Automated Job Loss - Now What?

[billisonboard]

Two discussions on the board got me thinking.



If we automate ourselves out of the need for large numbers of human beings to engage in fruitful labor, what are they to do with their time and energy?



One idea is maybe they can use it to come up with silly ideas and lecture others about them. Not everyone will be able to get a job fixing the robots at fast food joints.

[MJ2.0]

1. Mechanics to fix the robots
2. Engineers to create the robots
3. electricians to wire/re-wire the robots

There are still way too many jobs that need human beings - hairdresser/barber, teacher, social worker, artist ... basically any creative or people-centric job.

[Virgil Showlion]

Should we assume the owners of the production will want to share the profits with the "useless eaters", and that the unemployed masses will be content with whatever charity is handed down by the owners of the production?

If not, then "all out class warfare" comes to mind as an answer to your question.

[GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl]

I'm of the belief that, just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be.

Sometimes, the costs far outweigh the benefits.

I cannot for the life of me see how automating most jobs is a viable goal if it means we will end up with millions of unemployable people who need to be supported via welfare rolls.



Who thought up this stupid idea and can I get up close enough to smack some sense into him/her?   

[Tiny]

I predict that "natural" living will become a thing. In other words - people will take up a "kind of" Amish way of life - they will farm, raise animals, hand make what they need. They will build communities. - all without modern conveniences (or maybe just select conveniences).

The thing is - automation depends on Demand... if there is no demand for what the automated things are creating... we don't really need the automation.

[MJ2.0]

yeah - as annoying as the hipsters are, they are really on to something with fresh homegrown food, appreciation for art and nature, and close community living. We need more of that.

Wait, am I a hipster?





No. I don't drink Pabst Blue Ribbon.

[cronewitch]

We separate the workers from the non workers. More will be called disabled, more kept in school more years, more allowed to be welfare bums, more part time, part welfare, more retire sooner.

In history children started working at 2 and didn't quit until death, on farms the very young and very old feed chickens, snapped beans, weeded gardens. The stupid still worked anyone could muck a barn or use a plow, pluck chickens, child labor like milking cows so a child was lucky to get an 8th grade education.

Now we say the child shouldn't work, cow milking is done by machines, chickens are feed and plucked in industrial settings, so we knocked off all the child labor for preteens. Now if you are mentally handicapped you can get SSI so you don't need to find work mucking barns and plows are now expensive farm equipment not something anyone can use. So we set aside all the less mentally able from most labor. Physically disabled also may get off from needing to work too so those who are disabled get SSI or SSDI and opt out of working even if only slightly disabled. My friend hasn't worked in many years from a handicapped but still has a lot of fun activities she doesn't seem slowed down from doing, she is in pain but her work was computers she could have kept working if she needed to.

Many now are working part time, fast food, retail and other jobs 20 hours a week trying to raise children on that. Give them section 8 and food stamps and medicaid and they aren't going to demand better jobs or train for better jobs. Let them think they are outsmarting others since they live almost free and they think they are doing the best they can, once a year a tax refund so they are rich for a day or two.

So not working until 16, smarter kids going to college until 22-23 even longer then working from 25-60 or so making good money if they have good skills and smarts but retire young.
Less smart, less driven kids have babies before they are ready work marginal jobs from 16-70 with lots of taxpayer support.
Unable kids never get into the labor force at all.
People with poor health or poor mental health become disabled at 50 and coast out on SSDI, Medicaid then later Medicaid nursing homes

The problem people are the ones on drugs and alcohol living homeless. They aren't supported enough to get on welfare programs like section 8 and food stamps and have not enough income to live indoors.

We could assign people to rolls but we don't we let them figure out where they want to be. We could give more to SSI so those don't need as much other welfare $733 isn't much, or we could put in more public housing but they turn to slums. We could force companies to give part time workers full time at higher pay but that drives them out of business or more machines. We could tell parents they get a year off for each baby with pay so that takes two years out of the labor force for each child born or adopted.

We could make work, there is always something that needs done like working in parks so the government hires everyone who can't find work and pays them a living wage.

[ArchietheDragon]

The workforce is not going to even be recognizable in a couple hundred years.   You and I would be lost trying to figure out what they heck the people were doing for work.  

[souldoubt]

Historically people would adapt to survive like they've been doing since mankind starting roaming the earth but these days the government has allowed some people to become too dependent on it.  Whatever happens the middle class will continue to get screwed the most and will continue to shrink.   

[tallguy]

Logan's Run

[MJ2.0]

Wall-E or Idiocracy is more likely. Also The Purge.

[movingforward]

May 17, 2016 10:12:55 GMT -5 GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl said:

I'm of the belief that, just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be.

Sometimes, the costs far outweigh the benefits.

I cannot for the life of me see how automating most jobs is a viable goal if it means we will end up with millions of unemployable people who need to be supported via welfare rolls.



Who thought up this stupid idea and can I get up close enough to smack some sense into him/her?   

They were talking on the radio this morning about how Amazon is looking into deliveries via drones.  There are problems with this, of course, because they have to get permission from every person in the drone flying area.  I am hating this idea but it could be the waive of the future. 

I went to Panera on Sunday for lunch.  They have installed ipads that you can use to place an order.  There were about 5-6 of them and none of them were in use.  Everyone was waiting in line.  I thought "hey, I will use this instead of waiting in line."  Well, it took me about 15 seconds to figure out why no one was using them.  They kind of suck...I ended up just waiting in line.  I am pretty sure I ordered faster just by waiting in line and plus I didn't have to do anything but walk up and tell them what I want. 

All this technology is great for certain things.  I LOVE being able to book travel online, order specific items for home delivery, etc.  but there are just certain things that I really prefer a human to do. 

[dannylion]

It is possible that the new technologies will spawn whole new job categories for people and whole new fields of endeavor that we can't even imagine now.  Trying to put the genie back in the bottle and reject advances in technology or whole technologies is unrealistic.  For every 10 people who embrace a "simple" lifestyle, there will be a thousand who embrace every advance in technology.  We will either learn to adapt and find new ways to be human and productive, or we will be squished by the technology we created or eaten by bears (or aliens).

I, for one, will welcome our robot overlords. 

Also, those hipster man-buns are really, really annoying. 

[Tiny]

There's always the possibility that increased automation will simply leave people to their own devices - some will spiral down into addiction or will be left to cope with their mental illness on their own. People who have some drive/motivation or appear to have the mental acuity will be plucked from the masses and become the

1. Mechanics to fix the robots
2. Engineers to create the robots
3. electricians to wire/re-wire the robots

Life won't be tooth and claw for those not actually "working" - there will be shelter/food and thriving grey and black markets.   But they may  be kind of aimless  - their lives will be all about social media and what celebrity is doing what... they need to fill their days with something.    

Not sure it will really be a dystopian future (well, it will be for some... )

Maybe it will be more of a "clock work orange" or the difference in classes/society (not environmental issues) of "Soylent Green" kind of future.   

I would go with a Metropolis kinda future - but I think there will be a 'third' group  beyond workers and people of leisure (the artists, philosopers, do-gooders, just generally not hurting others but living a life they enjoy, and the leaders)  the non-worker/not really engaging in useful or self actualizing leisure activities people.  Not sure how those 3 groups can 'interact' productively....   

Don't we already have countries where the population is quite stratified?   Not to pick on any country in partidular - but Saudi Arabia (really really rich people who barely work or don't need to work with an underclass of poor people working for the rich people?)   Or India or China or Africa -  many people still living an agrarian non-mechanized life style with lots of people living with modernizations?   

I'm not sure America has large populations of "subsistence farmers"  but maybe we do...  

   

[Tiny]

Maybe living a 'slower' less connected life - where doing daily labor like say on a farm or in a 'studio' producing limited numbers of higher end goods) won't be so looked down on... Does everything a person (or group of people or family) produces NEED to constantly produce more?

Should a family owned business really need to become a 'chain' of businesses or a name brand to be considered a "livelihood" or a success? Why isn't it enough for a family owned business to provide for the family that's running it... why do they have to become Gazillion-aires for it to be a 'success' ?  

I think we'll see a break down of the 'big box stores' to more locally run smaller chains.  

Kind of see it with breweries/distilleries - there's also of small breweries/distilleries attracting a following - and people willing to visit local breweries/distilleries in other cities.  It's not about being able to have whatever 'flavor' of beer you want on the shelf in a fridge down at the convenience store - it's about being there to 'experience' the seasonal beer(s) that has a limited run. 

Consistancy and replication of the same old same old is loosing some of it's cache.

I think that's the draw of a 'farmers' market or a farm box (and even whole foods) the idea that it's OK to try veggies in season and just because Russian Kale is available today - it doesn't mean it will be available tomorrow or next week or even next year.   If blue potatoes are available - buy them  and eat them... they wont' become a 'staple'.  It's kind of menu planning around 'staples' but then adding what's available to those staples.    Kinda the way people use to eat back before everything under the sun was required to be shipped in and available  year round. 

I see it in clothing and household fashions - people don't necessarily want to have wear or have the exact same thing as their neighbors.      it's about individuality and personal style AND NOT having the same individuality/style as the group you identify with. 

[alabamagal]

May 17, 2016 10:03:56 GMT -5 MJ2.0 said:

1. Mechanics to fix the robots
2. Engineers to create the robots
3. electricians to wire/re-wire the robots

There are still way too many jobs that need human beings - hairdresser/barber, teacher, social worker, artist ... basically any creative or people-centric job.

I am thinking of a machine where you pick out your hair style, stick your head in and the machine automatically cuts, styles and colors your hair.  What an idea.  Maybe you could also pick out a conversation subject to listen to!

Or maybe we could all just shave our heads and have a 3D printer make us a wig!

[teen persuasion]

May 17, 2016 12:11:31 GMT -5 alabamagal said:

May 17, 2016 10:03:56 GMT -5 MJ2.0 said:

1. Mechanics to fix the robots
2. Engineers to create the robots
3. electricians to wire/re-wire the robots

There are still way too many jobs that need human beings - hairdresser/barber, teacher, social worker, artist ... basically any creative or people-centric job.

I am thinking of a machine where you pick out your hair style, stick your head in and the machine automatically cuts, styles and colors your hair.  What an idea.  Maybe you could also pick out a conversation subject to listen to!

Or maybe we could all just shave our heads and have a 3D printer make us a wig!

Have you ever seen Chitty Chitty Bang Bang?  There is a scene with a hair cutting invention - let's just say, it doesn't end well.

[wvugurl26]

The online ordering for Panera works very well. Show up, skip around the line out the door and get your food. My locations don't have iPads though.

I've noticed several restaurants have tablet like devices on the table now. You can supposedly order appetizers and drinks. And your kids can play games for a small fee. I've only used them to pay the bill.

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

May 17, 2016 14:11:00 GMT -5 wvugurl26 said:

I've noticed several restaurants have tablet like devices on the table now. You can supposedly order appetizers and drinks. And your kids can play games for a small fee. I've only used them to pay the bill.

One of the airports I flew through the last couple years had this.  I was on a red eye and had a couple hours before my connection so went to get breakfast.  It was a sit down restaurant too.  You placed the order on the tablet, paid and a few minutes later your meal was delivered to you.

Last night we were at Red Robin and you can get your bill this way now too.  No need to wait for the waitstaff to deliver it.  It's not going to be a huge leap to go from ordering from the tablets too, it would not surprise me if this happens within the next year or so.

[tskeeter]

May 17, 2016 10:12:55 GMT -5 GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl said:

I'm of the belief that, just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be.

Sometimes, the costs far outweigh the benefits.

I cannot for the life of me see how automating most jobs is a viable goal if it means we will end up with millions of unemployable people who need to be supported via welfare rolls.



Who thought up this stupid idea and can I get up close enough to smack some sense into him/her?   

That's why the economics of using labor vs. capital needs to be considered.  If you increase the cost of labor enough, it becomes economically desirable for businesses to invest their dollars in capital vs. labor.  So, one has to ask if increasing labor costs by mandating increases in minimum wages and the like, and making tens of thousands of people unemployable, creates a cost that outweighs any benefit that might be obtained. 

[Shooby]

  New industries arise.  Look at the entertainment industry.  We went from a couple of channels to an explosion of technology, music, internet, etc which created new jobs.  If people have more leisure time and presumably disposable income, they are going to find a way to spend it.  And people will step in to offer services.

[tskeeter]

May 17, 2016 12:10:29 GMT -5 Tiny said:

Maybe living a 'slower' less connected life - where doing daily labor like say on a farm or in a 'studio' producing limited numbers of higher end goods) won't be so looked down on... Does everything a person (or group of people or family) produces NEED to constantly produce more?

Should a family owned business really need to become a 'chain' of businesses or a name brand to be considered a "livelihood" or a success? Why isn't it enough for a family owned business to provide for the family that's running it... why do they have to become Gazillion-aires for it to be a 'success' ?  

I think we'll see a break down of the 'big box stores' to more locally run smaller chains.  

Kind of see it with breweries/distilleries - there's also of small breweries/distilleries attracting a following - and people willing to visit local breweries/distilleries in other cities.  It's not about being able to have whatever 'flavor' of beer you want on the shelf in a fridge down at the convenience store - it's about being there to 'experience' the seasonal beer(s) that has a limited run. 

Consistancy and replication of the same old same old is loosing some of it's cache.

I think that's the draw of a 'farmers' market or a farm box (and even whole foods) the idea that it's OK to try veggies in season and just because Russian Kale is available today - it doesn't mean it will be available tomorrow or next week or even next year.   If blue potatoes are available - buy them  and eat them... they wont' become a 'staple'.  It's kind of menu planning around 'staples' but then adding what's available to those staples.    Kinda the way people use to eat back before everything under the sun was required to be shipped in and available  year round. 

I see it in clothing and household fashions - people don't necessarily want to have wear or have the exact same thing as their neighbors.      it's about individuality and personal style AND NOT having the same individuality/style as the group you identify with. 

I think many of your examples reflect the economics of high income families.  A micro brew is more expensive than a Bud, produce from the farmers market is more expensive than Safeway, etc.  But, a portion of the population can afford to pay higher prices for goods they believe are higher quality than the lower cost goods.  And they can afford to pay for goods that might be indulgences.  If people were just getting by, they'd be buying cheap beer instead of expensive microbrews.

[happyhoix]

May 17, 2016 10:12:55 GMT -5 GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl said:

I'm of the belief that, just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be.

Sometimes, the costs far outweigh the benefits.

I cannot for the life of me see how automating most jobs is a viable goal if it means we will end up with millions of unemployable people who need to be supported via welfare rolls.



Who thought up this stupid idea and can I get up close enough to smack some sense into him/her?   

it depends on the job and on the workforce.

We have some jobs that a machine could do, but the jobs are easy, not dangerous and can be done by inexpensive temp labor, so it isn't cost effective to replace the temps with a machine.

However, for jobs that can be dangerous, like working in a paint booth exposed to paint fumes all day, you reduce how much you have to pay for skilled labor plus you eliminate someone getting injured (or caught on fire) due to the paint fumes. Plus a machine can work 3 shifts without stopping or making a mistake. So for some dangerous and/or highly technical jobs, machines can be cost effective.

Right now, labor is fairly cheap and it's usually easy to get unskilled laborers. However, if we had some sudden loss of manpower (due to a pandemic disease, for instance, or for countries that don't allow immigration and who have a negative birth rate, like Japan) it would make switching to more machines cost effective, but other places (like India or China) will probably continue to have plenty of cheap labor for a long time to come.

[GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl]

May 17, 2016 10:48:20 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

It will be a major challenge of the next X years.

But it could get worse still. A growing number of techies are mumbling about the possibility of malevolent AI going forward, as computers and robots become more sophisticated. What if they decide that they don't need us? Perhaps it is time to remember Asimov's prime directive.

[Tiny]

May 17, 2016 14:39:08 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

May 17, 2016 14:11:00 GMT -5 wvugurl26 said:

I've noticed several restaurants have tablet like devices on the table now. You can supposedly order appetizers and drinks. And your kids can play games for a small fee. I've only used them to pay the bill.

One of the airports I flew through the last couple years had this.  I was on a red eye and had a couple hours before my connection so went to get breakfast.  It was a sit down restaurant too.  You placed the order on the tablet, paid and a few minutes later your meal was delivered to you.

Last night we were at Red Robin and you can get your bill this way now too.  No need to wait for the waitstaff to deliver it.  It's not going to be a huge leap to go from ordering from the tablets too, it would not surprise me if this happens within the next year or so.

This is all starting to sound like the Automat Restaurants of the 40's....

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automat

In the modern era - you'd order your food at the tablet in front of the 'restaurant' and maybe reserve a numbered table (you'd see which were open when you were ordering) you'd probably pay right away too.   You'd get a "number" and then could proceed to your table.   When your food was ready you'd get up and go over to a wall with various 'doors' and 'hatches' and remove your dinner tray and then head back to your seat and enjoy your meal. 

I bet some genius would put some "video gambling" machines or some other form of entertainment between the point where you order/pay and pick up the tray... so you wouldn't go to sit down UNTIL you got your tray of food.  

No humans involved in the transaction - other than to prepare the tray of food and stick it in the correct window. 

[Tiny]

May 17, 2016 15:02:00 GMT -5 tskeeter said:

May 17, 2016 12:10:29 GMT -5 Tiny said:

Maybe living a 'slower' less connected life - where doing daily labor like say on a farm or in a 'studio' producing limited numbers of higher end goods) won't be so looked down on... Does everything a person (or group of people or family) produces NEED to constantly produce more?

Should a family owned business really need to become a 'chain' of businesses or a name brand to be considered a "livelihood" or a success? Why isn't it enough for a family owned business to provide for the family that's running it... why do they have to become Gazillion-aires for it to be a 'success' ?  

I think we'll see a break down of the 'big box stores' to more locally run smaller chains.  

Kind of see it with breweries/distilleries - there's also of small breweries/distilleries attracting a following - and people willing to visit local breweries/distilleries in other cities.  It's not about being able to have whatever 'flavor' of beer you want on the shelf in a fridge down at the convenience store - it's about being there to 'experience' the seasonal beer(s) that has a limited run. 

Consistancy and replication of the same old same old is loosing some of it's cache.

I think that's the draw of a 'farmers' market or a farm box (and even whole foods) the idea that it's OK to try veggies in season and just because Russian Kale is available today - it doesn't mean it will be available tomorrow or next week or even next year.   If blue potatoes are available - buy them  and eat them... they wont' become a 'staple'.  It's kind of menu planning around 'staples' but then adding what's available to those staples.    Kinda the way people use to eat back before everything under the sun was required to be shipped in and available  year round. 

I see it in clothing and household fashions - people don't necessarily want to have wear or have the exact same thing as their neighbors.      it's about individuality and personal style AND NOT having the same individuality/style as the group you identify with. 

I think many of your examples reflect the economics of high income families.  A micro brew is more expensive than a Bud, produce from the farmers market is more expensive than Safeway, etc.  But, a portion of the population can afford to pay higher prices for goods they believe are higher quality than the lower cost goods.  And they can afford to pay for goods that might be indulgences.  If people were just getting by, they'd be buying cheap beer instead of expensive microbrews.

True.   I live in an area that can support a lot of micro beer drinking and such...  the millenials aren't buying cars and houses and whatever else they aren't spending money on - not because they are broke from paying back student loans but because they are "eating and drinking" their money AND going away for long weekends (and spending on 3 day and 4 day concert passes and such)...  

[tskeeter]

May 17, 2016 15:52:36 GMT -5 Tiny said:

May 17, 2016 15:02:00 GMT -5 tskeeter said:

I think many of your examples reflect the economics of high income families.  A micro brew is more expensive than a Bud, produce from the farmers market is more expensive than Safeway, etc.  But, a portion of the population can afford to pay higher prices for goods they believe are higher quality than the lower cost goods.  And they can afford to pay for goods that might be indulgences.  If people were just getting by, they'd be buying cheap beer instead of expensive microbrews.

True.   I live in an area that can support a lot of micro beer drinking and such...  the millenials aren't buying cars and houses and whatever else they aren't spending money on - not because they are broke from paying back student loans but because they are "eating and drinking" their money AND going away for long weekends (and spending on 3 day and 4 day concert passes and such)...  

Good point.  There is little doubt that millenials demonstrate a different set of priorities than boomers.  In some cases, I think the millenial priorities are more appropriate than the boomer priorities.  In other cases, they are simply different

[Phoenix84]

May 17, 2016 10:03:56 GMT -5 MJ2.0 said:

1. Mechanics to fix the robots
2. Engineers to create the robots
3. electricians to wire/re-wire the robots

There are still way too many jobs that need human beings - hairdresser/barber, teacher, social worker, artist ... basically any creative or people-centric job.

Ahh, so this is why you're going to school for engineering. So you can engineer the robots of the future.