Should machines replace human workers?

[dipungal]

The recession put people out of work, but when the recession weakens, there will be a huge incentive to replace what used to be workers with robots and IT. People who learned skills and worked for decades won't be getting their jobs back since those jobs won't exist.

What are your thoughts on this perspective?

 

[dacruick]

Ironically, this seems to be the natural direction of life. IMO, if a machine can replace you, you should find a skill set that can't be replaced. It's not like there are other options if you're in that position.

 

[russ_watters]

If the general concept were true, very few people would have jobs today.

 

[Dotini]

a skill set that can't be replaced

- crime
- arson
- sabotage
- insurrection

Deliberately putting masses of people out of work simply for the sake of profit margins may prove to be self-defeating. It probably wouldn't hurt to put some modest degree of thought toward what constitutes a happy and sustainable society.

Respectfully submitted
Steve

 

[dacruick]

- crime
- arson
- sabotage
- insurrection

Deliberately putting masses of people out of work simply for the sake of profit margins may prove to be self-defeating. It probably wouldn't hurt to put some modest degree of thought toward what constitutes a happy and sustainable society.

Respectfully submitted
Steve

I didn't say that putting masses of people out of work is a good idea. I implied that a business owner has the right to make their business more efficient and more profitable. It is the governing body's responsibility to predict trends and ensure that people are being educated properly to contribute to society in the future.

I'm curious to know why you think crime violence and anger are the most probable options for these unemployed people to fall back on.

 

[Dotini]

I'm curious to know why you think crime violence and anger are the most probable options for these unemployed people to fall back on.

Simply because these activities are not done by machines, and the people employed in doing them could not be replaced by machines. Sort of an employment of last resort.

Respectfully,
Steve

 

[dipungal]

Thanks for the responses. I am thinking that if necessity is the mother of invention and employment would be a necessity, then invent something that will create employment. Is this possible to happen?

 

[dacruick]

Simply because these activities are not done by machines, and the people employed in doing them could not be replaced by machines. Sort of an employment of last resort.

Respectfully,
Steve

But there are millions of jobs that cannot currently be replaced by machines, are there not?

Thanks for the responses. I am thinking that if necessity is the mother of invention and employment would be a necessity, then invent something that will create employment. Is this possible to happen?

It happens everyday.

EDIT: I think that you are evaluating these scenarios in terms of extremes. The notions that a huge amount of people will simultaneously lose their jobs to machines, and that someone will invent a super employment machine to solve unemployment forever seem too far away from reality. (I took some exaggeratory liberties with your comments, sorry)

 

[dipungal]

But there are millions of jobs that cannot currently be replaced by machines, are there not

For now we still need a few people but it's decreasing and will continue to do so.

 

[dacruick]

For now we still need a few people but it's decreasing and will continue to do so.

What do you mean we need a few people? Since when is "hundreds of millions" encapsulated by the word "few"?

 

[dipungal]

What do you mean we need a few people? Since when is "hundreds of millions" encapsulated by the word "few"?

I mean it takes far fewer people to maintain a machine than the number of people whose productivity it replaces.

 

[dacruick]

I mean it takes far fewer people to maintain a machine than the number of people whose productivity it replaces.

Ah, I understand. Yes, I agree that is a fact. But this has been happening since the industrial revolution. If you count computers as robots, think of all the jobs that has created? Think of how much computers contribute to the globalization of industry and economy. With that increased complexity, jobs are created less in the labour field and more in the management field. I'm saying that this is the natural flow of the world right now, and just like you bring an umbrella if you think its going to rain, you should acquire a skill set that can't simply be replaced by lumps of metal.

 

[Dotini]

you should acquire a skill set that can't simply be replaced by lumps of metal.

Over-education has become something of a disaster in South Korea.

http://www.chinadailyapac.com/article/s-korea-suffers-overeducation
South Koreans often attribute their economic success to a passion for education. But the country of 48m has overdone it, with 407 colleges and universities churning out an over-abundance of graduates.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[dacruick]

Over-education has become something of a disaster in South Korea.

http://www.chinadailyapac.com/article/s-korea-suffers-overeducation
South Koreans often attribute their economic success to a passion for education. But the country of 48m has overdone it, with 407 colleges and universities churning out an over-abundance of graduates.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

Yes that may be so, but I don't understand the message you are associating with your posts. You seem to be playing devils advocate with no purpose. If in South Korea overeducation is the problem, then I suggest that they start learning skills that millions of their countrymen and women don't share.

I'm simply suggesting that there is always a path to success, and it is up to each individual to define success in terms of their life, and to find a way to achieve it. Right now I'd be hesitant to go to teachers college because where I'm from the average amount of children couples are having is declining, and on top of that, the baby boomers are getting pretty old. With advancements in medicine, and the soon-to-come influx in elderly population, I might try my hand at nursing as I believe there is a demand for that. Robots or not, since when is blindly following any path risk free or useful. With todays global economy and markets, and the growing population of indian people, maybe starting up a telemarketing business in North America is a stupid idea. For that same reason, maybe international law and business is an appropriate program to enter at a university. In the past decade the internet has radically changed marketing strategies, as markets a bigger and more competative. Maybe a marketing psychology degree anticipates that trend. With increasing population maybe a minor in statistics would be an asset.

What I am trying to say is that it is up to an individual to be useful. If no one wants to pay you for a service or skill that you offer, that isn't a machines fault, its yours. If South Korea is overpopulated and there isn't enough jobs for their people, then the government didn't manage the education system properly according to where the markets were trending to. Whose fault it is doesn't matter, its how you(the individual) will succeed in being happy and healthy.

 

[John Creighto]

What is the obsession with work? Once efficiency reaches a certain level surly there is a better way to distribute wealth then creating deliberate inefficiencies, like a large amount of administration and bureaucracies.

 

[Dotini]

I'm simply suggesting that there is always a path to success, and it is up to each individual to define success in terms of their life, and to find a way to achieve it.

What I am trying to say is that it is up to an individual to be useful.

While Ayn Rand might find your remarks admirable, I'd respectfully suggest they may be slightly out of step with the current reality that many recent American college graduates find themselves in debt of ~$100,000, more or less, and without the slightest prospect of employment, are moving back in with Mom and Dad.

Once upon a time, we generally went into the same line of work as our fathers, and stayed in it for life. During my working life (I'm retired now), we got used to the idea of changing careers two or three times, and prepared ourselves accordingly. Now it is said that changing career perhaps seven times might be more the norm. If each career change requires years of education, and the career changes seven or more times, and the employment available changes faster than you can acquire education and pay off student debt, you can perhaps appreciate that the situation quickly becomes unsustainable.

I would politely suggest that in such a systemically dysfunctional pattern of rapid-fire changes to educational and employment requirements, the modern individual faces an increasingly daunting task in being usefully or successfully employed, and is likely to become disillusioned, resentful and bitter at such an absurd system.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[Evo]

While Ayn Rand might find your remarks admirable, I'd respectfully suggest they may be slightly out of step with the current reality that many recent American college graduates find themselves in debt of ~$100,000, more or less, and without the slightest prospect of employment, are moving back in with Mom and Dad.

Once upon a time, we generally went into the same line of work as our fathers, and stayed in it for life. During my working life (I'm retired now), we got used to the idea of changing careers two or three times, and prepared ourselves accordingly. Now it is said that changing career perhaps seven times might be more the norm. If each career change requires years of education, and the career changes seven or more times, and the employment available changes faster than you can acquire education and pay off student debt, you can perhaps appreciate that the situation quickly becomes unsustainable.

I would politely suggest that in such a systemically dysfunctional pattern of rapid-fire changes to educational and employment requirements, the modern individual faces an increasingly daunting task in being usefully or successfully employed, and is likely to become disillusioned, resentful and bitter at such an absurd system.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

Adapt or die. There used to be chimney sweeps, blacksmiths, tailors and shoemakers, habidashers, stablekeepers, street lamp lighters. As we progress and gain new technology, jobs become obsolete. If you can't adapt, you fail. as we need fewer and fewer workers it becomes harder and harder to compete for the remaining jobs. You must, as has been said, do research now to find a career field that anticaptes growth. It's not absurd, it's reality. Unless you suggest we get rid of technology and go back to the way things were 100-200 years ago?

 

[dacruick]

While Ayn Rand might find your remarks admirable, I'd respectfully suggest they may be slightly out of step with the current reality that many recent American college graduates find themselves in debt of ~$100,000, more or less, and without the slightest prospect of employment, are moving back in with Mom and Dad.

Once upon a time, we generally went into the same line of work as our fathers, and stayed in it for life. During my working life (I'm retired now), we got used to the idea of changing careers two or three times, and prepared ourselves accordingly. Now it is said that changing career perhaps seven times might be more the norm. If each career change requires years of education, and the career changes seven or more times, and the employment available changes faster than you can acquire education and pay off student debt, you can perhaps appreciate that the situation quickly becomes unsustainable.

I would politely suggest that in such a systemically dysfunctional pattern of rapid changes to educational and employment requirements, the modern individual faces an increasingly daunting task in being usefully or successfully employed, and is likely to become disillusioned, resentful and bitter at such an absurd system.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

I think you misunderstand me. Speaking as a modern individual (I am 21 pursuing a degree in physics), I realize how competitive job markets are these days, and I am not sitting on my butt complaining about how hard it will be to get a job with a measly BSc in Physics. I enrolled in a co-op program that allows me to alternate between school and work, attaining experience in the industry, as well as paying for school on my own (I live in Canada so school is much cheaper than in the US). As you even mentioned, I have realized the shortcomings of my prospective degree and I anticipate that I will need to go back to school to augment it to be more competitive for the job that I want. It is not up to anybody else to ensure my career. Sometimes times are hard and "**** happens" and blaming anyone else for that is a demotivating and self pitying attitude. Since the 80s everybody has needed a degree to get a job. And my parents, and my friends' parents have always said "Hey Kiddo, get your degree and you'll be okay." That's not true at all, and it is unfortunate that it has been accepted for true for the past decade. As you stated, things are changing, and things are changing quickly. University degrees mean less and less by the day. That's just how supply and demand works. I can empathize with being in debt, having the constant pressure of being unemployed, and being self-deemed unsuccessful. But feeling that way isn't helping anything at all. Go volunteer! Make connections, find your way into an industry. Do something...

I tried to read Atlas Shrugged once but I got to page 400, shrugged, and never picked it up again. I don't agree with everything Ayn Rand says, but you can't expect every aimless youth to be Reared in the right direction by the "system" (pun intended )

I am not an idealist, I just don't see a point in being upset about something that I can't change. My parents didn't need an education, how great is that!? Well, my dad has been a landscaper for 30 years, he is now 56 and who knows how much longer he will be able to handle the physical demands. My mother works a few days a week as an assistant to a podiatrist. They don't have a ton of money, or much at all, but that's not anyone's fault but theirs. I understand how you can blame the current system for hammering the youth, but I don't understand why.

 

[Dotini]

Unless you suggest we get rid of technology and go back to the way things were 100-200 years ago?

I make no such suggestion. That's for neo-Luddites and primitive anarchists. I'm part and parcel of the modern system, and benefit greatly from its pensions, annuities, oil and gas royalties, modern health care, and fabulous entertainments such as go-kart racing and video games. I'm set for life, and laughing all the way down the road to my fishing cabin. I'm also very grateful for things such as PF!

No, it's for you, the working, and the up-coming generation to deal with. I don't even vote anymore. When the career turnover rate goes from 7 to 14, then to 28 and above, you may want to get off the merry-go-round and return to a simpler lifeway. I'm already there.

Respectfully yours,
Steve

 

[Evo]

I make no such suggestion. That's for neo-Luddites and primitive anarchists. I'm part and parcel of the modern system, and benefit greatly from its pensions, annuities, oil and gas royalties, modern health care, and fabulous entertainments such as go-kart racing and video games. I'm set for life, and laughing all the way down the road to my fishing cabin. I'm also very grateful for things such as PF!

No, it's for you, the working, and the up-coming generation to deal with. When the career turnover rate goes from 7 to 14, then to 28 and above, you may want to get off the merry-go-round and return to a simpler lifeway. I'm already there.

Respectfully yours,
Steve

So am I. And I've been telling my kids for several years to be very careful about choosing their career, do research, make smart choices.

Even entering the workforce when I did in the 70's,working for a bleeding edge tech compnay that invented everything themselves, my jobs would be constantly eliminated and I would be moved to or I'd win new positions or promotions. My company, because there were no schools that could teach the technology as it was being invented, had their own schools, which I attended. There were plenty of people that couldn't adapt to the change, couldn't learn the new technology, and they lost their jobs. That's the way it is.

 

[Dotini]

I understand how you can blame the current system for hammering the youth, but I don't understand why.

There were plenty of people that couldn't adapt to the change, couldn't learn the new technology, and they lost their jobs. That's the way it is.

I do understand the current system, and why it is the way it is. I have adapted to it well, but I'm concerned about what happens when large numbers of people find themselves unable to adapt, and resort to crime or (yikes!) sabotage or insurrection as a way of life, as in other failed societies around the world. Will they come after me?

I find myself wondering if, for instance the tech-savvy Swiss (who eschew joining the UN, eschew joining into headlong globalization, and protect their society from too much change) haven't made an ultimately wiser choice.

Respectfully,
Steve

 

[mheslep]

...many recent American college graduates find themselves in debt of ~$100,000, more or less,

Why is that? Why have higher education costs gone up 4X faster than inflation?

and without the slightest prospect of employment,

Again, why is that?

 

[mheslep]

I find myself wondering if, for instance the tech-savvy Swiss (who eschew joining the UN, eschew joining into headlong globalization, and protect their society from too much change) haven't made an ultimately wiser choice.

Nonsense. http://www.google.com/publicdata/ex...im=country:CHE:USA&ifdim=country&hl=en&dl=en"

http://www.google.com/publicdata/ex...y&idim=country:CHE&ifdim=country&hl=en&dl=en" and both figures have steadily increasing.

 

[Pythagorean]

Machines already are replacing human workers. That's what a competitive software engineer is: an unemployer; your purpose is to cut costs in the company by automating infrastructure processes with computing machines. One example: reduces the size of HR (have employees fill in and turn their time sheets in online through web software, and you have much fewer HR employees to oversee).

If you think about it, robots are just the extra baggage of legs to walk off with and an audio dictionary to talk back with? Why not just keep to the silent, obedient computer?

 

[dipungal]

Ah, I understand. Yes, I agree that is a fact. But this has been happening since the industrial revolution. If you count computers as robots, think of all the jobs that has created? Think of how much computers contribute to the globalization of industry and economy. With that increased complexity, jobs are created less in the labour field and more in the management field.

IBM is programming their Watson NLP system. http://www.research.ibm.com/deepqa/faq.shtml

I'm saying that this is the natural flow of the world right now, and just like you bring an umbrella if you think its going to rain, you should acquire a skill set that can't simply be replaced by lumps of metal.

If we know a hurricane is off shore, it's our collective responsibility to plan and afterwards, to ameliorate it's effects.

 

[cephron]

<warning pointofview="idealist" apology="true"> Should machines replace human workers? Sure. But resources should not be witheld from humans, and humans should not overpopulate the globe. If machines make your food and housing, and there are enough resources to go around in the world, what do you need a job for? Survival is no longer an issue, and if you want to contribute to society, you'll find a way. The problems that need to be dealt with are potential overpopulation, abuse of resources and unchecked greed, which cause conflict regardless of employment conditions. </warning>

 

[-Job-]

Machines already are replacing human workers. That's what a competitive software engineer is: an unemployer; your purpose is to cut costs in the company by automating infrastructure processes with computing machines. One example: reduces the size of HR (have employees fill in and turn their time sheets in online through web software, and you have much fewer HR employees to oversee).

If you think about it, robots are just the extra baggage of legs to walk off with and an audio dictionary to talk back with? Why not just keep to the silent, obedient computer?

Creativity (and there's all forms of it) is a good way to escape automation.

If you settle into a job involving repetitive, manual tasks, where you are not being challenged, then sooner or later your job will be at risk. Data entry, monitoring and reporting are some of the popular examples.

Many of these jobs are really tedious and a waste of talent IMO so in the bigger picture it's not all bad, though it's tough to argue for unemployment.

 

[Pythagorean]

Creativity (and there's all forms of it) is a good way to escape automation.

If you settle into a job involving repetitive, manual tasks, where you are not being challenged, then sooner or later your job will be at risk. Data entry, monitoring and reporting are some of the popular examples.

Many of these jobs are really tedious and a waste of talent IMO so in the bigger picture it's not all bad, though it's tough to argue for unemployment.

I agree in the bigger picture. Human resources can be better spent than on menial tasks.

 

[Dr Lots-o'watts]

It's not necessarily a free choice to introduce machines. At some point, it's all that make sense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedan_chair

 

[kjohnson]

I agree in the bigger picture. Human resources can be better spent than on menial tasks.

My thoughts exactly. Look, you can only replace a persons job if it is something repetitive that can be coded and run by a machine (like a factory). Notice you still need people there to monitor the process in case something unexpected happens.

Basically this is just society evolving to fit its current needs. Just like the industrial revolution pulled a large chunk of people away from agriculture/farming. Let's say society wants a new technology called 'A'. But they also want to purchase 'A' for a reasonable price. Then it is the job of the company that makes 'A' to try and figure out a way to produce it at a lower cost so that society will deem it reasonable and worthy of buying. Now how does the company do this. Do they hire on lots of workers to sit at an assembly line and pay each worker x.xx$/hr or do they invest in a robot that after its initial cost is recovered does the same task for essentially free (minus things like the power needed to run it and maintenance...)
As more company's fall into similar molds, remaining others are forced to follow if they want to keep competitive pricing. Basically all this change happens because of what society "wants".

 

[2AlphaMales?!]

Machines do most of the work already (combine harvesters, electric checkouts etc ad infinitum) and yet governments say "we must create new jobs!" because of the unemployment endemic to the free market capitalist system.

As robotics improve, sooner or later there will only be 5,000,000 beneficial, economically viable full time jobs left for humans...if, indeed, there are that many at the moment...then 500,000...then 50,000...at what point will governments have the mandate to aportion benefits and work evenly amongst the population, so that everybody can live well and have some honour/satisfaction at contributing to the system? Such a system would also allow for boundless education and academic research which does not promise profit. Or need we all become marketing executives, cold calling double glazing salespeople, chuggers, trigger happy cogs in the wheels of the military industrial complex or cops/robbers?

 

[nitsuj]

It probably wouldn't hurt to put some modest degree of thought toward what constitutes a happy and sustainable society.

Respectfully submitted
Steve

Certainly you aren't suggesting that corporations take such things as "happy and sustainable society" into consideration when looking at reducing expenses. In particular those corporations that are "too big to fail".Oh wow, there is some irony in there isn't there?EDIT: darn resurrections, get me every time

 

[physicsboard]

Many people do not seem to be considering the economics behind these machines. As companies try and solve more and more complicated problems using automated systems, costs increase. Even if long term R & D costs could be offset over time as manufacturing costs for these machines decrease, there are no guarantees. High research and development costs lead to high unit costs which will shrink potential buyers. Not only that but these machines can be incredibly expensive to fix, and have unknown problems or errors which can lead to extended periods of downtime.

When I was in South Africa, I happened to noticed that there were around 5 guys with machetes cutting the grass on a football field. Curious, I went over to find out why. The man I assume was in charge came over to me, and I asked him my question. At first he seemed perplexed by my question, so I clarified what I meant by suggesting a lawnmower. I expected him to respond positively to the idea. To my surprise he began to laugh, then he explained it to me. 'A good lawnmower will cost us 1000 rand (around $120), but I can hire all these men for only $2.50 a day.'


To better answer the original question 'Should machines replace human workers?' The answer lies in the three D's of automation. Is it dull? Is it dirty? Is it dangerous? If all three come up yes, then it's probably should be automated (or already is ). If it's none of those things, you're probably looking at a very hard task to get a machine to do, and thus a comparably cheap, reliable, self-sustaining human is probably the best bet.

 

[JonDE]

Many people do not seem to be considering the economics behind these machines. As companies try and solve more and more complicated problems using automated systems, costs increase. Even if long term R & D costs could be offset over time as manufacturing costs for these machines decrease, there are no guarantees. High research and development costs lead to high unit costs which will shrink potential buyers. Not only that but these machines can be incredibly expensive to fix, and have unknown problems or errors which can lead to extended periods of downtime.

When I was in South Africa, I happened to noticed that there were around 5 guys with machetes cutting the grass on a football field. Curious, I went over to find out why. The man I assume was in charge came over to me, and I asked him my question. At first he seemed perplexed by my question, so I clarified what I meant by suggesting a lawnmower. I expected him to respond positively to the idea. To my surprise he began to laugh, then he explained it to me. 'A good lawnmower will cost us 1000 rand (around $120), but I can hire all these men for only $2.50 a day.'


To better answer the original question 'Should machines replace human workers?' The answer lies in the three D's of automation. Is it dull? Is it dirty? Is it dangerous? If all three come up yes, then it's probably should be automated (or already is ). If it's none of those things, you're probably looking at a very hard task to get a machine to do, and thus a comparably cheap, reliable, self-sustaining human is probably the best bet.

There are a few problems with your thinking.
1) It assumes there is a massive portion of the people willing to work for dirt cheap and be poor. Very poor. I don't think that is the goal of any modern society.
2) It assumes that there is some kind of permanent labor shortage that will only grow. This is most definately not true. As new technology comes out it creates more jobs then it kills, then in the long run it kill more then it creates, but then more technology comes out that again creates jobs.
3) It would kill GDP. Just look at China were there is very little automation. There GDP per person is around 8400 compared the the US of 48k.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
Meaning the average US worker produces 8k as much stuff, and should have about 8X as much stuff (varying dependant on distribution of wealth in each country). Are YOU willing to gives up over 80% of your stuff just so there is no automation? I think the answer is a resounding no.

In certain countries it doesn't make sense to go from no automation (low GDP, low wages) to fully automating everything. So I agree with the example of South Africa (11k GDP per person). Yet, as GDP grows, wages tend to grow, and some sort of automation becomes necessary. Take for example the US. Minimum wage here is $7.50. If the lawnmower costs $120 and it takes 1 person 8 hours to mow this field, your talking $60 a day in wages. Three people would cost $180 a day, literally the lawnmower would pay for itself in a single day.

 

[physicsboard]

Would I like to work for that little? Would I like to compete with robots? Would I like to give up my stuff? You are asking me these questions as if there's a choice. As more people lose jobs, more people will be willing to work for less. The cost of automation is only justified as long as people are a more expensive alternative. If people can undercut automation, they will be hired.

Your second point is completely valid and I agree. I assumed this was topic was operating under the assumption that everything should be automated, including those newly created jobs.

 

[JonDE]

Would I like to work for that little? Would I like to compete with robots? Would I like to give up my stuff? You are asking me these questions as if there's a choice. As more people lose jobs, more people will be willing to work for less. The cost of automation is only justified as long as people are a more expensive alternative. If people can undercut automation, they will be hired.

Your second point is completely valid and I agree. I assumed this was topic was operating under the assumption that everything should be automated, including those newly created jobs.

Sorry, I wasn't even thinking in regards to the original post. In that case I think we can agree,

 

[chill_factor]

There are a few problems with your thinking.
1) It assumes there is a massive portion of the people willing to work for dirt cheap and be poor. Very poor. I don't think that is the goal of any modern society.
2) It assumes that there is some kind of permanent labor shortage that will only grow. This is most definately not true. As new technology comes out it creates more jobs then it kills, then in the long run it kill more then it creates, but then more technology comes out that again creates jobs.
3) It would kill GDP. Just look at China were there is very little automation. There GDP per person is around 8400 compared the the US of 48k.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
Meaning the average US worker produces 8k as much stuff, and should have about 8X as much stuff (varying dependant on distribution of wealth in each country). Are YOU willing to gives up over 80% of your stuff just so there is no automation? I think the answer is a resounding no.

In certain countries it doesn't make sense to go from no automation (low GDP, low wages) to fully automating everything. So I agree with the example of South Africa (11k GDP per person). Yet, as GDP grows, wages tend to grow, and some sort of automation becomes necessary. Take for example the US. Minimum wage here is $7.50. If the lawnmower costs $120 and it takes 1 person 8 hours to mow this field, your talking $60 a day in wages. Three people would cost $180 a day, literally the lawnmower would pay for itself in a single day.

degree of automation in industry has little correlation to GDP per capita or total GDP. There's plenty of high GDP per capita countries that can't even manufacture a bicycle, Qatar, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea and New Zealand for instance, and instead depend on selling natural resources. There's also many medium GDP per capita countries that are at the state of the art in some fields of technology. Ukraine, for example, built the world's largest cargo plane An-225. It has a lower GDP/capita than EG, Botswana and Gabon. You really think EG, Botswana and Gabon are more high tech than Ukraine?

Not all GDPs are created equal. A GDP made up of natural resource extraction is, to put it mildly, much less important than a GDP made up of heavy industry.

let me propose instead: GDP per capita is correlated with energy accessibility per capita.

The GDP/capita - energy correlation is very well known.

Now what we see is energy prices going up, as they must. When the price of fueling and maintaining the machines (mostly fueled by oil) surpasses the price of maintaining the humans, then automation makes no sense regardless of wages. Then the interesting thing to ask is: do without, or get up and do the work?

 

[genericusrnme]

Suppose all jobs are done by robots, or at least enough so that the ratio of jobs:people is tending towards 0.
Does it still make sense to talk about GDP?
Does it even still make sense to talk about any kind of money?
For example, when I buy a loaf of bread, what am I paying for?
I'm paying for 1. people to grow and harvest fields, 2. people to work some kind of mill, 3. people to work some kind of oven 4. people to distribute the bread to a shop near me, 5. people to work in the shop.
If these jobs are all automated by robots what am I paying for? nothing.
That being said, I'm no student of finance or economics so I wouldn't know for sure if you would still put any value in the loaf but I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't pay for something that cost nothing to produce and distribute.

 

[chill_factor]

Suppose all jobs are done by robots, or at least enough so that the ratio of jobs:people is tending towards 0.
Does it still make sense to talk about GDP?
Does it even still make sense to talk about any kind of money?
For example, when I buy a loaf of bread, what am I paying for?
I'm paying for 1. people to grow and harvest fields, 2. people to work some kind of mill, 3. people to work some kind of oven 4. people to distribute the bread to a shop near me, 5. people to work in the shop.
If these jobs are all automated by robots what am I paying for? nothing.
That being said, I'm no student of finance or economics so I wouldn't know for sure if you would still put any value in the loaf but I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't pay for something that cost nothing to produce and distribute.

GDP was a great concept back in the 19th century up to about 1990 in most countries since back then GDP actually measured physical throughput and was correlated strongly with national income and purchasing power. Also because back then, product differentiation was smaller so a car was a car, a TV was a TV. For economies with 70%+ value added coming from "services" then I don't think GDP applied to it would be useful.

If breadmaking is automated by robots you're paying for the value added in terms of electricity and oil it took to make and transport the bread, maintaining the robot, the value added it took to create the robot in the first place, and the profits of the robot owner.

 

[russ_watters]

As more people lose jobs...

Such a condition hasn't existed in the US or most if not all Western countries. So before the consequences you are concerned about could happen, your premise would first have to become true.

 

[checkbox]

Sorry to resurrect an old thread.

Machines have been replacing man in various jobs on a fairly large scale for something over 100 - 150 years now...Bascially since the advent of the steam engine allowed for widespread mechanization and industrialization...
And for this same period of time, this argument has been put forth in one form or another...to justify, population control, tariffs, protection of jobs by unions...(I recall in one case the UAW forced the Automakers to pay union dues on the robotic welders they installed)...but I digress...

The fact is that - this "Population growth vs Technology" argument has been disproven by 100 years of evidence. We use more machines today - AND the population is significantly larger than when this argument was first proposed...

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I think what this discussion (I hesitate to call it an argument) boils down to is will/when will the Jevons paradox expire? Mechanisation and automation has the effect of boosting productivity per worker but due to increased demand not changed overall employment too much. So agricultural mechanisation may make X% agricultural workers redundant but jobs in the factories to build the tools go up ~X%. Obviously this isn't necessarily good for the individual who looses their job (and possibly their farm and home) because they may find factory work unfulfilling, may not be qualified/may be over qualified or might not be located close to said factory.

But the discussion still occurs because we haven't yet answered the question of what to do if at some point mechanisation/automation starts to overtake demand across a significant section of the economy (i.e. the labour needed to satisfy the extra demand created by increased productivity and support industry does not meet the labour made redundant). Nor do we really know if that will happen or if it couldn't happen.

IMO this discussion will continue indefinitely unless we do start getting to the point where there simply aren't enough jobs to go around in an economy that can (productivity wise) easily meet the demands of everyone.

 

[mheslep]

...
The fact is that - this "Population growth vs Technology" argument has been disproven by 100 years of evidence. We use more machines today - AND the population is significantly larger than when this argument was first proposed...

I think not technology but over economic development versus population is the useful relationship. In the modern, economically developed countries yes there is initial population growth that accompanies prosperity but then a leveling off or even decline of population occurs, esp in countries with limited imigration rates like Japan.

 

[checkbox]

Then there are positive developments like vertical farming. Growing crops in multistory buildings. There needs to be much more work done on supplying plants nutrients so hydroponic style farming can produce more nutritious produce and grains, but there is a bright future if we devote our research in the right places.

http://science1.knoji.com/vertical-farming/

 

[Evo]

We've had threads about vertical farming. checkbox, please post on topic going forward.

 

[enosis_]

I think what this discussion (I hesitate to call it an argument) boils down to is will/when will the Jevons paradox expire? Mechanisation and automation has the effect of boosting productivity per worker but due to increased demand not changed overall employment too much. So agricultural mechanisation may make X% agricultural workers redundant but jobs in the factories to build the tools go up ~X%. Obviously this isn't necessarily good for the individual who looses their job (and possibly their farm and home) because they may find factory work unfulfilling, may not be qualified/may be over qualified or might not be located close to said factory.

But the discussion still occurs because we haven't yet answered the question of what to do if at some point mechanisation/automation starts to overtake demand across a significant section of the economy (i.e. the labour needed to satisfy the extra demand created by increased productivity and support industry does not meet the labour made redundant). Nor do we really know if that will happen or if it couldn't happen.

IMO this discussion will continue indefinitely unless we do start getting to the point where there simply aren't enough jobs to go around in an economy that can (productivity wise) easily meet the demands of everyone.

The design, testing, production, installation, operation, maintenance, upgrades, retrofits, and replacements of machines all (potentially) require human labor or supervision. It's hard to imagine a scenario where humans are completely replaced.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

The design, testing, production, installation, operation, maintenance, upgrades, retrofits, and replacements of machines all (potentially) require human labor or supervision. It's hard to imagine a scenario where humans are completely replaced.

It doesn't have to be completely replaced, problems arise when the number is reduced to significantly less than that of people able to work. As I said though its a discussion seemingly without end unless it happens.

 

[enosis_]

It doesn't have to be completely replaced, problems arise when the number is reduced to significantly less than that of people able to work. As I said though its a discussion seemingly without end unless it happens.

Certainly, the unmanned drones come to mind.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Certainly, the unmanned drones come to mind.

I heard a comment recently that UAVs are in a similar position to aircraft in the 1920s, shown good promise in combat and now entering the realm of civilian uses (in a myriad of ways). Given the huge scope of potential tasks it will be interesting to see how UAVs will be utilised in the near future.

 

[enosis_]

I heard a comment recently that UAVs are in a similar position to aircraft in the 1920s, shown good promise in combat and now entering the realm of civilian uses (in a myriad of ways). Given the huge scope of potential tasks it will be interesting to see how UAVs will be utilised in the near future.

While sitting outdoors yesterday, a small group of us watched a swarm of bees. The discussion turned to their precision (in flight) and to the likelyhood that small UAV/helicopters coupled together enmasse with a specific rigging could lift heavy payloads and maneuver with similar precision.