Where Automation Poses the Biggest Threat to American Jobs: "No, it’s not in the Rust

[pdxtex]

^^^your in stl right? what are you refering to? midwest industrial collapse? but i agree, america will become a more communal place, the economy might necessitate it....well if shit hits the fan, and there isn't a complete ecological collapse, my plan C is to raise rabbits, mushrooms, tend bees and grow lettuce and i will become the gentleman hobbit farmer by the roadside.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

...
Luddite fears have always been misplaced in the past and I don't see any reason to think they'll be true this time.

Luddites are actually a more complex case study than people realize. The reality was that the Luddites were basically just a hard-nosed labor union - they weren't anti-technology in general.

Even if the economic theory that new jobs will come from new industries is true over the long term, there is ample evidence that there can be decades, even generations of reduced employment between technological industries rising to replace ones automated into a point of diminished need of labor. If a person is employed for 20 years in an industry that then rapidly sheds jobs, but it will be another 10 years before there is enough demand for labor to absorb those "redundant" workers, it's a really sucky existence for those workers in that 10 year period.

I actually think that the traditional economic view that new industries provide demand for labor shed by highly-automated industries has (partly) relied on the fact that historically new industries were highly labor-intensive as how it worked was figured out. It took time for the automation to be engineered, and in that time people had jobs. What we're starting to see now, though, is new industries going from idea directly into highly-automated mode, with no labor-intensive growth/discovery period. That would make the future different from the past, if a large portion of new industries went from idea directly to full automation, with no learning curve to provide jobs. Robots and advanced modeling software enable that.

Essentially, automating things has always been a good source of jobs. But once we automate the task of automating, well, that's where basic income comes into need.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by pdxtex

^^^your in stl right? what are you refering to? midwest industrial collapse?

yes, and partially, but also referring to what came after - infinite aquisitions/increasing geographic concentrations of wealth/corporate power.

st. louis is one thing, but places like central illinois, once bastions of industrial power AND white collar employment have been gutted like a fish. what good is a gleaming chicago loop when your states tax base relied on east st. louis, peoria (etc), the southside of chicago to keep from collapsing?

you wash out your foundation and you might as well be building on thin air.

[pdxtex]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

maybe im being simplistic, i think we (generally) need to re-orient our ecomomies to a local/regional scale, even if that means doing "socialist" things like government incentives to begin producing things locally again...I mean like on a HUGE scale. this seems like a better approach than the UBI (which i still feel will result in (more) heroin needle-strewn lots), when you take into account human/western psychology.

eventually 3D printing will upend the entire manufacturing chain, and indeed we will be producing things locally. we will see a reinvigorated industrial sector but its going to be an entirely different ballgame.

[Centropolis]

i don't think anyone believes in the "free market," anymore, not like they did. certainly not after trump got elected on an economic platform to the left of the dems. there's something to be said for corporate accountablity (to a greater extent than we have seen) as integral to the stability of the state.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

You guys are putting the cart before the horse. As far as I can tell technological unemployment hasn't arrived.

how can you even begin to say this? its everywhere around us.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by pdxtex

I try to look at automation in a more positive light. if you think about it, lots of processes are automated. it means you use a tool or process that's streamlined to do an otherwise more involved task. everybody talks about displacement, but they don't necessarily speak about replacement. for every new technology, tons of new supportive jobs pop up. we have lots and lots of jobs now that didn't even exist 20 or 30 years ago. so people might be out of a job because of emerging technology but they will probably find one based on it too. id probably start forming a plan B if I were a librarian or bank teller though.

This is way too optimistic. Even if the study is off by a factor of 50%, and only about a quarter of existing jobs will be lost over the next two decades, in order to not only make up these losses but account for new population growth we would need an unprecedented level of job creation to be sustained for decades with basically no recessionary contraction.

There's also the fact that economists often have the implicit (and wrongheaded) assumption that all units of labor are interchangeable, and thus anyone can be retrained for any purpose. This is false. People are not horses, but there are a finite number of things any person can do to reasonably add value in a capitalist economy, with some able to do more than others. Already we have some individuals who are functionally worthless economically - hence creating busy-work "sheltered workshops" for the developmentally disabled. A former truck driver or call center operator 95% of the time will not have the required mental skills to go back to school and become a software engineer.

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

Luddite fears have always been misplaced in the past and I don't see any reason to think they'll be true this time.

Your argument is a logical fallacy called the normalcy bias. From Wiki...

The normalcy bias, or normality bias, is a mental state people enter when facing a disaster. It causes people to underestimate both the possibility of a disaster and its possible effects, because it causes people to have a bias to believe that things will always function the way things normally function. This may result in situations where people fail to adequately prepare and, on a larger scale, the failure of governments to include the populace in its disaster preparations.

The assumption that is made in the case of the normalcy bias is that since a disaster never has occurred, it never will occur. It can result in the inability of people to cope with a disaster once it occurs. People with a normalcy bias have difficulties reacting to something they have not experienced before. People also tend to interpret warnings in the most optimistic way possible, seizing on any ambiguities to infer a less serious situation.

Originally Posted by Centropolis

uh, but that aint how it works in the states. you end up with burned off districts and heroin needles everywhere. there's far more will to let vast numbers of people suffer in the states.

If we're heading toward 50% permanent structural unemployment that isn't going to happen - not without democracy ending and death camps for the unemployed being set up. Barring that, basic income is a certainty, either through a revolution, the ballot box, or the rich just buying us out.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by pdxtex

and it wont in any meaningful way in our lifetime...

The great thing is the majority of us will still be alive in 20 years, so we'll be able to see who is right.

Certainly I can say I know of hardware or software which is being developed RIGHT NOW which will automate all driving related jobs, call centers, insurance underwriting, accounting, cashiers, legal document review, pharmacy tech work, x-ray reading, and many other occupations. Hell, bots are already writing low-level news articles (mostly related to sports and investment) without any human input.

I've heard of basically no fields which currently have good job growth which don't have at least some threat of automation. Those hardest to automate are in many cases low wage and have limited demand (how many hairdressers do we realistically need, for example?)

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

how can you even begin to say this? its everywhere around us.

The current depression the retail industry is going through is basically automation driven. I mean online shopping essentially replaces the front end of a traditional retail store - the sales attendants and cashiers - across potentially hundreds of locations with a webpage administrated by a few dozen people (unless you're a behemoth like Amazon). Obviously back-end functions still exist, but Amazon in particular is working to reduce headcount at its fulfillment centers as quickly as possible. Not to mention the new brick-and-mortar stores they're going to prototype - where you just swipe a card, go in, take what you want, and are automatically billed with no checkout when you leave. My understanding is this will basically destroy the last vestiges of the human-run chain store setup.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by pdxtex

people will adapt....suppose this is all hogwash though, we've put ourselves all of out a job thru technology and UBI takes place. what will people do all day? i hear the philosophical arguments for it, but what value will people have then? were just going to sit around, receive money and pay our bills?? no one really seems to grasp what all of these jobless people will do then besides sitting around and "existing". i agree, some kind of single payer safety net seems good and perhaps america needs a better one. i guarantee the borders to this country will be effectively closed the moment ubi takes hold though and the cities will be chaos. so if you all are right, ill be up in the hills protecting my bunker....but waiting for my check too!

In a UBI economy most of us would likely still work, we'd just work part-time and then have more leisure time (something that most workers desperately need anyway).

And with the resultant financial sovereignty (no more wage slavery), people with the desire to do so would be free to be able to pursue more risky or less lucrative professions - like there are a ton of people who would loved to have pursued a career in the arts, for example, but were forced into something else by the current economic realities of survival. Likewise, it would give an opportunity to enterprising people with great ideas who would otherwise never be able to realize them due to the financial consequences of failure (i.e. if your business fails you at least won't end up on the street).

Additionally, people could spend more time in education (and again, pursuing their actual passions instead of what they need to do to survive), which could unleash a vault of innovation, creativity, and discovery.

Maybe I'm being a little too utopian here, but it sounds like a pretty ideal societal & economic model to me.

[pdxtex]

Originally Posted by eschaton

This is way too optimistic. Even if the study is off by a factor of 50%, and only about a quarter of existing jobs will be lost over the next two decades, in order to not only make up these losses but account for new population growth we would need an unprecedented level of job creation to be sustained for decades with basically no recessionary contraction. ......

assuming we still have large amounts of population growth. in that case were all going to have some uncomfortable conversations about immigration, globalism and who deserves what?.who will "universal" apply to? just citizens or anyone who washes up on our shores. if you voted for clinton, you are already undermining your own cause. im no fan of cheeto master but he sees the writing on the wall. what do you all think buy local is? populism! im all for a multi-cultural America, but im vehemently pro-America first. so you better get here soon before the doors are closed.

[Centropolis]

from purely an urban planning/reuse standpoint, i've watched lots of abandoned industrial real-estate repurposed as warehousing, at least. i presume that big box properties are going to struggle in their own way

[pdxtex]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Additionally, people could spend more time in education (and again, pursuing their actual passions instead of what they need to do to survive), which could unleash a vault of innovation, creativity, and discovery.

Maybe I'm being a little too utopian here, but it sounds like a pretty ideal societal & economic model to me.

which also comes back to my feeling that new technology will create new jobs to support it. which also innovation and creativity...this is an interesting conversation. my question is, where is all of this revenue going to come from? how will America make money? we are all going to be given money to purchase goods, that have been produced by automation, in order to keep a capitalist society going? that makes no sense. so then what, will the price of goods drop dramatically, in proportion to our income and cost savings by removing labor? this makes my head hurt. well you all want to eat right? come on down to my farm stand, ill have chicken and rabbits on the bbq....

[pdxtex]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

from purely an urban planning/reuse standpoint, i've watched lots of abandoned industrial real-estate repurposed as warehousing, at least. i presume that big box properties are going to struggle in their own way

yes, traditional retail of common things will be upended by amazon and 3d printing. need a new paintbrush, print in your basement workshop! large scale retail was pyramid scheme from the get go. developers were able to get tax breaks on "foreseen" depreciation even before construction was complete. that's why we have so many malls. speculation!

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

how can you even begin to say this? its everywhere around us.

Everywhere but in the data I suppose.

[pdxtex]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

yes, and partially, but also referring to what came after - infinite aquisitions/increasing geographic concentrations of wealth/corporate power.

st. louis is one thing, but places like central illinois, once bastions of industrial power AND white collar employment have been gutted like a fish. what good is a gleaming chicago loop when your states tax base relied on east st. louis, peoria (etc), the southside of chicago to keep from collapsing?

you wash out your foundation and you might as well be building on thin air.

well, small town america might also see a resurgence. if the end is nigh scenarios pan out, people will flee cities for safer havens. i like living on the "frontier". its far away from east coast, big city goofery. i hope we can all hug it out, but if not, id rather have a few thousand miles between me and a madmax midwest....ill take to a boat and sail to alaska if things get real bad.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by pdxtex

assuming we still have large amounts of population growth. in that case were all going to have some uncomfortable conversations about immigration, globalism and who deserves what?.who will "universal" apply to? just citizens or anyone who washes up on our shores. if you voted for clinton, you are already undermining your own cause. im no fan of cheeto master but he sees the writing on the wall. what do you all think buy local is? populism! im all for a multi-cultural America, but im vehemently pro-America first. so you better get here soon before the doors are closed.

Basic income is feasible within the context of a modern western economy, but it is not yet globally - nor would it be if we had open borders. Perhaps in the future as automation reaps further productivity increases we'll be able to provide for the whole world in that fashion, but as of now I'm just concerned about the U.S.

Honestly, I feel bad in some sense for some newly industrializing countries. Already some factories are relocating back to the U.S. because automation has become so cheap here it's easier to have a U.S. plant which employs two dozen than a plant in Asia which employs 2,000 with the same output. Once the offshore factory or call center model becomes totally defunct there will be very few ways that a developing country could develop value-added exports. I think China has successfully gotten far enough on the other side to do fine, but many other countries have not.

Originally Posted by pdxtex

which also comes back to my feeling that new technology will create new jobs to support it. which also innovation and creativity...this is an interesting conversation. my question is, where is all of this revenue going to come from? how will America make money? we are all going to be given money to purchase goods, that have been produced by automation, in order to keep a capitalist society going? that makes no sense. so then what, will the price of goods drop dramatically, in proportion to our income and cost savings by removing labor? this makes my head hurt. well you all want to eat right? come on down to my farm stand, ill have chicken and rabbits on the bbq....

I've seen some attempts to finance out basic income which is roughly the same as what Social Security payments are today. IIRC they basically replace what we have now with a flat tax system, because after the basic income payment it's the same as a graduated income tax. IIRC this results in a net tax cut for everyone but the top 20% of earners. You could also eliminate loopholes and tax capital gains as wages. Perhaps set up a VAT system to ensure that no one (businesses or individuals) avoids paying taxes. It's absolutely doable with raising the top tax brackets to 90% though.

[10023]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

You guys are putting the cart before the horse. As far as I can tell technological unemployment hasn't arrived.

Well, it has and it hasn't.

There are jobs that have already disappeared because of technology. There are many more that are less plentiful because of technology (the US has more manufacturing output than ever, but much less manufacturing employment).

This will continue to happen, but there will never be a point where there are no jobs for people. What technological advancement produces is changes in job functions, which results in disruption or friction in the labor force (I don't mean frictional unemployment in the typical sense, which is by definition temporary).

What this means is that there will always be jobs, but they might not be jobs that the people who need jobs can do. A segment of the population will always be unemployed or underemployed. The problem is that if change happens more rapidly, and the change is more dramatic within a generation or so, that segment of the population will be larger.

[pdxtex]

this all just sounds like welfare on steroids. working people being taxed at a even higher rate, to subsidize those out of work, due to impending technological improvements. a negative income tax, which this basically is, in theory would increase the availability of cheap labor , but if cheap labor has been replace by technology, well then you are back at square one. robot still working, cheap labor just sitting around. nobody has yet answered the question, where is all of this money coming from, besides taxing those that have employment. will we make cuts to other programs? reduce aid to foreign countries? how will the economy be sustained? consumer spending? in that case, will goods and services become cheaper?? this just sounds like the emperor's new clothes. also, will we be limited on what we can spend this money on. I think its a naïve assumption idle people will spend their money on wholesome, life improving things. given what I see on the streets of portland city, when you give bums money, they probably spend it on booze...none of this sits well with me.....

[Leo the Dog]

UBI is probably the very beginning of a very dark/dystopian future for mankind.