US Will Be Hit Worse by Job Automation Than Other Major Economies

[westrock2000]

See I would argue trick question: Everyone having the right to have food and shelter, no matter how smart or dumb they are.

You're right, we absolutely can adapt. There are plenty of historical examples, like say Germany after WWI, when they got completely crippled financially. They did a FANTASTIC job at adapting and everything worked out.

You are confusing right with entitlement. Having a right to food and shelter is not the same as being guaranteed food and shelter. Do you have a "right" to food and shelter in America? Go try to raise a family in the woods in a log cabin in some parts of America and see how many rights you have.

And then you go straight to fucking Hitler. I don't even know why.

 

[Nobified[H]]

I feel like people are being silly not getting educations and then complaining that they don't have jobs.

We have long since moved on to a knowledge economy. The expectation of being able to make a living without a degree is what is the problem.

We need to get it to the point where 100% of everyone gets degrees.

That hasn't worked...I have degrees and no one wants me. It is still the old fashion, it is not what you know....it is WHO you know!

 

[tetris42]

You are confusing right with entitlement. Having a right to food and shelter is not the same as being guaranteed food and shelter. Do you have a "right" to food and shelter in America? Go try to raise a family in the woods in a log cabin in some parts of America and see how many rights you have.

And then you go straight to fucking Hitler. I don't even know why.

Hey, you're the one talking pie in the sky optimism, then saying history is on your side. We're heading into a situation we're not prepared for politically or economically that's going to have enormous consequences and I'm really not sure there's a historical precedent for. But hey, post WWI Germany IS an example of a state that was crippled economically, was unprepared, but did adapt! History!

 

[Mchart]

That hasn't worked...I have degrees and no one wants me. It is still the old fashion, it is not what you know....it is WHO you know!

The problem is that the job market can only support so many people with degrees. So what ends up happening is that the value of the degree just goes down, and people have to become further educated. It doesn't help that our education system has shifted their curriculum has college prep, versus life prep. No real financial education in high school, no education in trades, etc. We've built our education system to send kids off to college even though the market can't support it. So we've ended up with a bunch of 20-somethings with worthless degrees, debt for the education, no job to move into, and no skill in something that is actually valuable like plumbing.

Meanwhile skilled trade jobs are in high demand for bodies and actually are paying more on average but kids these days have been led to believe they need higher education to make good money. A plumber will never be an automated job until robots have the dexterity to match - And that's a long ways off.

I'm in my mid 30's and of my 5 cousins in my age group in our family i'm earning far more, and have zero debt. Why? I'm the only one that didn't go to college, and I was willing to move where the jobs were.

 

[Ducman69]

Ignorance is a bigger problem than outright stupidity, and ignorance is one we can solve through education, but it will need a renewed focus (and MUCH larger budget) from kindergarten and on.

How much more of the budget do we have to dump on schools before we realize that CULTURE not financing is the problem? Asian kids are doing better because their parents instill a culture of learning, not because schools the asian kids are going to are getting more money.

Here for example, straight from the California state government website, we see that the poorest poverty level asian males are scoring SIGNIFICANTLY higher on standardized tests than the wealthiest bracket black females:

Between education, healthcare, pensions, and welfare, there's virtually nothing left on the Texas pie chart for tax expenditure. And frankly, our teachers are massively OVER paid for what they offer, as many have no greater skillset than babysitters, and yet thanks to unions compensation is completely divorced from contribution and skillsets, and pretty much just based on how long you've worked there.

In NY for example, we are spending $19,522 per student per year!!! WTF! Starting salary for a teacher with zero prior experience is $54K, and teachers with eight years of experience earn $81,694. $58.8 billion every year thrown at the problem. And what does it yield you? Only 85.3% of the NY population even graduates highschool.

We spend way too much on education IMO with way too few results, and we only need look at other countries to see how futile the effort is. South Koreans beat US students on standardized testing by wide margins, and they are only spending $6,723 per student, nearly three times less. Japan absolutely blows us away on math, reading, and science and they are spending a tiny bit more at $8,301.

The big difference? You don't have a lot of unqualified women (76%) joining government unions (how is that even legal) and demanding more pay with poor results, in contrast with say only 27% of Japanese highschool teachers being female and competition fierce for openings where teachers can be and are fired for poor results just like in the private sector. And likewise, students rise when the teacher walks into the classroom and show respect, unlike American schools:


Sorry for the rant, but I hate seeing my tax dollars flushed down the toilet, and told I'm just not giving enough.

 

[travisty]

Hey, you're the one talking pie in the sky optimism, then saying history is on your side. We're heading into a situation we're not prepared for politically or economically that's going to have enormous consequences and I'm really not sure there's a historical precedent for. But hey, post WWI Germany IS an example of a state that was crippled economically, was unprepared, but did adapt! History!

A better historic point might be the fall of Nicholas II in Russia. Industrialization was turning the Russian political structure on its head (which the king was blind to) and when supply shortages happened (lack of food mostly iirc) the people revolted.

I can see that happening in the US: Robotization turns the political culture on its head and the leaders (senate/potus are blind to it) and when the people starve they revolt.

Though I guess in both these cases the resulting power structure is less than ideal

 

[Mchart]

How much more of the budget do we have to dump on schools before we realize that CULTURE not financing is the problem? Asian kids are doing better because their parents instill a culture of learning, not because schools the asian kids are going to are getting more money.

Here for example, straight from the California state government website, we see that the poorest poverty level asian males are scoring SIGNIFICANTLY higher on standardized tests than the wealthiest bracket black females:


Between education, healthcare, pensions, and welfare, there's virtually nothing left on the Texas pie chart for tax expenditure. And frankly, our teachers are massively OVER paid for what they offer, as many have no greater skillset than babysitters, and yet thanks to unions compensation is completely divorced from contribution and skillsets, and pretty much just based on how long you've worked there.

In NY for example, we are spending $19,522 per student per year!!! WTF! Starting salary for a teacher with zero prior experience is $54K, and teachers with eight years of experience earn $81,694. $58.8 billion every year thrown at the problem. And what does it yield you? Only 85.3% of the NY population even graduates highschool.

We spend way too much on education IMO with way too few results, and we only need look at other countries to see how futile the effort is. South Koreans beat US students on standardized testing by wide margins, and they are only spending $6,723 per student, nearly three times less. Japan absolutely blows us away on math, reading, and science and they are spending a tiny bit more at $8,301.

The big difference? You don't have a lot of unqualified women (76%) joining government unions (how is that even legal) and demanding more pay with poor results, in contrast with say only 27% of Japanese highschool teachers being female and competition fierce for openings where teachers can be and are fired for poor results just like in the private sector. And likewise, students rise when the teacher walks into the classroom and show respect, unlike American schools:

Sorry for the rant, but I hate seeing my tax dollars flushed down the toilet, and told I'm just not giving enough.

It doesn't help that school has turned into college prep vs. life prep like it used to be. Because of the focus on SAT scores and forcing kids to learn high level Math/Science and basically setting the expectation that you will go to college or be nothing schools are now largely worthless and are not preparing kids for the work environment and equipping them with real skills.

Again, you don't need to go to college to earn middle-class income.

 

[westrock2000]

Hey, you're the one talking pie in the sky optimism, then saying history is on your side. We're heading into a situation we're not prepared for politically or economically that's going to have enormous consequences and I'm really not sure there's a historical precedent for. But hey, post WWI Germany IS an example of a state that was crippled economically, was unprepared, but did adapt! History!

But what we are talking about in this thread is about the effects of stuff like washing machines, printing presses, refrigeration and cotton gins and how it has shifted unskilled jobs as time has gone by. You are talking about the after affects of war which is completely different. You said both WWI and WWII, of which Germany came out of in ruins for both, but I'm not sure if you meant both or 1 or the other. If you were referring to the Weimar Republic, that was purely political (on both sides) and has nothing to do with what we are talking about here.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Lets step back a minute here.

Can we agree that the population in America of today is more educated then the population of America 100 years ago? Do you think the people of today, the middle to lower class, know more about technology today then the people of the same class 100 years ago? Yet, nothing has changed. Why?

America may not have "nationalized" education, but on most indexes the United States rates pretty high on education. The countries that are "superior" have DRASTICALLY smaller populations and more importantly have a very different ideology about the freedoms of it's citizens. Australia is one of the largest highly educated countries on lists and they are not even 1/10th the size of America. For a country like America to be so bold about choosing your own destiny, it appears many Americans do the right thing....there just happens to be about 100 million of them that don't. You talk about certain countries in Europe as being great....but what about the ENTIRE EU? That's a more fair comparison. The EU has about double the population of America, but you see that some countries are really good and some are really shitty and a bunch are right in the middle. That's America.

Which is more important? Being educated enough to not be a dumbass or having the right to be a dumbass? It's a real question. And it's question that few want to answer in a calm rational conversation.

Let me put this hypothetical out there. Lets say everyone in America went to college. It was mandatory. Everyone got degrees in highly advanced sciences and management and a bunch of other great subjects. How does that change the real world that we live in? Does the ratio of managers to entry level workers change? Do we not need hamburger flippers anymore? Do we not need sales people at Best Buy? Or roofers? No, of course we still need these job positions. So what do we do? Do we fill them with over qualified workers or do we import unskilled labor from other countries? What do you think happens to someone who is trained to be a rocket surgeon (you know they exist!) yet ends up being just a common worker in sales their whole life? Is it any coincidence that Iceland has such a wonderful education system, yet also has a higher suicide rate then America? I don't know, no one seems to want to talk about the side effects of putting your goals too high.

I know you guys think the world is changing and that we are all going to die. But, relax, mankind has been dealing with this since the beginning of time. What ever dystopian reality you are being sold is not going to happen....and I can safely say that using history as my proof. Things will change for sure, but humanity will adapt, as it always has. There is always going to be poverty and life is always going to be unfair so long as we use the economic system that exists now (to which an alternative has not been invented yet).

I think you are completely misinterpreting my suggestion.

I would support policies in the U.S. to make it possible for anyone who wants to gain higher education to do so, NOT to force anyone to do so.

There IS something to be said for a forced minimum level of education, and we already have that for minors. There certainly needs to be improvements here, as the quality of that education needs to improve.

Things we should be doing:

• Pay teachers better. Nothing is more important than educating the next generation of Americans. We should be paying teachers like doctors, not paying them starvation wages. While there are many good and idealistic teachers really dedicated to doing their job well, in general, you get what you pay for. If we want high caliber people teaching our kids, we are going to ahve to PAY for high caliber people, or they will go elsewhere. We need to elevate teaching to a high status position, as those responsible for the success of our next generations, not some starvation wage slaves.
• Get religion and politics out of schools, and let teachers teach the latest science. None of this Kansas school board shit, or editing of text books to reflect the political ideals of some misguided people. Education needs to be fact based, not ideology based. It should never be about indoctrination.
• Remove the financial burden associated with higher education so that anyone who is qualified and wants a degree or advanced degrees can get them. Students shouldn't have to go into crushing debt in order to become educated. I suggest not just tuition-free education, but also - as they do in Scandinavian countries - paying students in higher education a small stipend so they can live while getting educated without being forced to be distracted by working a job to survive. Yes, a lot of people will hate this, calling it handouts, but we need to stop looking at it as handouts for the personal benefit of the few, and rather see it as an investment in the success of our nation. The more better educated people we have in the country, the more successful we will be. The more new ideas will be started here to drive our economy and benefits ALL of us, not just those benefiting from the education programs.

I still hate the fact that I can't put spaces between bullet points in the new forum.

The truth is this. With higher average education, GDP per capita goes up, and violent crime goes down. Will EVERYONE be able to be educated? Maybe not. The 100% figure above was an exaggeration, but that doesn't mean that our goal should be to drive education as high as we possibly can, removing any and all obstacles to getting there, such as poor k-12 school districts, financial burdens of going to college, and the need to eat while studying.

We should be focused - as an education policy - on making it as easy as humanly possible for as many people as possible to become highly educated. Our future depends on it.

The fact that we are larger doesn't mean that we can't do it. We may have a larger problem to solve with more people, but we also have more people and more money to solve it with. Our size as a reason why we cant do this is a total red herring.

I do agree with some concerns though. For instance, many of the non-professional education tracks are not very marketable, and maybe these are not the ones we should be subsidizing, but even so, the numbers don't lie. Total correlation. GDP per capita goes up with education, and violent crime rates go down.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

How much more of the budget do we have to dump on schools before we realize that CULTURE not financing is the problem? Asian kids are doing better because their parents instill a culture of learning, not because schools the asian kids are going to are getting more money.

Here for example, straight from the California state government website, we see that the poorest poverty level asian males are scoring SIGNIFICANTLY higher on standardized tests than the wealthiest bracket black females:

Between education, healthcare, pensions, and welfare, there's virtually nothing left on the Texas pie chart for tax expenditure. And frankly, our teachers are massively OVER paid for what they offer, as many have no greater skillset than babysitters, and yet thanks to unions compensation is completely divorced from contribution and skillsets, and pretty much just based on how long you've worked there.

In NY for example, we are spending $19,522 per student per year!!! WTF! Starting salary for a teacher with zero prior experience is $54K, and teachers with eight years of experience earn $81,694. $58.8 billion every year thrown at the problem. And what does it yield you? Only 85.3% of the NY population even graduates highschool.

We spend way too much on education IMO with way too few results, and we only need look at other countries to see how futile the effort is. South Koreans beat US students on standardized testing by wide margins, and they are only spending $6,723 per student, nearly three times less. Japan absolutely blows us away on math, reading, and science and they are spending a tiny bit more at $8,301.

The big difference? You don't have a lot of unqualified women (76%) joining government unions (how is that even legal) and demanding more pay with poor results, in contrast with say only 27% of Japanese highschool teachers being female and competition fierce for openings where teachers can be and are fired for poor results just like in the private sector. And likewise, students rise when the teacher walks into the classroom and show respect, unlike American schools:


Sorry for the rant, but I hate seeing my tax dollars flushed down the toilet, and told I'm just not giving enough.

You are partially right.

A huge part of the problem is that not all students have a home environment that pushes them to learn and study. This is precisely why we need to focus more budgets on schools, so that the luck of the draw of whether you are born into a wealthy family with a understanding of the importance of education isn't the biggest determination of your success in life as it is today. Kids born into troubled families or families where parents have to work three jobs and simply can't help their kids with homework, etc. are going to have a much more difficult time achieving success than kids who have support at home. Schools need to make up for this difference such that ALL students have an equal opportunity at success, regardless of their home environment.

Again, this is not a handout for disadvantaged kids. It's rather an investment in society. Our society as a whole becomes better, with less violent crime, and higher GDP the greater education our nation has. If we are only relying on the kids of wealthy families with an education focus to fulfill these needs we are leaving lots of talent on the table, and our entire nation suffers as a result.

 

[fairlane]

That picture under he [H] headline is fucking CLASSIC!

 

[Nobified[H]]

The problem is that the job market can only support so many people with degrees. So what ends up happening is that the value of the degree just goes down, and people have to become further educated. It doesn't help that our education system has shifted their curriculum has college prep, versus life prep. No real financial education in high school, no education in trades, etc. We've built our education system to send kids off to college even though the market can't support it. So we've ended up with a bunch of 20-somethings with worthless degrees, debt for the education, no job to move into, and no skill in something that is actually valuable like plumbing.

Meanwhile skilled trade jobs are in high demand for bodies and actually are paying more on average but kids these days have been led to believe they need higher education to make good money. A plumber will never be an automated job until robots have the dexterity to match - And that's a long ways off.

I'm in my mid 30's and of my 5 cousins in my age group in our family i'm earning far more, and have zero debt. Why? I'm the only one that didn't go to college, and I was willing to move where the jobs were.

Absolutely, I agree with you 100%!

 

[tetris42]

But what we are talking about in this thread is about the effects of stuff like washing machines, printing presses, refrigeration and cotton gins and how it has shifted unskilled jobs as time has gone by. You are talking about the after affects of war which is completely different. You said both WWI and WWII, of which Germany came out of in ruins for both, but I'm not sure if you meant both or 1 or the other. If you were referring to the Weimar Republic, that was purely political (on both sides) and has nothing to do with what we are talking about here.

Where did I say post WWII?

Anyway, the point is a devastated economy can "adapt" in all kinds of directions, often not good. As for you other point, I've brought this up in other threads, here's the short version:

Industrial Revolution: lots of jobs lost, but all kinds of new ones created due to new opportunities. Lose your job as a weaver, get a new job at the new cog-making factory.
Computer / internet revolution: Lots of jobs lost, but all kinds of new ones created due to new opportunities. Lose your job as a filing clerk, get a new one as a programmer.
Coming robot revolution: Lots of jobs lost... I'm not seeing the new opportunities. Yes, programming and maintenance will be needed, but by definition that will be a LOT less jobs than are being lost, otherwise robots wouldn't be economical in the first place. The WHOLE POINT of robots is to displace workers entirely.

In both the industrial revolution and the rise of the internet, we didn't envision EVERY new job that came up, but it was obvious there were lots of new fields cropping up with a lot of brand new employment opportunities. I have not heard anyone in this forum propose ONE new opportunity (besides robot design, construction, and maintenance, which again, simple math tells us will be at a net loss) coming from this. If you think this is no different, by all means, enlighten me on what's going to replace some 50 million jobs that the article is implying we'll lose.

 

[Ducman69]

Things we should be doing: Pay teachers better.

Why are teachers paid so much more in the US than South Korea and Japan, and yet with results so drastically poorer? If we are spending three times as much per student in the US as South Korea, and our scores in math, language, and science are so much lower, how is increasing that expenditure to four or five times as much going to change results?

Remove the financial burden associated with higher education so that anyone who is qualified and wants a degree or advanced degrees can get them. Students shouldn't have to go into crushing debt in order to become educated.

How are you going to reduce costs, or alternatively, who is going to pay for it? If I'm bled completely dry paying for Cletus and Trayvon's time to drink beer and party up in the college dorms, how am I affording to take classes and certifications to further my own career? The best students are already getting scholarships, and the rest can earn their college degrees by serving their country. And if either is an option they don't want, they can take a loan and pay it back. You aren't lowering the money going into universities, you're just changing who is paying the bill.

The truth is this. With higher average education, GDP per capita goes up, and violent crime goes down.

That's a self-selection process. Gang bangers don't even graduate highschool, even though that is available to them. Thus they remove themselves from the higher education pool, which leaves the remaining better people earning more money and with lower crime rates.

 

[Ducman69]

A huge part of the problem is that not all students have a home environment that pushes them to learn and study. This is precisely why we need to focus more budgets on schools, so that the luck of the draw of whether you are born into a wealthy family with a understanding of the importance of education isn't the biggest determination of your success in life as it is today. Kids born into troubled families or families where parents have to work three jobs and simply can't help their kids with homework, etc. are going to have a much more difficult time achieving success than kids who have support at home

Then how do you explain the graph that shows that the absolute poorest poverty level Asian males are scoring 30% higher on standardized tests than the most afluent wealthy bracket black females?

How are countries with lower per capita GDPs that are spending 1/3rd as much per student drastically outperforming American students on average in standardized tests? Your logic doesn't add up.

 

[Mchart]

I think you are completely misinterpreting my suggestion.

I would support policies in the U.S. to make it possible for anyone who wants to gain higher education to do so, NOT to force anyone to do so.

There IS something to be said for a forced minimum level of education, and we already have that for minors. There certainly needs to be improvements here, as the quality of that education needs to improve.

Things we should be doing:

• Pay teachers better. Nothing is more important than educating the next generation of Americans. We should be paying teachers like doctors, not paying them starvation wages. While there are many good and idealistic teachers really dedicated to doing their job well, in general, you get what you pay for. If we want high caliber people teaching our kids, we are going to ahve to PAY for high caliber people, or they will go elsewhere. We need to elevate teaching to a high status position, as those responsible for the success of our next generations, not some starvation wage slaves.
• Get religion and politics out of schools, and let teachers teach the latest science. None of this Kansas school board shit, or editing of text books to reflect the political ideals of some misguided people. Education needs to be fact based, not ideology based. It should never be about indoctrination.
• Remove the financial burden associated with higher education so that anyone who is qualified and wants a degree or advanced degrees can get them. Students shouldn't have to go into crushing debt in order to become educated. I suggest not just tuition-free education, but also - as they do in Scandinavian countries - paying students in higher education a small stipend so they can live while getting educated without being forced to be distracted by working a job to survive. Yes, a lot of people will hate this, calling it handouts, but we need to stop looking at it as handouts for the personal benefit of the few, and rather see it as an investment in the success of our nation. The more better educated people we have in the country, the more successful we will be. The more new ideas will be started here to drive our economy and benefits ALL of us, not just those benefiting from the education programs.

I still hate the fact that I can't put spaces between bullet points in the new forum.

The truth is this. With higher average education, GDP per capita goes up, and violent crime goes down. Will EVERYONE be able to be educated? Maybe not. The 100% figure above was an exaggeration, but that doesn't mean that our goal should be to drive education as high as we possibly can, removing any and all obstacles to getting there, such as poor k-12 school districts, financial burdens of going to college, and the need to eat while studying.

We should be focused - as an education policy - on making it as easy as humanly possible for as many people as possible to become highly educated. Our future depends on it.

The fact that we are larger doesn't mean that we can't do it. We may have a larger problem to solve with more people, but we also have more people and more money to solve it with. Our size as a reason why we cant do this is a total red herring.

I do agree with some concerns though. For instance, many of the non-professional education tracks are not very marketable, and maybe these are not the ones we should be subsidizing, but even so, the numbers don't lie. Total correlation. GDP per capita goes up with education, and violent crime rates go down.

Really disagree with your third point. The reason higher education has become so expensive is because of pure supply/demand. Forcing kids to get these higher degrees will not resolve the issue that the jobs just aren't there. If you make higher education free you will only saturate the job market further and make those jobs become even less valuable. If parents/kids were smart they'd not be sending their kids to college to get worthless degrees and pushing them into areas that are actually in high demand for the labor and are thus paying good.

 

[Mchart]

Then how do you explain the graph that shows that the absolute poorest poverty level Asian males are scoring 30% higher on standardized tests than the most afluent wealthy bracket black females?

How are countries with lower per capita GDPs that are spending 1/3rd as much per student drastically outperforming American students on average in standardized tests? Your logic doesn't add up.

While I do agree with you to some extent; I also caution against using standardized tests as the 'metric'. China in particular has kids scoring so well because they teach their kids the ins and outs of a test, and there is rampant cheating from many of the Asians countries. Their entire system is setup to pass a test not actually understanding the concepts and how they actually apply.

Unfortunately the US system is slowly turning into this as well. Passing the test is all that matters, not actually getting a good education.

 

[westrock2000]

Where did I say post WWII?
.......
Industrial Revolution: lots of jobs lost, but all kinds of new ones created due to new opportunities. Lose your job as a weaver, get a new job at the new cog-making factory..
.......
The WHOLE POINT of robots is to displace workers entirely.
......
If you think this is no different, by all means, enlighten me on what's going to replace some 50 million jobs that the article is implying we'll lose.

You are correct, I thought I saw two I's on your first post, my apologies, but I think we still ended pointing to the same time period (1920-1930).

We are not saying different things, only our perspective is different. A robot is no different then a clothes washing machine. It serves the same purpose. How many jobs were displaced by that robot? How many people lost their job to the printing press? The automobile? Yet somehow, through all of that, our population still manages to employee a large part of the population. I'm not going to pretend to know what jobs will exist in 100 years or 500 years. But I can tell you that the job I have now did not exist 100 years ago. It would have been considered magic 100 years ago. But 100 years ago I could have still been in exactly the same social position I am now....doing something that would seem trivial today.

Agriculture used to be the biggest industry in this country, now its practically nothing. We are still here. Nobody guessed how thing would be today, and no one can guess the future. Nobody saw the smart phone 10 years before it happened, yet today its ubiquitous.

Yes, I do have a personal dream of no one working menial jobs and having freedom to expand their minds. But that it not going to happen using ANY system that exists today. So I'm not going to pout about it or preach doom. There will be some suffering along the way for sure, but over all, humanity will make it.

 

[tetris42]

You are correct, I thought I saw two I's on your first post, my apologies, but I think we still ended pointing to the same time period (1920-1930).

We are not saying different things, only our perspective is different. A robot is no different then a clothes washing machine. It serves the same purpose. How many jobs were displaced by that robot? How many people lost their job to the printing press? The automobile? Yet somehow, through all of that, our population still manages to employee a large part of the population. I'm not going to pretend to know what jobs will exist in 100 years or 500 years. But I can tell you that the job I have now did not exist 100 years ago. It would have been considered magic 100 years ago. But 100 years ago I could have still been in exactly the same social position I am now....doing something that would seem trivial today.

Agriculture used to be the biggest industry in this country, now its practically nothing. We are still here. Nobody guessed how thing would be today, and no one can guess the future. Nobody saw the smart phone 10 years before it happened, yet today its ubiquitous.

Yes, I do have a personal dream of no one working menial jobs and having freedom to expand their minds. But that it not going to happen using ANY system that exists today. So I'm not going to pout about it or preach doom. There will be some suffering along the way for sure, but over all, humanity will make it.

You're talking about jobs 50 to 100 years, this article is talking about jobs in 13 years. If you're going to support your argument, we can't even envision ANY of the new job opportunities we'll be looking at by then? Of course we can't envision them all, but in both the previous periods, we were seeing new things emerge in different fields made possible by the new technology that weren't there before. So shucks, the computer software took my job as a file clerk, but hey, maybe I can buy and sell stuff through these new websites and make money that way. If you can't name ANY job opportunities that are coming from this (besides basic design and maintenance), then it sounds like you're making a faith-based argument that everything will all work out. I kind of need evidence to share that view.

As for "no one can guess the future", no, you're wrong. We can absolutely GUESS much of the future, especially 13 years out. Eisenhower was warning about the future influence of the military industrial complex back in the 60s. Plenty of people saw the 2007 crash coming. Of course nobody KNOWS the future, but there's a world of difference between blind faith and making an educated guess. The latter needs something to base it on.

I do agree with you though, that HUMANITY will make it. The part I'm more skeptical about is millions of additional poor and middle class people dying due to societal breakdown along the way.

 

[westrock2000]

.

Most of the stuff you said is altruistic, in a good way. Human life sucks, it's good to try to fix it, but that condition will remain none-the-less. I want to help too, but so many people suffer every single day it's mind boggling. More people suffer then enjoy. You hear some sob story on the news and it breaks your heart, but that same situation plays out 100 times a day across the planet.

Our society as a whole becomes better, with less violent crime, and higher GDP the greater education our nation has.

But, this particular thing you mentioned several times, and I would say: What proof do you have? America has the highest GDP in the world. Violent crimes? No one knows the answer to that. We aren't Sweden or Britain. There is much advantage to being small, compact, and somewhat culturally homogeneous. Don't be confused by "murder rate" or "gun violence". Many of the more sophisticated countries simply took away their citizens ability to do damage. Look at assault rates or general crime rates. America isn't great, but it's not terrible either. As I said earlier, you have a lot of freedom in this country. You can go kill/rape/rob/assault who ever you want. It is your right. There is very little that can be done to prevent you from doing that. We can only deal with it after the fact.

 

[Nafensoriel]

You are on to something with this......but flesh it our more. What purpose is money serving in your example? If you freeze the value of money, then it's not money. How does money get value? You recognize that money is the problem, but the concept of money is so ingrained in your mind that you try to come up with a solution that includes it somehow.

Eventually automation can yield more production than society can consume at a real estate space low enough to be considered public domain. If an item falls into this category it no longer is technically proper to have it be traded by money. It is now a good within an automated society that can be removed from the economy without effect.

Think wheat farms. If full automation happened yields would go up rather heavily. If AI deep learning was thrown at increasing those yields sustainably you don't even have to do the math to know you would see more consistent supply. By the time the entire world shifted over to this new system of farming you would be facing large surpluses.

This sudden oversupply doesn't mean you cant go buy a loaf of hand made bread from a store for actual currency. It also has exactly zero functional effects on the price of beef. All it means is you can state supply a basic good to satisfy a life need for less total currency cost than actually providing currency and thanks to automation the usual issues of corruption and graft are less of an issue so the system can remain stable and predictable for far larger periods of time.

Realistically in 100 years a basic T-Shirt and a basic pair of pants shouldn't cost anyone a dime. They already barely cost any money anyway. Would it not be more efficient and satisfy more quality of life to simply pay for the distribution and allow anyone free access to this?

You most certainly couldn't satisfy everything.. but even cautiously I could see enough industry get cheap enough to supply a very basic life for people without it ever being vulnerable to inflation or heavy corruption.

 

[Nobified[H]]

Just a question, if our Gov't Dollar goes to ZERO. Will uncle sam stop people from living in the woods and going back to the 1800's? Should I buy black powder guns?

 

[SticKx911]

Check out all the unfilled industrial maintenance jobs. Trade schools can't pump technicians out fast enough to keep up with the demand(and increased automation).

But maintenance doesn't pay well enough to attract a lot of people. It's hard work and unless you own a successful business you'll likely never make more than 100k ish.

 

[alxlwson]

But maintenance doesn't pay well enough to attract a lot of people. It's hard work and unless you own a successful business you'll likely never make more than 100k ish.

I make nearly 100k in industrial maintenance as a technician...
Most maintenance, especially in automotive is low to mid 30's/hr. It is hard work. It's not for pussies.

I don't know of many jobs that you can easily pull in 100k within 18 months, with no experience and a certificate.

 

[nilepez]

Great reason for me to stay in the maintenance field. All those robots will break at some point.

Not a big deal, because we've got maintenance robots that fix robots as well as themselves

 

[westrock2000]

As for "no one can guess the future", no, you're wrong. We can absolutely GUESS much of the future, especially 13 years out. Eisenhower was warning about the future influence of the military industrial complex back in the 60s. Plenty of people saw the 2007 crash coming. Of course nobody KNOWS the future, but there's a world of difference between blind faith and making an educated guess. The latter needs something to base it on.

There was nothing special there. Eisenhower was born before WW1 so he saw the history of war being the catalyst for every major society in mankind and he lived through the mechanization of war making WW1 the most disturbing conflict ever seen. Looking at the past, he saw a very bleak future. And yet, 70 years without any major powers having direct conflict. Everyone at that time thought the world would end and instead just the opposite happened, we came to a situation never before experienced, MAD.

That "military industrial complex" phrase is the popular take away from that speech, but it's important to note that he also referenced the education system.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.

The 2008 crisis was practically destined to happened. Derivatives and credit default swaps made it economically enticing. We, the tax payers, didn't bail out the banks. We bailed out the insurance policy holders that hedged that the economic collapse would happen. A lot of people walked away very happy with the bail out of AGI.

But again, these are all policies. We can expect these things to happen as they do over and over....the severity changes as it gets more complex. There WILL be another war between super powers. There will be an even worse financial crisis. But what we do not know is what kind of computers will exist in the future or who will make them. We do not know if humans will live only on Earth. We do not know how long it will take a human to travel 100 miles using the standard transportation method that time.

 

[nilepez]

good, if you force people to get an education, then we may just evolve as a species.

What? You don't think that jobs that currently require a degree will be automated? I do. I don't know how long it will take, but it's going to happen.

 

[M76]

Robot's will steal your job, but that's OK

 

[nilepez]

I feel like people are being silly not getting educations and then complaining that they don't have jobs.
We have long since moved on to a knowledge economy. The expectation of being able to make a living without a degree is what is the problem.
We need to get it to the point where 100% of everyone gets degrees.

1. Not everyone is college material.
2. College jobs will be replaced by software/machines.

 

[westrock2000]

I make nearly 100k in industrial maintenance as a technician...
Most maintenance, especially in automotive is low to mid 30's/hr. It is hard work. It's not for pussies.

I'm right there with you. I would not consider my job "hard", but it does take some determination. But that's not something taught in school. I only have a 2 year degree.

My only complaint is that $100K actually just doesn't mean that much anymore.

My complaint going forward with my life is that companies introduce (possibly artificial) paygrade walls based on education levels. They say "with a 2 year degree you can make up to this amount and any higher you need a 4 year degree or doctorate or something". Where as in the past, even just 10-15 years ago, many companies allowed experience to substitute education. So the guy with 25 years experience could have a fair shot against the kid fresh out of college. Now the industry veteran is stuck unless they find time to get an education. I do not particularly like this. But it does allow companies to cut costs, by capping those employees that have been in the industry too long, and bringing in college kids who will work for far less. I am pretty sure the "engineers" I work with make significantly less money then I do yet they are considered higher then me on the totem pole. So much for pay equality.....

 

[alxlwson]

I'm right there with you. I would not consider my job "hard", but it does take some determination. But that's not something taught in school. I only have a 2 year degree.

My only complaint is that $100K actually just doesn't mean that much anymore.

My complaint going forward with my life is that companies introduce (possibly artificial) paygrade walls based on education levels. They say "with a 2 year degree you can make up to this amount and any higher you need a 4 year degree or doctorate or something". Where as in the past, even just 10-15 years ago, many companies allowed experience to substitute education. So the guy with 25 years experience could have a fair shot against the kid fresh out of college. Now the industry veteran is stuck unless they find time to get an education. I do not particularly like this. But it does allow companies to cut costs, by capping those employees that have been in the industry too long, and bringing in college kids who will work for far less. I am pretty sure the "engineers" I work with make significantly less money then I do yet they are considered higher then me on the totem pole. So much for pay equality.....

I only have a certificate.

 

[westrock2000]

I only have a certificate.

Then I applaud you! Working the system is a valuable skill my friend

 

[alxlwson]

Then I applaud you! Working the system is a valuable skill my friend

Working the system? I started as an apprentice, never even seeing a motor starter before. Went to school, one course a semester while working full time and every other weekend. Got my certificate this past December(Only took four years lol). I make good money because I work hard, I'm a good fucking technician and don't have any rework, reliable, and go above and beyond with each job, and my customers love me. I've earned my pay. Hard to game the system when my bosses were once in my shoes. If you're in maintenance, you should know that. Well, unless you're one of those lazy fucks protected by union dues.

 

[westrock2000]

Just a question, if our Gov't Dollar goes to ZERO. Will uncle sam stop people from living in the woods and going back to the 1800's? Should I buy black powder guns?

The government was nice enough to define that anything made before 1899 (or newer if modeled after those made before 1899) is not legally a gun. So you don't have to wait, you can buy them now!

 

[Gorankar]

Hit hardest? No, the US, CAN, and EU will be hit first due to high labor costs. Hardest will be Asia. The current source of so much unskilled labor.

I actually worry more for professional workers than I do menials. There will always be some service jobs, even if it is just prostitution. But some entry level legal jobs can already be replaced with machine intelligence. Educators can often be replaced with a fricken recording of themselves teaching a class, with a searchable database for answering questions.

 

[westrock2000]

Working the system? I started as an apprentice, never even seeing a motor starter before. Went to school, one course a semester while working full time and every other weekend. Got my certificate this past December. I make good money because I work hard, I'm a good fucking technician and don't have any rework, reliable, and go above and beyond with each job, and my customers love me. I've earned my pay. Hard to game the system when my bosses were once in my shoes. If you're in maintenance, you should know that. Well, unless you're one of those lazy fucks protected by union dues.

Understanding what make you a valuable investment to a company and worth being paid good enough money to live a comfortable life is exactly what working the system is all about. The people that come in late, use all vacation time, do the minimum requirement and STILL expect a 5% raise every year are normal people.

 

[alxlwson]

Understanding what make you a valuable investment to a company and worth being paid good enough money to live a comfortable life is exactly what working the system is all about. The people that come in late, use all vacation time, do the minimum requirement and STILL expect a 5% raise every year are normal people.

Ahh, gotcha. I thought you were insinuating the other, more common usage of working the system. You know, brown nosers, smoke blowers, people that had folding teeth installed. Lol

 

[westrock2000]

Hit hardest? No, the US, CAN, and EU will be hit first due to high labor costs. Hardest will be Asia. The current source of so much unskilled labor.

Even if it is just prostitution, but some entry level legal jobs can already be replaced with machine intelligence.

Just wondering...is the yellow part a continuation of the thought of the red part or are they separate thoughts? I have a friend that is wondering.

 

[tetris42]

But again, these are all policies. We can expect these things to happen as they do over and over....the severity changes as it gets more complex. There WILL be another war between super powers. There will be an even worse financial crisis. But what we do not know is what kind of computers will exist in the future or who will make them. We do not know if humans will live only on Earth. We do not know how long it will take a human to travel 100 miles using the standard transportation method that time.

I'm not even sure what your stance is now. The article is saying 40% of current jobs lost in 13 years with not a hell of a lot to replace them. You're saying we'll have a major war between superpowers, which of course have nuclear armaments, and a worse economic crisis (I agree on that part) than we've seen before, therefore everything is fine? Yeah, life is just rosy from upper-middle class and above in the future I suppose.

 

[Gorankar]

Just wondering...is the yellow part a continuation of the thought of the red part or are they separate thoughts? I have a friend that is wondering.

LOL, comma and period in wrong places. Freudian slip perhaps. Fixed.