I've Been Warning Y'all....Many Low Skill Jobs Will Soon Disappear

[LegionOnomaMoi]

But this is a sea change in that many workers won't be
able to do anything which a robot couldn't do for less.

But hasn't that been true since before the first factories? In fact, much of the employment diversification over the past few thousand years has been because technology was able to do what workers couldn't. As technology has improved, so has employment diversification.

We will see a temporary surge in service sector jobs,
where bots will be slower in becoming able to deal with
complexities of interacting with humans, but this too will change.

I suppose that's possible, but I seriously doubt it. All current work in agent-based programming, machine learning, etc., at best simulates understanding. Machines know nothing and can be fooled very, very easily (even when we aren't trying to!). Until AI/computational intelligence involves conceptual processing rather than purely syntactic, I don't see the threat to human employment any different than the advent of the wheel.

 

[BSM1]

The Prime Directive is the primary principle behind Star Fleet's explorations mandating that they not interfere with a pre-warp civilization (Star Trek). I think you may be thinking of the Three Laws of Robotics from Runaround, in which the first rule is that a robot cannot bring harm to a human and must protect humans from harm.

Roddenberry...Asimov...all those robotic writers are starting to look alike anyway. (Okay...okay...ya caught me...)

 

[Revoltingest]

But hasn't that been true since before the first factories? In fact, much of the employment diversification over the past few thousand years has been because technology was able to do what workers couldn't. As technology has improved, so has employment diversification.

Historically, this has been true.
(I actually collect manufacturing machinery, specifically the automated kind. My examples go back to the Civil War era.)
But prior automation efforts were only to perform repetitive tasks. Increased productivity caused market growth, & the workers who originally performed the tasks often then ran the machines which replaced them. Market saturation limits this kind of growth.
We're glimpsing a future wherein robots can do them all at a lower cost.

I suppose that's possible, but I seriously doubt it. All current work in agent-based programming, machine learning, etc., at best simulates understanding. Machines know nothing and can be fooled very, very easily (even when we aren't trying to!). Until AI/computational intelligence involves conceptual processing rather than purely syntactic, I don't see the threat to human employment any different than the advent of the wheel.

Simulated understanding augmented with vision, flexible tool usage & locomotion can replace human understanding for many tasks.....
- Food cooking & serving - Example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...f284ea-3f6f-11e5-8d45-d815146f81fa_story.html
- Personal care - Example: https://www.good.is/articles/robots-elder-care-pepper-exoskeletons-japan
- Janitorial services - We've already seen Roomba. George Jetson's Rosie isn't that far away.
- Crop harvesting - Example: http://www.wsj.com/articles/robots-step-into-new-planting-harvesting-roles-1429781404
- Sex work - Example: http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/se...ooner-than-you-think/560c199399ec6d3aff0001fb

An almond farmer I met last year is automating much of his operation because even immigrant labor has become relatively expensive.
It's reaching the point where only the owners of the business (his family) provide all the labor. And this labor is primarily management,
machine design, & miscellaneous business tasks. Moreover, they're achieving all this without even using any AI....just 19th century
level of automation.

In prior industrial revolution evolution, workers who did one eliminated task could simply move on to another non-automated role. Robots will end this cycle. We've long heard how terrible it is that employers exploit the poor & the desperate. But how much worse will it be when no one wants them for any purpose other than consuming?

 

[Papoon]

1,2,4,8....16,32 ?, 64 !
Billion.
People.
No way.
Megadeath will be managed.
Education has been degraded because the upper echelon think tanks are not planning to have a use for most people. They gonna die.

Then, the vastly reduced population of survivors (probably including most of the super wealthy families), will be reliant on efficient use of high tech.

Science fiction ?

 

[BSM1]

Historically, this has been true.
(I actually collect manufacturing machinery, specifically the automated kind. My examples go back to the Civil War era.)
But prior automation efforts were only to perform repetitive tasks. Increased productivity caused market growth, & the workers who originally performed the tasks often then ran the machines which replaced them. Market saturation limits this kind of growth.
We're glimpsing a future wherein robots can do them all at a lower cost.

Simulated understanding augmented with vision, flexible tool usage & locomotion can replace human understanding for many tasks.....
- Food cooking & serving - Example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...f284ea-3f6f-11e5-8d45-d815146f81fa_story.html
- Personal care - Example: https://www.good.is/articles/robots-elder-care-pepper-exoskeletons-japan
- Janitorial services - We've already seen Roomba. George Jetson's Rosie isn't that far away.
- Crop harvesting - Example: http://www.wsj.com/articles/robots-step-into-new-planting-harvesting-roles-1429781404
- Sex work - Example: http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/se...ooner-than-you-think/560c199399ec6d3aff0001fb

An almond farmer I met last year is automating much of his operation because even immigrant labor has become relatively expensive.
It's reaching the point where only the owners of the business (his family) provide all the labor. And this labor is primarily management,
machine design, & miscellaneous business tasks. Moreover, they're achieving all this without even using any AI....just 19th century
level of automation.

In prior industrial revolution evolution, workers who did one eliminated task could simply move on to another non-automated role. Robots will end this cycle. We've long heard how terrible it is that employers exploit the poor & the desperate. But how much worse will it be when no one wants them for any purpose other than consuming?

But won't there have to be a break over point where there cheap labor ( and cheaper product) is offset by the reduced customer base, those can afford the product? Then what?

 

[Revoltingest]

But won't there have to be a break over point where there cheap labor ( and cheaper product) is offset by the reduced customer base, those can afford the product? Then what?

The customer base will remain because the non-workers will vote themselves governmental largesse.
But even if there were a reduced market, every company will still find that robots are cheaper than humans.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

But won't there have to be a break over point where there cheap labor ( and cheaper product) is offset by the reduced customer base, those can afford the product? Then what?

If you already have your share and then some of all the wealth, what matters markets? You can afford whatever you want; the heck with the masses of people unlucky enough not to be wealthy--or even middle class.

 

[BSM1]

If you already have your share and then some of all the wealth, what matters markets? You can afford whatever you want; the heck with the masses of people unlucky enough not to be wealthy--or even middle class.

I think you're missing the point. If cheap robots replace workers who are also customers, then the manufacture will have to decrease production accordingly. This, in effect, will decrease product that even the wealthiest can purchase; money would become meaningless. Gold, silver, or any other monetary standard we use now will also have no, or very little, value. However, I believe there is a hedge against this devaluing wealth. Buy a warehouse full of beer. When the poop hits the propeller you can probably get about anything you want for a case of Coors.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think you're missing the point. If cheap robots replace workers who are also customers, then the manufacture will have to decrease production accordingly. This, in effect, will decrease product that even the wealthiest can purchase; money would become meaningless. Gold, silver, or any other monetary standard we use now will also have no, or very little, value. However, I believe there is a hedge against this devaluing wealth. Buy a warehouse full of beer. When the poop hits the propeller you can probably get about anything you want for a case of Coors.

Learn how to grow tobacco and pot if you really want trading power.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I think you're missing the point. If cheap robots replace workers who are also customers, then the manufacture will have to decrease production accordingly. This, in effect, will decrease product that even the wealthiest can purchase; money would become meaningless. Gold, silver, or any other monetary standard we use now will also have no, or very little, value. However, I believe there is a hedge against this devaluing wealth. Buy a warehouse full of beer. When the poop hits the propeller you can probably get about anything you want for a case of Coors.

The world economy really doesn't include most of the population, who manages to survive on "earnings" of less than $10 a day, and have "wealth" (possessions of value) of less than about $2,000. If we consider only those who earn more than $10 a day as participating in the world economy, then only about 30 percent or about 2 billion people are involved--and their purchases are making a dandy living for the wealthy. Shrinking the number of participants in the economy might reduce wealth, but if you're in the top third of that 30 percent (that is, the top 10 percent of the world's population), replacing some minimum-wage workers with robots will still mean maintenance, and perhaps growth, in wealth. As long as the wealthy can pay for whatever transportation, security, etc., for themselves and those they need to live comfortably, the condition of the economy and the masses is not very important. Think of the situation in Medieval Europe, for example...

 

[BSM1]

Learn how to grow tobacco and pot if you really want trading power.

Not a bad Idea except there's waaay too much work in tobacco.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Learn to grow food crops, without using high, more maybe even intermediate, technology.

 

[BSM1]

The world economy really doesn't include most of the population, who manages to survive on "earnings" of less than $10 a day, and have "wealth" (possessions of value) of less than about $2,000. If we consider only those who earn more than $10 a day as participating in the world economy, then only about 30 percent or about 2 billion people are involved--and their purchases are making a dandy living for the wealthy. Shrinking the number of participants in the economy might reduce wealth, but if you're in the top third of that 30 percent (that is, the top 10 percent of the world's population), replacing some minimum-wage workers with robots will still mean maintenance, and perhaps growth, in wealth. As long as the wealthy can pay for whatever transportation, security, etc., for themselves and those they need to live comfortably, the condition of the economy and the masses is not very important. Think of the situation in Medieval Europe, for example...

But if there is no product to buy then those in the lowest economic strata will die first, and quickly. Whether you like it or not, most "wealth" is generated by providing a product and/or service that others need or want. If there is no chance of gaining wealth why bother to produce? ME made the mistake of not allowing capitalism to produce for the masses.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The world economy really doesn't include most of the population, who manages to survive on "earnings" of less than $10 a day, and have "wealth" (possessions of value) of less than about $2,000. If we consider only those who earn more than $10 a day as participating in the world economy, then only about 30 percent or about 2 billion people are involved--and their purchases are making a dandy living for the wealthy. Shrinking the number of participants in the economy might reduce wealth, but if you're in the top third of that 30 percent (that is, the top 10 percent of the world's population), replacing some minimum-wage workers with robots will still mean maintenance, and perhaps growth, in wealth. As long as the wealthy can pay for whatever transportation, security, etc., for themselves and those they need to live comfortably, the condition of the economy and the masses is not very important. Think of the situation in Medieval Europe, for example...

Medieval Europe, Colonial England, American Imperialism. We essentially already have this problem, but these smaller nations playing a peripheral role in the global economy are "out of sight-out of mind." As more jobs become more scare here in America, when our own proletariat plays a peripheral role that makes it even more apparent how they are doing nothing more than propping up the wealthy by being "good consumers," things may get pretty ugly even for many Americans.

 

[BSM1]

Learn to grow food crops, without using high, more maybe even intermediate, technology.

Been farmin' long?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

But if there is no product to buy then those in the lowest economic strata will die first, and quickly. Whether you like it or not, most "wealth" is generated by providing a product and/or service that others need or want. If there is no chance of gaining wealth why bother to produce? ME made the mistake of not allowing capitalism to produce for the masses.

For most of civilization, it appears that the wealthy/powerful did not care much or provide much for the masses, the lowest economic strata. The idea of an exchange economy is by and for the wealthy--and it is really of recent vintage: who benefited from world trade? Primarily a small portion of the population who could afford those goods and services. How did Europe take off economically after 1500? By extracting wealth from Africa, the Americas, and most of Asia, and bringing it to Europe, for Europeans--and their American descendants. Has wealth spread?Yes it has. But quite frankly, worldwide, the distribution of wealth over the whole of the population is very similar to what it was before 1500, back to the dawn of civilization. The exception has been the period of "free market" economies, from about 1800 to today--when the exploitation of fossil fuels began and allowed all economic choices to be made at low cost, at least in some areas of the globe, such as northwestern Europe and the United States--but that era is drawing to a close. A marketplace of 2 billion is enough to support the wealthiest in the manner to which they have become accustomed...and even if the world population grows to 9 billion over the next 85 years, a market of 2 billion will still mean plenty of consumers, even if it is a smaller fraction of the population.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Been farmin' long?

I did earlier in life; have gardened some, too. With some lead time, won't have any problem providing at least a subsistence for ourselves. But we're getting old; it's younger folk who need to know how to survive now.

 

[illykitty]

Yeah been aware of this for years. It's quite obvious that it's going to cause a lot of problem in the near future and it's clearly not the same situation as it was in the industrial revolution... Because we not only got soon the capacity of replacing low manual work and such, but also higher forms of work, because of AI. It's progressing at amazing rates. I regularly look at a website aimed at future technology and am constantly surprised about how quickly progress is made.

I think a short-term solution might be trying to train low skill workers to have more skilled jobs, having some "supervise" robots (basically being paid to watch robots do work) and/or basic income. But I don't think that will last for long.

I don't know what will happen. Many things could unfold, for example, there could be major changes in our society and economic system. There could be a period of unrest and poverty, increased violence and anger at the rich who own the robots... I'd rather see society embrace this and adapt accordingly in a positive direction though.

I might write more thoughts some other day, it's getting late. I just think this is both an interesting and important topic.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you already have your share and then some of all the wealth, what matters markets? You can afford whatever you want; the heck with the masses of people unlucky enough not to be wealthy--or even middle class.

I'm not really making this about how I'll fare in the new economy.
It's more about my predictions about large scale change.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think you're missing the point. If cheap robots replace workers who are also customers, then the manufacture will have to decrease production accordingly. This, in effect, will decrease product that even the wealthiest can purchase; money would become meaningless. Gold, silver, or any other monetary standard we use now will also have no, or very little, value. However, I believe there is a hedge against this devaluing wealth. Buy a warehouse full of beer. When the poop hits the propeller you can probably get about anything you want for a case of Coors.

It wouldn't happen that way.
In our democracy, the non-workers would be a majority, & vote themselves in a welfare state.
They'd still be consumers.
Taxes paid by the workers & businesses would support these consumers....a bit like a snake eating its own tail.
Hey, @Ouroboros !!!