worse than both of those combined. I think it's going to be a gradual process. And that's why the wealthy today won't give a **** about customers, because that's not next quarters problem. Let unemployment go up a couple percent every year, as long as they profit more and more. And by the time people are ready to have that revolution, they most likely will be dead.

And that brings up another solution for them. The Elysium approach. They might not necessarily be living on a space station, but the wealthy always find a way to segregate themselves from real world problems everyone else has to face. As for UBI, and allowing people to focus on what they love? That's a pipe dream. If people are given $5000 a year, corporations will just figure out how to charge $6000 for basic living conditions. The most probable outcome is the rich are going to get richer, and poverty is going to increase for the rest of us. Most of us won't have time to work on art or anything else, because we'll be figuring out how to just survive.

My grandparents lived during the great depression. While it was hard times for most people my grandparents on both sides of the family had jobs and got by. The middle-class was effected but remained mostly intact. There will always be a lower class and there will always be a ruling class but a large prosperous middle-class is a relatively recent phenomena in large part because of the "Enlightenment" and the American Republic. IMO Karl Marx was inspired by the concept of rule "by the people" found in our republic however his ignorance of human psychology effected his thinking. Attempting a classless society has only resulted in the same two-class system that has plagued human existence. IMO the global elites are advancing the progressive agenda to effect a return to a two-class system and ultimately robotics will be a tool to accomplish that goal.

The effects of the American Republic and rule by the people is to establish John Locke's Social Contract. The ruling elites rule by the will of the people and it is their responsibility to grow an inclusive economy. Globalists have ignored this responsibility and they have neglected the middle-class by moving jobs off-shore. IMO we are at a historical cross-roads. We can allow the globalist/progressive to destroy the middle-class or we can support the movement to restore the principles of the American Republic that has given us historically unprecedented freedom and prosperity. Those same globalists/progressives would have us believe that America is an evil racist country ignoring that slavery has been a tool of the elites for tens of thousands of years.

For these reasons American's must keep their right to bear arms and demand the elites invest in our country and promote economic prosperity for the middle-class. If the American Republic becomes corrupted and falls the world will fall into a new dark age. IMO we now have a leader who is attempting to drive out the globalists/progressives from Washington and return America to a Republic (for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all).

 

[Todd Walter]

I like your idea, problem is managers don't, I had a job where I offered that as a solution, and was laid off anyway. When companies try to manage to 1/1000 of a penny, and yes they really do, all it comes to is they can save money or have to save money and let you go.
<snip>

We manage our costs to 6 decimal places in manufacturing; 1/1000th isn't granular enough. We also make heavy use of automation as, after material, labour is the highest controllable expense.

 

[Todd Walter]

This is why the courts don't make shit available online.

AI could decimate the legal field.

All decisions in Canada are online, as are all Acts, and they're considered valid. There are a number of states that have this capability as well.

 

[nutzo]

The flaw in this thinking, is that eventually, you will reach a peak. The question really is, when/where is that peak? As you mentioned, previously different forms of major employment were replaced by newer forms, which prevented mass unemployment, but previous performance doesn't guarantee future performance (e.g. The housing credit crisis of 2008, where it was assumed that the market for loans would always go up, because it had always gone up).

There are always disruptions, up & down, etc.
However, these disruptions are usually made worse by government interference in the market such as in the housing market crash.

 

[nutzo]

Between your red herrings (bringing socialism into the conversation) and the fact you haven't even read any of the material that I've shown you (which is one of the hall marks of ignorance by the way) only reinforces my belief that to argue with you is like a cartographer debating with a flat earther.

I read it, I just don't believe in the fantasy you/they are spinning.
You are ignore thousands of years of human history, and assuming that if you only had enough of other peoples money you could create a utopia.

About the only advantage of UBI, is that it could replace the 100's of different welfare/aid programs which should significantly reduce overhead and waste.
However, you are assuming that the government would fire all these workers since they would no longer be needed. I highly doubt that would happen, so we would still have the high government overhead costs and the high cost of UBI, which would require much higher taxes.

 

[DukenukemX]

The free market will create the jobs as long as the government gets out of the way.

They aren't incentivized to do so. In fact for the past few decades they were incentivized to move jobs out of the country, specifically manufacturing. They're not a charity. They aren't going to put your money to make jobs. If they can replace you with more efficient machines, then they will, and they will break the economy while doing so. This is how we get recessions, cause someone figured out how to make free money and then everyone else started to do the same thing.

I don't see the incentive for businesses not to replace humans with machines. Down the road it'll break the economy and cause a recession, but they don't care.

90% of the population used to work on farms, now it's less then 5%

90% of farm work today is done by machines.

Lots of people used to be employed making type writers and rotary dial phones.
Many people here have jobs that didn't exist 40 years ago.
Nobody knows what new jobs will be created 10 or 20 years from now.

Yes we do. It's called foresight.

 

[triwolf]

We manage our costs to 6 decimal places in manufacturing; 1/1000th isn't granular enough. We also make heavy use of automation as, after material, labour is the highest controllable expense.

Is the work benefit for managing at that granular level worth it? I have met so many people in this world that claim they are nice, and want to help others only to backstab and lie to get a penny. I know this is entirely from my perspective as a worker, and I would imagine that all the people all this micromanaging has put out of work negate whatever level of optimization was gained. For example, what about all the people that want to work and now are eating at the management's paycheck with unemployment, disability etc? In the end it seems people having a job would at least be somewhere in the equation, except it isn't. There is a huge cost to society to only worry about profits and never care at all for the workers that still have to eat whether you saved two cents or not.

 

[Todd Walter]

Is the work benefit for managing at that granular level worth it? I have met so many people in this world that claim they are nice, and want to help others only to backstab and lie to get a penny. I know this is entirely from my perspective as a worker, and I would imagine that all the people all this micromanaging has put out of work negate whatever level of optimization was gained. For example, what about all the people that want to work and now are eating at the management's paycheck with unemployment, disability etc? In the end it seems people having a job would at least be somewhere in the equation, except it isn't. There is a huge cost to society to only worry about profits and never care at all for the workers that still have to eat whether you saved two cents or not.

It is worth it when you produce over a hundred million parts per annum. There is no morality to it, either. You either have the lowest price or you don't get the job awarded to you and all the workers are SOL.

 

[triwolf]

whats for sure is that in 10 years time, the percentage of wealth that is controlled by the 1% would likely balloon to 75% or more.

and following the trend of companies not caring about their social impact (or in a way that is beneficial for the 99%) , even more cash is going to be locked up abroad, tax will still not be paid, gentrification will accelerate, and real wages will continue to dwindle.

perhaps the aim for a wage slave society is indeed what is being discussed during the Bilderberg meetings.

The real solution would be to have some type of bargaining power, except all companies hate unions. Also, in the end what the elite say and do are two different things. They claim everything is fine, except the money is all going to the top, which means at some point the masses will have no funds to mount any type of defense, and I guess they win? Reality is they all play a dirty game of lie lie lie, then lie some more, meanwhile the rest of us starve because only the quarterly profit matters, so just go and starve. It's the way of business. They are legally bound to make profits, your health or lifestlye as a worker be damned. And you are safe in your job today, better not count on tomorrow, that helps too as then people become like scared animals. Not a good future if you ask me.

 

[triwolf]

It is worth it when you produce over a hundred million parts per annum. There is no morality to it, either. You either have the lowest price or you don't get the job awarded to you and all the workers are SOL.

I understand it's a race to the bottom, only thing there is Hades though. I don't have a solution, although I do like to try to awaken people sometimes. Maybe all the priorities in the world are just wrong, and we can't do anything about it. I am nothing but one man, and I have done what I can to try to wake people up, don't know if it helps, it's all I can do. When people don't have money to eat though, they tend to remember how they were treated.

 

[niconx]

This will be the death of corporatists if people don't screw it up and create another class based society.

 

[tetris42]

My grandparents lived during the great depression. While it was hard times for most people my grandparents on both sides of the family had jobs and got by. The middle-class was effected but remained mostly intact. There will always be a lower class and there will always be a ruling class but a large prosperous middle-class is a relatively recent phenomena in large part because of the "Enlightenment" and the American Republic. IMO Karl Marx was inspired by the concept of rule "by the people" found in our republic however his ignorance of human psychology effected his thinking. Attempting a classless society has only resulted in the same two-class system that has plagued human existence. IMO the global elites are advancing the progressive agenda to effect a return to a two-class system and ultimately robotics will be a tool to accomplish that goal.

The effects of the American Republic and rule by the people is to establish John Locke's Social Contract. The ruling elites rule by the will of the people and it is their responsibility to grow an inclusive economy. Globalists have ignored this responsibility and they have neglected the middle-class by moving jobs off-shore. IMO we are at a historical cross-roads. We can allow the globalist/progressive to destroy the middle-class or we can support the movement to restore the principles of the American Republic that has given us historically unprecedented freedom and prosperity. Those same globalists/progressives would have us believe that America is an evil racist country ignoring that slavery has been a tool of the elites for tens of thousands of years.

For these reasons American's must keep their right to bear arms and demand the elites invest in our country and promote economic prosperity for the middle-class. If the American Republic becomes corrupted and falls the world will fall into a new dark age. IMO we now have a leader who is attempting to drive out the globalists/progressives from Washington and return America to a Republic (for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all).

You keep saying globalists/progressives like they're the same thing. They're not. For example, a globalist would be in favor of trade deals that benefit corporations over people. A progressive would be flatly against that. A progressive would want increased worker rights and fair pay. A globalist would be fine with policies that allow jobs to be offshored. Hillary and most of the Democratic party are globalists, they're NOT progressives.

 

[umeng2002]

Didn't they say the same thing about the computer or the internet?

 

[umeng2002]

But if you think about it, if smarter than humans AI and robots becomes cheap and ubiquitous, no one would NEED to work. You might even do away with money all together.

Everyone in the world can have their own slave to work for them. Then you have legions of AI software and AI powered robots working their own economy giving all the net profits to the humans.

Human's will become a God race to our AI creations.

This depends on whether we can maintain control of them.

 

[thejokker]

You keep saying globalists/progressives like they're the same thing. They're not. For example, a globalist would be in favor of trade deals that benefit corporations over people. A progressive would be flatly against that. A progressive would want increased worker rights and fair pay. A globalist would be fine with policies that allow jobs to be off shored. Hillary and most of the Democratic party are globalists, they're NOT progressives.

Globalists use progressives as pawns. Progressives advocate for a highly centralized government and heavy regulation of industry to "solve" problems. That leads to a consolidation of power at the top and that consolidation of power leads towards totalitarianism.

Decentralized federal governments on the other hand empowers state and local governments which are more responsive to the needs of the people. One powerful federal government is easier for globalists to control; 50 separate state governments less so.

 

[lcpiper]

There is an easy fix for not enough jobs: Reduced work hours. So more people are needed in the remaining jobs. We used to have a six day work week until the 1960s it's time for the 4 day work week. If we want to fight technological unemployment that's the most obvious solution. Well besides universal basic income, but that's much harder to push trough the ignorant masses.

Really? Well why work at all then, just pay us to stay home because we'll need money to buy things right?

How many of you work at jobs where you don't actually feel needed or challenged, and how many of those guys hate it and are looking for better?

It's about your self worth, your desire to feel valued, that you are doing something worth while. Take that away and a person doesn't even want to come to work, well ........ most people.

Don't talk crazy, your the most valuable guy in the company .... for the two hours that you work each day, you rock !

 

[tetris42]

Globalists use progressives as pawns. Progressives advocate for a highly centralized government and heavy regulation of industry to "solve" problems. That leads to a consolidation of power at the top and that consolidation of power leads towards totalitarianism.

Decentralized federal governments on the other hand empowers state and local governments which are more responsive to the needs of the people. One powerful federal government is easier for globalists to control; 50 separate state governments less so.

It's really a per-issue thing more than a wide brush. A lot of progressives believe in a healthy distrust of government and having accountability also. It sure as hell wasn't progressives advocating for things like the bank bailouts or additional wars. Conservatives can just as easily be pawns to lack of enforcement under the guise of Freedom. Do you think removing the Great Depression era regulation on Wall Street didn't pave the way for the 2008 crash? Or decentralized authority didn't help lead to the Cuyahoga river catching on fire? In many cases industry is more powerful than localities and states, especially when their politicians can be bought for less. It's not as simple as less or more being the answer, it's more about having the right goals in the first place.

 

[lcpiper]

.............. Automated cars are already better than humans.................

Unless they are driving on ice and snow ........... Which they can't really do, and no one talks about that.

 

[thejokker]

It's really a per-issue thing more than a wide brush. A lot of progressives believe in a healthy distrust of government and having accountability also. It sure as hell wasn't progressives advocating for things like the bank bailouts or additional wars. Conservatives can just as easily be pawns to lack of enforcement under the guise of Freedom. Do you think removing the Great Depression era regulation on Wall Street didn't pave the way for the 2008 crash? Or decentralized authority didn't help lead to the Cuyahoga river catching on fire? In many cases industry is more powerful than localities and states, especially when their politicians can be bought for less. It's not as simple as less or more being the answer, it's more about having the right goals in the first place.

I could agree to the suggestion that there is a small subset of progressives who are not dangerous and there are certainly establishment conservatives who are also globalist pawns. The problem is it is impossible to have a discussion with the vast majority of progressives to whom anyone who disagrees with any aspect of the progressive agenda is a racist or a sexist or fascist which I find particularly ironic. For all it's flaws the traditional American model of government and economic model has been the most successful, historically speaking, at providing freedom and economic security to the masses. The common ground that used to exist among Americans has disappeared. From my perspective progressives are more the problem than the solution to most of our problems.

 

[tetris42]

I could agree to the suggestion that there is a small subset of progressives who are not dangerous and there are certainly establishment conservatives who are also globalist pawns. The problem is it is impossible to have a discussion with the vast majority of progressives to whom anyone who disagrees with any aspect of the progressive agenda is a racist or a sexist or fascist which I find particularly ironic. For all it's flaws the traditional American model of government and economic model has been the most successful, historically speaking, at providing freedom and economic security to the masses. The common ground that used to exist among Americans has disappeared. From my perspective progressives are more the problem than the solution to most of our problems.

I think we're probably just disagreeing on terms. What you're talking about sounds more like the establishment left / liberals, etc. and yes, they're a big part of the problem. What I particularly hate is so much focus on identity politics issues while simultaneously sweeping critical ones under the rug. Real progressives are issue focused and resorting to name calling and smearing is considered detrimental. Solving actual fucking problems is what counts. If they're going to attack someone politically, then it's because of their actions / platforms and how it can be shown to harm people, not because they said something stupid one time or aren't polite.

Actual progressives have very little power and representation in America. The establishment left honestly tries to bury them more than the right, since they represent more of a threat to the status quo. Someone like Ralph Nader, Jill Stein, I would call progressives. I would say Bernie Sanders except he continually throws in with the Democrats party which have become decisively NOT progressive on many issues. What you're talking about sounds more like the Hillary / Pelosi / Schumer camp of the left. If you consider those progressives, then I don't know what you call the former. Again, we could just be disagreeing on the word used. It seems like anything can mean anything now.

 

[triwolf]

Didn't they say the same thing about the computer or the internet?

Computer did remove a lot of jobs. I do agree that it's hard to say exactly how many jobs robuts (1950's pronunciation) will ultimately gobble. With software, it's only a matter of time until the 'buts can run circles around us.

 

[lcpiper]

I think this is inevitable, but the question becomes, when? We've already had 25% unemployment in this country with the great depression, and there wasn't a revolution of the poor and working class against the rich. And we've had terrible working conditions where workers revolted against their corporate masters, only to be shut down by the government (e.g. The Homestead Strike). The reality is, it will probably take much worse than both of those combined. I think it's going to be a gradual process. And that's why the wealthy today won't give a **** about customers, because that's not next quarters problem. Let unemployment go up a couple percent every year, as long as they profit more and more. And by the time people are ready to have that revolution, they most likely will be dead.

And that brings up another solution for them. The Elysium approach. They might not necessarily be living on a space station, but the wealthy always find a way to segregate themselves from real world problems everyone else has to face. As for UBI, and allowing people to focus on what they love? That's a pipe dream. If people are given $5000 a year, corporations will just figure out how to charge $6000 for basic living conditions. The most probable outcome is the rich are going to get richer, and poverty is going to increase for the rest of us. Most of us won't have time to work on art or anything else, because we'll be figuring out how to just survive.

Sooo, is this a new development or has it just taken 315,000 years for us to reach this state ?

Is there any chance at all that augmented humans will become the more likely norm?

Not much fun in watching your robot bring you your morning coffee when you hit the office ...... check the ass on that one .....

 

[triwolf]

Sooo, is this a new development or has it just taken 315,000 years for us to reach this state ?

Is there any chance at all that augmented humans will become the more likely norm?

Not much fun in watching your robot bring you your morning coffee when you hit the office ...... check the ass on that one .....

There are ancient writings talking about an automaton patrolling a Greek island, supposedly it was an analog robot. They say we really don't invent anything, it's actually a rediscovery. There is nothing new under the sun. Ecclesiastes 1:9.

 

[Hakaba]

They just better have the tech available to transfer my current fleshy Human Intelligence into a digital AI before this flesh expires.

I second that.

 

[Matthew Kane]

Fuck it, I'm getting a chip implant in my brain next Christmas.

 

[RayderR6]

If we are getting rid of jobs, why not get rid of the concept of money altogether?

I know it is a far-fetched dream, but a Star Trek like economy is a better fit when AI and robots are doing everything for us.

What I always found funny about that dream is all it did was unite humanity, but it was business as usual with aliens now. Humans fought each other nearly wiping us out, but a single warp signature in the sky brings us our first alien (Vulcans) and all of a sudden we see the light and turn humanity around and we finally all get along...until we find more aliens just like the factions of humans we were and the fighting, deception, etc. fires up all over again.

It's their hubris honestly. Once AI is perfected under many roles either being case law discovery or efficiently loading shipping boxes in trucks (or everything you also listed above) these technological hurdles will also inadvertently leap frog the redundant managers job of micro managing their employees. And if we want to get greedy and go all out for self interest, it's a brilliant way for executives to increase the quarterly reports or next election cycle by trimming even more fat when they report for the stock holders by eliminating high paying manager jobs.. Why pay an over payed manager when all you need is one low level engineer and programmer to facilitate and maintain the robots and AI in each district.

Sadly, all of this talk about losing jobs is ridiculous because in a perfect world, humanity would be embracing the end of work so we could finally do the things we were meant to: Love. Live. Create. Unfortunately we still live in a society where the criteria for success is being a slave to a job that ruins your physical and mental health anyways, but that's going to be done a robot/drone/AI also. It's like I've said for years fellas. We're entering a precarious time in human history, it's either going to be a Star Trek scenario where we pursuit human knowledge and discovery without being burdened of accumulating things or wanting to buy stuff, it's bettering yourself and those around you. Or it's going to be Elysium where the mega rich segregate themselves from overpopulated and polluted earth. In that society, the ecosystem is mostly devastated thanks to corporate interests, and even with the advanced technologies available such as healing all diseases and rebuilding limbs, it's delegated to those who can afford it. Kinda what's already transpiring now.

The 2030's are going to be an interesting time because I'm curious to see how the worlds governments are going to respond when 45% of the jobs on the planet are going to be automated, and how people will respond when they're given little choice but to revolt to a system that has given up on them, but we already have precedents if anyone has looked into our own past. The only thing, historically, that's curbed inequality: Catastrophe

Plagues, revolutions, massive wars, collapsed states—these are what reliably reduce economic disparities.

"Throughout history, only massive, violent shocks that upended the established order proved powerful enough to flatten disparities in income and wealth. They appeared in four different guises: mass-mobilization warfare, violent and transformative revolutions, state collapse, and catastrophic epidemics. Hundreds of millions perished in their wake, and by the time these crises had passed, the gap between rich and poor had shrunk."

It will be Elysium. The ones (families) who want control will not relinquish what they have worked centuries for, they will see it all burned to the ground before we "all get along" without them being in total control.

 

[nutzo]

They aren't incentivized to do so. In fact for the past few decades they were incentivized to move jobs out of the country, specifically manufacturing. They're not a charity. They aren't going to put your money to make jobs. If they can replace you with more efficient machines, then they will, and they will break the economy while doing so. This is how we get recessions, cause someone figured out how to make free money and then everyone else started to do the same thing.

I don't see the incentive for businesses not to replace humans with machines. Down the road it'll break the economy and cause a recession, but they don't care.

90% of farm work today is done by machines.

Yes we do. It's called foresight.

Yet somehow most of that 85% that no longer work on farms managed to find jobs elsewhere.

Yes, business will try and make more money. That's ALWAYS been the case.
However, businesses grow and become inefficient, leaving room for smaller, more nimble completion to grow.

One of the reasons companies moved over seas or even to other states has to do with government anti business regulations and taxes.
Used to be a lot easier easy to start a business here in California, but it keeps getting more difficult with the huge volumes of new regulation they pass every year.

Can't believe all the pessimist that see nothing but doom and gloom due to technology.
I see higher standards of living, and more free time in the future.

People just need to get a decent education, learn how to use computers, and work hard or get left behind.
The only people that should worry about the future are high school dropouts and people with degrees in worthless PC studies.