Machines will never put humans out of work

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Machines will never put humans out of work
By Leonid Bershidsky

It is now widely accepted that technological advances, especially ones that make machines more like humans -- such as robotization or artificial intelligence -- are putting people out of work and will only destroy more jobs in the future. The wealth will accrue to those who own the machines, not to what's known as the middle class today. There's some good news for humans, though: The evidence of our displacement by machines is sketchy, and we should be able to adjust to the new technological era if we put our minds to it.
 
Eric Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology labeled this "the great decoupling": according to them, advances in productivity, mainly driven by the development of digital technology, and the resulting economic growth, no longer cause employment and workers' incomes to rise. "The Second Machine Age is playing out differently than the First Machine Age, continuing the long-term trend of material abundance but not of ever-greater labor demand," McAfee told Harvard Business Review.
 
Yet the economist Robert Atkinson, who heads the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, argues that no "great decoupling" is taking place. Employment, he points out, declines in step with the working-age population. Productivity and employment, Atkinson writes, "were never coupled, any more than the divorce rate in Maine and the consumption of margarine (two variables that have moved together)."
 
It might make more sense to examine the relationship between productivity and unemployment, rather then employment, but there's only a weak negative correlation between them....

Read more at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0516/bershidsky050916.php3#utYeBDJo75gpi01C.99


Interesting to see the statistic on this. People get caught up in the short run where tech can put peopel out of work, but in the long run so far it's helped not hindered employment and the standard of living. It will be interesting to see what the future brings.

If droids could think, there'd be none of us here, would there - Obi Wan.

[Bill Cipher]

Machines don't destroy jobs.  They free up people to do new jobs (sometimes newly invented) that have greater value-add. 

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Machines don't destroy jobs.  They free up people to do new jobs (sometimes newly invented) that have greater value-add.

Yep. Then there's the interesting trend that even the 'old' way of doing things can get an increase in value. Look at the price of anything "artisan" or "handmade." Prior to machines taking those jobs, whatever they may be everything was artisan.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Great article. Economics is really about problem solving. When humans give up all jobs to machines that will mean we have run out of problems to solve and life will be awesome anyway.

If a robot takes your job building patios, well you won't need to spend much money anyway because you'll have the same robots building your house, changing your tires, fixing your washer machines, doing your menial labor, etc.

[EC]

The opposite is true.

Machines will put humans to work. For them. 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

The opposite is true.

Machines will put humans to work. For them. 

Then you will have work fighting robots. Still true. 

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Great article. Economics is really about problem solving. When humans give up all jobs to machines that will mean we have run out of problems to solve and life will be awesome anyway.

If a robot takes your job building patios, well you won't need to spend much money anyway because you'll have the same robots building your house, changing your tires, fixing your washer machines, doing your menial labor, etc.

As long as this doesn't lead to us becoming sentient blobs of flesh.
http://www.artofmanliness.com/2015/07/09/a-prescient-prophecy-from-1952-on-how-were-turning-into-blobs/

[jmyrlefuller]

Machines don't destroy jobs.  They free up people to do new jobs (sometimes newly invented) that have greater value-add.

That falsely assumes that there are new jobs and a greater value-add to be had.

Labor has historically been the way the poor and "working class" have been able to gain wealth.  If a machine can do that labor better, cheaper and/or faster than a human, then his labor is worthless, and the only people making wealth are the ones who control the machines.

A human can attempt to exploit other resources—if he has them—but with a still-growing population on a finite planet, we've already run out of virgin territory to discover and are running out of new resources to exploit. The only ones who will be able to make money are the ones with access to mass media, who can nickel-and-dime millions of people at once. (The basketball example he uses in this article is a great example: most of the NBA's gains in salary came from television contracts, where retransmission fees from the working class's purchases of cable TV get redistributed upward to the millionaire player class.) Like basketball players, the amount of fine craftsmen and musicians will always be finite, and as the rich get richer, there will be fewer people who can afford to pay them—and thus less widespread demand for their services.

There will come a time when the average human will be financially worthless.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

That falsely assumes that there are new jobs and a greater value-add to be had.

Labor has historically been the way the poor and "working class" have been able to gain wealth.  If a machine can do that labor better, cheaper and/or faster than a human, then his labor is worthless, and the only people making wealth are the ones who control the machines.

A human can attempt to exploit other resources—if he has them—but with a still-growing population on a finite planet, we've already run out of virgin territory to discover and are running out of new resources to exploit. The only ones who will be able to make money are the ones with access to mass media, who can nickel-and-dime millions of people at once. (The basketball example he uses in this article is a great example: most of the NBA's gains in salary came from television contracts, where retransmission fees from the working class's purchases of cable TV get redistributed upward to the millionaire player class.) Like basketball players, the amount of fine craftsmen and musicians will always be finite, and as the rich get richer, there will be fewer people who can afford to pay them—and thus less widespread demand for their services.

There will come a time when the average human will be financially worthless.

Way to go all Thomas Hobbs on us and destroy our fun.

[The_Reader_David]

The problem is not that there won't be jobs that still need to be done by people, but that there may come a point when all jobs that can be reliably and enjoyably done by people with below average intelligence will be able to be done more efficiently and more cheaply by machines, along with a fair number of those that require above average intelligence (the drafting of wills and trusts and a good deal of contract law can be automated; everyone can learn calculus, general relativity,... from a single lecturer; even radiology can be largely automated... I could go on).  The result may be that the number of people (of any given ability level) far exceeds the demand for their labor.

The left already has a program to deal with this, and it looks like a combination of Brave New World and the old Roman bread and circuses routine.

We on the right had better figure out how to organize society in a way that keeps some semblance of individual responsibility when the notion that one must work to live becomes out-moded thanks to machine-enhanced productivity gains.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

The problem is not that there won't be jobs that still need to be done by people, but that there may come a point when all jobs that can be reliably and enjoyably done by people with below average intelligence will be able to be done more efficiently and more cheaply by machines, along with a fair number of those that require above average intelligence (the drafting of wills and trusts and a good deal of contract law can be automated; everyone can learn calculus, general relativity,... from a single lecturer; even radiology can be largely automated... I could go on).  The result may be that the number of people (of any given ability level) far exceeds the demand for their labor.

The left already has a program to deal with this, and it looks like a combination of Brave New World and the old Roman bread and circuses routine.

We on the right had better figure out how to organize society in a way that keeps some semblance of individual responsibility when the notion that one must work to live becomes out-moded thanks to machine-enhanced productivity gains.

Finding work for below average intelligence has always been a problem. However, I believe there will always be a desire for human contact. Always. Would you bank with a bank when you knew you could never call someone if there was a problem? Doubtful. People will always want the human touch, even if it's just a fall back. Yes you can do all your shopping without contacting another human being, but what happens if you accident bought two air conditioners instead of one and your account went negative? You want and need a human being to contact.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

If we have robots that can do advanced tasks like fix cars, build decks, etc. then it still won't be a problem, because everyone will own these robots and they will do all menial labor for you anyway.

[montanajoe]

I  think if you have ever spent much time in a third world country or for that matter the old coal mining and farming towns of the United States you may disagree with this thesis. I think its more accurate to say machines will never put a minority of humans out of work.

For a lot of the jobs we think of as middle class, machines will do them better and for those that can't be replaced by a machine, there are a ton of people in other countries that will do them much cheaper and with technology they will be able to do most of then outsourced in their own country. Seems to me only careers that require person to person contact will not be replaced.

[Bill Cipher]

That falsely assumes that there are new jobs and a greater value-add to be had.

Labor has historically been the way the poor and "working class" have been able to gain wealth.  If a machine can do that labor better, cheaper and/or faster than a human, then his labor is worthless, and the only people making wealth are the ones who control the machines.

A human can attempt to exploit other resources—if he has them—but with a still-growing population on a finite planet, we've already run out of virgin territory to discover and are running out of new resources to exploit. The only ones who will be able to make money are the ones with access to mass media, who can nickel-and-dime millions of people at once. (The basketball example he uses in this article is a great example: most of the NBA's gains in salary came from television contracts, where retransmission fees from the working class's purchases of cable TV get redistributed upward to the millionaire player class.) Like basketball players, the amount of fine craftsmen and musicians will always be finite, and as the rich get richer, there will be fewer people who can afford to pay them—and thus less widespread demand for their services.

There will come a time when the average human will be financially worthless.

It isn't an assumption, it's a fact.  Labor as the term was used in the industrial age barely exists any more.  Those who used to fill those jobs have gone on to bigger and better things.

If your thesis were correct, then the gutters should be chock full of destitute people - in the US - living off the scraps from the garbage cans of those few left who still have jobs.  That is demonstrably not the case.  The only question here is the degree to which the government will extend a temporary hand to those who are displaced so they can find retraining and new positions.  For the young, that happens, and it happens all the time.  For the elderly, we have retirement and social security.

If your thesis were correct, there would be hundreds of thousands of destitute ex-bank tellers and clerks huddled over fires in 55-gallon drums since ATMs put so many out of work.  Where are they?

In fact, the very same thing goes for all those businesses that used to be full-service but which are now self-service.  If your thesis were correct, the gutters would be chock-a-block with destitute gas station attendants, impoverished by the move to self-service gas stations.  Where are they?

The world is not a zero-sum game.  Your thesis necessarily assumes it is.

[Bigun]

Where did all the jobs in the buggy whip manufacturing industry go?

[geronl]

It will give humans the free time to build starships!

Here is one of the most automated factories on Earth in action:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpwkT2zV9H0


8,000 employees who jobs are mostly feeding the machines apparently. 

364,000 vehicles produced in 2014, 70% were exported to countries around the world. Trump would shut down all of this with his trade wars and tariffs

[geronl]

If we have robots that can do advanced tasks like fix cars, build decks, etc. then it still won't be a problem, because everyone will own these robots and they will do all menial labor for you anyway.

a lot of people own floor sweeping and floor mopping robots, there are ones that will mow the lawn, there are ones delivering medicine and meals in some hospitals.... etc etc

[jmyrlefuller]

If your thesis were correct, there would be hundreds of thousands of destitute ex-bank tellers and clerks huddled over fires in 55-gallon drums since ATMs put so many out of work.  Where are they?

In fact, the very same thing goes for all those businesses that used to be full-service but which are now self-service.  If your thesis were correct, the gutters would be chock-a-block with destitute gas station attendants, impoverished by the move to self-service gas stations.  Where are they?

Many move into jobs previously held by younger people. Cashiers, for example—at least for now, self-checkout hasn't caught on, so if you look at most job boards, you'll still see a flood of cashier jobs available. That's how I still make my living even though I have a college degree. The younger people who would hold those jobs are now stuck at home with mom and dad because they can't find work in their field, or they're going into student loan debt in a desperate gamble to chase a shrinking number of middle-class careers.

Just because it hadn't happened before doesn't mean it's not happening now.

[Ancient]

Just imagine what the know-better elite will do once they believe they can get everything they need from machines and don't need the now-useless middle/lower class...