Our automated future and the human cost

[aliantha]

"OMG, ali's starting a Tank thread! It's the Apocalypse for sure!"

WaPo has a "think piece" today that I found interesting. It's written by an academic type who believes human-centric jobs have only about another 15-20 years left. At that point, he says, we will have automated ourselves into a society where almost nobody has to work, or where 10- or 20-hour-a-week jobs will be the norm. Here's the link:

www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovation ... s/?hpid=z7

Certainly we've heard these overly optimistic predictions before, and we could debate whether he's right. But what I'm interested in discussing is the human cost. Sure, it would be terrific to have to put in only one or two days' worth of work per week. But I would bet that the cost of living won't adjust at the same time -- or in other words, we'll have legions of people who can't support themselves because they can find only what amounts to part-time jobs, if they can find a job at all.

What impact does that have on a society based on the Protestant work ethic that Max Weber wrote about? Would the US be forced into becoming a welfare state?

And to get all touchy-feely on y'all, what does that do to the self-images of all those folks who have defined themselves by their jobs?

[Cail]

We've talked about this here before. It's coming whether we want it to or not, what's at issue is whether the current government style is able to continue or if we'll be overtaken by a totalitarian government.

[Zarathustra]

Yes, we've talked about it before. As I've noted, I think it's naive to think that "human-centric" jobs solely consist of what we're currently doing. The history of the industrial revolution has been one where human effort has decreased in order to do the same amount of work, sometimes eliminating jobs entirely, but always creating new jobs in the process. Freeing humans from tasks which can be automated will only open up jobs which currently seem impractical precisely because they can't be automated. There is always a decrease in price when something is automated. And that decrease in the prices of goods/services translates into more money to spend on luxury items (not to mention the necessities like food). That means we'll have more money to devote to human-intensive services which currently only the rich can afford--like a personal chef, trainer, masseuse, etc. In other words, things that computers can't do (as well).

If this isn't the case--in other words, if the prices of goods/services for automated things doesn't go down, while driving people out of the job market--then there will be zero benefit in automation, since most people will not have the money to buy the company's efficiently produced goods. No amount of efficiency can make up for the fact that no one is buying your stuff anymore. Therefore, prices will have to come down, as I predict. And when that happens, the extra money people have to spend will drive demand for things they currently can't buy, like the examples I've mentioned before, which will employ people in jobs that can't be as easily automated, and hence jobs that aren't as dehumanizing, since easily automated jobs are precisely the ones that are the most dehumanizing, since it doesn't require uniquely human skills to do, if a computer can do it instead.

[aliantha]

You guys are focusing on the economic argument. I know we've talked about that before. What about the human impact? What if these non-dehumanizing jobs *don't* materialize?

I'm seeing the possibility of a sea change in the way we view jobs and "working for a living", and I don't think the transition will be pretty. Not when we equate unemployment with laziness.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Strangely, beyond a certain point automation might actually push more people back to agriculture and/or ranching--you cannot automate the growing of food so the number of local producers and local markets should rise as some of those people transition from whatever job they used to have into one where they can produce a product people are willing to buy.

The future won't happen as quickly as that article thinks it will, though, and it certainly won't be as rosy as it makes it sound--unlimited energy, food, and clean water? I highly doubt that, unless SkunkWorks can realize its dream of commercially-available fusion power by 2020.

Perhaps we can get modern AI units to work with human researchers to make AI programming language better, leading to the point where we can upload our minds into computers and we can cyborg ourselves. After that, we can take the next step and leave organics behind completely--at that point we won't need food, or water, or clothing, or even shelter, leaving energy as our only fundamental need. It gets better--if we are all fully non-organic then we won't suffer from disease, or aging, or injury; in a worst-case scenario we copy ourselves into a new host and dismantle/refurbish the old one for someone else.

[Zarathustra]

What about the human impact? What if these non-dehumanizing jobs *don't* materialize?

If the jobs don't materialize, and people are out of work, then the corporations that want us to buy their stuff won't make any money. Automation DOES lower cost for the corporations (otherwise, why do it?), so in the face of lost business and competition, why wouldn't they lower prices? So this possibility (i.e. lost jobs) has a feedback loop which puts limits on the demand of goods, which in turn puts limits on the rise of cost; in fact, it reverses that trend.

The jobs don't have to materialize: we already have them. The only reason they're not widespread is because most people can't afford them, given their current expenses. So if the price of goods across the entire economy drops as per the above reasoning, then we'll be able to afford luxuries not previously feasible, which will drive up demand for these already-existing jobs.

This has been the history of the Industrial Revolution. Luxury goods/services have been steadily trickling down to the middle class to the point that average citizens live like rich people of 100 years ago. In some cases, even better. And as more people buy luxury items (because they're dropping in cost), more people are employed to make them. Why would you expect it not continue, when our mode of production takes a leap forward in efficiency? It is the efficiency of production which has driven the entire process.

The Left has been predicting doom-and-gloom since Malthus (and before). They have consistently been proven wrong, due to their own in ability to accurately imagine the possibities of the future. Luckily, the optimism of others--people who actually create and do, rather than complain and dither--has outweighed the effects of pessimism. But we can actually shift it the other way, if enough people start thinking like the Left. We create our reality. Progress is only possible as long as people believe it's possible, and then strive for it. Therefore, optimism is a crucial ingredient. We should reject those who preach doom-and-gloom, because they are the ones who fear and mistrust progress, therefore making self-fulfilling prophesies.

Have faith, Aliantha.

[aliantha]

I will grant you that we may not be heading for doooooom. I'm currently reading Thomas Piketty's Capital (thank you for the free borrow, Kindle Unlimited! ). He says the Industrial Revolution could well have turned out differently, with the total economic collapse that economists of the time predicted -- except that a whole new batch of fields that they couldn't have predicted opened up.

But he also points out that economic theory is just that -- theory -- and the system is never as supply-and-demand mechanistic as some folks would have you believe.

But again, I'm less interested in the availability (or not) of jobs than I am in how it will transform our society. I mean, I remember all the cheerful prognostications about the paperless office (oh haha) and the 30-hour work week we'd all be enjoying by now. Instead, we've got folks working 80 hours a week in some fields, just to keep from falling behind. And we've also got chronic unemployment that, if the guy in the article I linked to is correct, is only going to get worse.

I'm not saying it's going to be a disaster. But I am saying that it could get uglier before it gets better.

Anyway, I'll let you know what I think of Piketty's book when I'm done. Has anyone else read it? I'm not even 10% into it at this point. Seems pretty readable so far.

[Avatar]

I think 10-20 years is way optimistic. But yes, I can see the emergence of a welfare-type state as a result. Personally, I don't have a problem with not working. But then I expect my landlord to be ok with not getting any rent.

--A

[ussusimiel]

"OMG, ali's starting a Tank thread! It's the Apocalypse for sure!"

Way to go, ali! That trip to Santa Fe is still paying dividends. I think I should get a job in sales. If I can 'sell' the 'Tank, I can probably 'sell' anything!

Yeah, we've talked about this before. You are picking up on the part of it that I find fascinating for a number of reasons. Firstly, we are going through a transition similar to the end of heavy industrialism during the 70's and 80's. This period, in particular had a marked impact on gender roles especially for men (check out the feminist analyses of that period and a film like 'The Full Monty' which focuses on the impact of changing roles on men). Secondly, I believe that the restructuring of education in relation to concept of 'work' is going to be incredibly important. (I'll admit some bias here, having been a teacher for four years. (You'll need to get Vraith in on this, as well.)) And finally, MMT offers a significantly different economic analysis to Z's above, which means that the Government becomes a much more important actor in terms of stimulating consumption (which may also be related to Cail's 'totalitarian government' comment above).

More anon.

u.

P.S. Picketty's book looks interesting, and his conclusions certainly give heart to a 'liberal' like me, but I have already seen significant critiques of his theories and conclusions. You'll have to start another thread on it when you're done (or even as you read along)

[aliantha]

Thank the gods. Somebody finally figured out what I was driving at.

I think you could make a good argument that the end-to-heavy-industrialism period never really ended. We lost a ton of well-paying jobs in the switchover to the service economy -- but let's face it, a service economy was never going to be sustainable in the long-term. People only have so much disposable income for vacations and restaurant meals, after all, and those discretionary activities are the first to go when the economy takes a nose-dive. Now this guy is talking about automating even those jobs. Sure, manufacturing is coming back in the US, in bits and bobs, but it's not going to be anything like what it was in its heyday -- and salaries aren't going to be anything like they were, either, unless unions (or something like them) make a comeback.

So what we're looking at is an even wider wealth gap than we have now. I'm very interested to read Piketty's thoughts about that when I get there (and I'll have to look up those critical comments). Historically, that gap has gotten only so wide before the 99%, if you will, revolt. It may well take government intervention to prop up workers' earnings (as we're already seeing with Wal-Mart employees getting food stamps) to stave it off. But that may not work for long.

Let's hear your thesis on the restructuring of education, u.

Also, "The Full Monty" was hilarious.

Hashi, I meant to comment earlier on what you said about it not being possible to automate agriculture. I think Big Ag would beg to differ.

You want me to start *another* thread in the Tank?? The horror, the horror...

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Some automation in agriculture is possible, yes, because it is significantly more efficient to use tractors and combines to plow then harvest fields, but some related tasks cannot be done by robot or automated work station no matter how advanced their subroutines might be.

Someone in previous comments mentioned "Puritan work ethic". The reality of the Puritan work ethic is probably a myth even though many people do still equate "not working" with "lazy" but that idea is slowly dying and will probably be a rare, random relic by the time my grandchildren start working.

One sector no one has mentioned is housing. If we switch over to primarily concrete houses built via a modified 3D printer process of casting the concrete--automating the construction, in other words--then the houses can be built more quickly and more economically than traditional methods. This would reduce the amount of money people would need to purchase a mortgage and it would reduce their monthly payments, the net result of which would be to allow those people to keep more of the money they earn each month. Of course, it would put construction jobs at risk but maybe some of those guys can go to work at the concrete plant.

[Vraith]

Some automation in agriculture is possible, yes, because it is significantly more efficient to use tractors and combines to plow then harvest fields, but some related tasks cannot be done by robot or automated work station no matter how advanced their subroutines might be.

Someone in previous comments mentioned "Puritan work ethic". The reality of the Puritan work ethic is probably a myth even though many people do still equate "not working" with "lazy" but that idea is slowly dying and will probably be a rare, random relic by the time my grandchildren start working.

One sector no one has mentioned is housing. If we switch over to primarily concrete houses built via a modified 3D printer process of casting the concrete--automating the construction, in other words--then the houses can be built more quickly and more economically than traditional methods. This would reduce the amount of money people would need to purchase a mortgage and it would reduce their monthly payments, the net result of which would be to allow those people to keep more of the money they earn each month. Of course, it would put construction jobs at risk but maybe some of those guys can go to work at the concrete plant.

On the first: there is no reason that 99% of agriculture from plowing to the kitchen table and back again couldn't be automated with current tech...and doing so would probably cost less than the current farm subsidies that mostly just go to million/billionaires and Corps anyway.
A few dozen folk with wi-fi, simple existing drone-tech, streaming feed from google-maps and the weather channel. Pretty much all you need people for are the few crops that still need to be hand-picked [which won't be true much longer] and to walk the dairy cows to the milking machine.

I've rambled [and maybe ranted, I don't recall for sure] on construction...and pretty much every other field...in other threads. No need to repeat myself.
The absolute definitions of work, wealth, and the entire economic system is transforming and faster than people will see.
We could try to study, prepare/plan/be aware...and make things somewhat easier...or not [which is what we'll do] and cause a whole lot of unnecessary pain and death.

If we survive the transition [will take about 3 generations...really 2-1/4 from now since it's already started]...and I'm sure we will...it's only a matter of how much hurt happens during it...only about one in a million [or less] humans will be doing anything at all in most of the fields we think important. Because the vast majority of us will be inferior to machines at almost everything...including doing science. We won't be smart enough, fast enough, strong enough, skilled enough for the real work.

Instead, we'll be doing what we want...even if that's nothing...whether it is productive or not, whether we are Rembrandt reincarnated or can barely manage stick figures, we can pursue our love/art/ANYTHING just cuz we want to.

Instead, we'll be saying things like "I'm having Dr. Smith do my eyebrows next month. Human surgeons are so "in" this fall." [[[naturally, we won't do that if we are actually SICK...we'll go to a "real" [machine] doctor for that.]]]

I know many people think the removal of the necessity for produce-to-survive will ruin humanity. We'll all be fat lazy loungers on permanent vacation. That we'll lose intelligence/drive/creativity.
I think they're wrong.
I'd love to live to see it.
Cybernetics just might go far enough fast enough that I will...but it's a near thing in my time-scale estimate.
[[cybernetic integration will also help us keep up with the machines in many ways, if we want to be fast, strong, skilled, smart enough]]

[aliantha]

Oh, the Puritan work ethic is very much alive. The prevalent attitude toward "welfare queens" (who actually don't exist anymore, for the most part) is just one example.

I have no problem with cheaper housing, though the idea of living in a concrete bunker isn't very appealing. The problem with the idea of uber-cheap housing for the masses, though, is location. You can put up concrete shells (or convert discarded shipping containers, which is also starting to happen) and make them livable, but the land still costs money, and land in desirable areas such as urban areas costs more. Gas isn't cheap anymore and some jobs don't take well to telecommuting, so you're going to have to live near your job -- and that means living in an urban area.

[Rawedge Rim]

Oh, the Puritan work ethic is very much alive. The prevalent attitude toward "welfare queens" (who actually don't exist anymore, for the most part) is just one example.

I have no problem with cheaper housing, though the idea of living in a concrete bunker isn't very appealing. The problem with the idea of uber-cheap housing for the masses, though, is location. You can put up concrete shells (or convert discarded shipping containers, which is also starting to happen) and make them livable, but the land still costs money, and land in desirable areas such as urban areas costs more. Gas isn't cheap anymore and some jobs don't take well to telecommuting, so you're going to have to live near your job -- and that means living in an urban area.

The continued existence of "welfare queens" just depends on your definition. Working in retail, I see plenty.

But moving on, lets say that production becomes virtually completely automated, along with much of the service industry.......

exactly who is going to buy these toys, and where are the taxes going to come from to "subsidize" the virtual entirity of humanity that no longer are required for "labor" and therefore are no longer in a position to generate tax revenue?

[aliantha]

Oh, the Puritan work ethic is very much alive. The prevalent attitude toward "welfare queens" (who actually don't exist anymore, for the most part) is just one example.

I have no problem with cheaper housing, though the idea of living in a concrete bunker isn't very appealing. The problem with the idea of uber-cheap housing for the masses, though, is location. You can put up concrete shells (or convert discarded shipping containers, which is also starting to happen) and make them livable, but the land still costs money, and land in desirable areas such as urban areas costs more. Gas isn't cheap anymore and some jobs don't take well to telecommuting, so you're going to have to live near your job -- and that means living in an urban area.

The continued existence of "welfare queens" just depends on your definition. Working in retail, I see plenty.

But moving on, lets say that production becomes virtually completely automated, along with much of the service industry.......

exactly who is going to buy these toys, and where are the taxes going to come from to "subsidize" the virtual entirity of humanity that no longer are required for "labor" and therefore are no longer in a position to generate tax revenue?

Exactly my point. If nobody has a job, who are the consumers?

I'm not worried about tax revenue. The gummint can print as much money as we need. But if no one's working, then we'll need to restructure our tax system to rely more on capital gains and real estate.

[Rawedge Rim]

Oh, the Puritan work ethic is very much alive. The prevalent attitude toward "welfare queens" (who actually don't exist anymore, for the most part) is just one example.

I have no problem with cheaper housing, though the idea of living in a concrete bunker isn't very appealing. The problem with the idea of uber-cheap housing for the masses, though, is location. You can put up concrete shells (or convert discarded shipping containers, which is also starting to happen) and make them livable, but the land still costs money, and land in desirable areas such as urban areas costs more. Gas isn't cheap anymore and some jobs don't take well to telecommuting, so you're going to have to live near your job -- and that means living in an urban area.

The continued existence of "welfare queens" just depends on your definition. Working in retail, I see plenty.

But moving on, lets say that production becomes virtually completely automated, along with much of the service industry.......

exactly who is going to buy these toys, and where are the taxes going to come from to "subsidize" the virtual entirity of humanity that no longer are required for "labor" and therefore are no longer in a position to generate tax revenue?

Exactly my point. If nobody has a job, who are the consumers?

I'm not worried about tax revenue. The gummint can print as much money as we need. But if no one's working, then we'll need to restructure our tax system to rely more on capital gains and real estate.

So is our esteemed uncle going to just hang out on the corner and hand out money that has no real value? Corporations have to have customers, or there is no point in producing product, and if there are few to none who actually have "real" money, then where is this tax money going to come from?

Maybe we should just hand it over to the "Cyberdyne" corporation.

[Vraith]

The fact that you, Ali, and you RR, are arguing that point is exactly the point I am making.
You are arguing over how we're going to live on the corpse of the current structure.
You [and all of us] should be thinking about how to live in the new body that is going to come. [[it is half or more alive already...it's just that some parts are living econo-ecto-plasmically blurrily, some held/walled off in mythical [therefore powerful yet illusory] confinement.
Because it could free us all in ways only a few folk have pondered...
[[related to some of Z's optimism...I think he's still holding too much to the capitalist/market model as it stands, but glimmers in what he says of options/modifications]]

It could also enslave us in ways Cail mentioned or implied...and a number of predictable ways he may or may not have been pointing at, cuz I don't know what he was thinking in total. And a whole bunch of ways nobody can predict.

Taxes schmaxes, jobs schmobs.
People are freaking out about what to do about inequality and the poor/uneducated/unemploy[ed]-[able].
It is a real problem. But it will probably never ripen, cuz there isn't enough time before....

The real nastiness resulting from last ditch efforts of the powers in the financial sector [and those that depend upon them] to keep their positions of power. [[also the political sector...closely bound right now but still somewhat separate...much less separate since the supposedly "freedom loving" people in the conservative U.S think Citizens and Hobby Lobby decisions are good decisions...but I'll ignore that, too off-vector and long/detailed...also ignoring how in the U.S. freedom of religion and religious oppression are nearly court-approved and defined synonyms now...as long as one is of the TRUE religion---y'all may THINK those are off-topic/unrelated. Y'all would be totally wrong...they'll just matter much more later. Just watch me be right...if any of us live long enough..other than the concept attachment to the following.....]]:
The financial sector, as a whole, is a 5 year old with a nuclear arsenal...but only cuz we believe in it.

And it is ideological brainwashing and fact-denying at a level that would stupefy the greatest tyrants and genocidal maniacs in all of our bloody history.

I'm going on about this just to spew it out...spewing makes me think better, I can't think before I say...I have to say in order to think---
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[long aside]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
AND 99.9999999 percent of YOU folk do, to. It has been shown over and over without exception I'm aware of, that people start acting [which includes talking/replying] BEFORE they start THINKING, for god's fucking sake that's why, even here in the 'Tank, with reasonable, thoughtful people, folk are CONSTANTLY linking to articles with headlines that support their position. Yet, if one reads the entire CONTENT...Holy-Jesus-and Buddha, the ARTICLE says the OPPOSITE of the HEADLINE!...
[[[[[[[[[[[end long aside]]]]]]]]]]]]]

and I'm developing a deep, long, critique of economy examining how we've confused wealth/money/value...

which was, and still is in fact though not in our system/thoughts/mechanism, which is most of the problem, ideo-structurally...a symbol/measure, and NOT a thing.

and started treating it AS IF it were more than that.
We have been, for a long time, and getting worse all the time, because we TEACH people that it is so, acting AS IF [in linguistic terms, which is the analogy/theory I'm working on] the WORD "tree" has some real, physical, literal, relation with a pine in the forest.
AS IF if you "owned" enough iterations of, or books containing the, or examples of, the WORD, you therefore "owned" the fucking real trees.
You might think I'm exaggerating...but last I knew [though I haven't followed it lately] Apple was granted a patent on a fucking RECTANGLE with rounded edges. Peeps think it only applies to particular devices...maybe it does, maybe it doesn't [Apple MAY now have a case/patent to sue you for your rectangular-rounded-edge coffee table...or maybe you can sue Apple and win some millions for making their phone shaped like your grandfather's "invention" of the pleasing, comfortable, economically advantageous shape] cuz you can't fucking trust the courts who say "this is a broad ruling" and it turns out any dork with a pseudo-rationale [well, statutory/religious rationale, as long as it's a Christian conflation of reasons and Reason] can be exempt, then says "this is a narrow ruling" that applies to every-fucking-body in the country and all their descendants as long as the country shall live---can I get an A-hypocrite-men.
BLAH! I think I'm breaking a rule for posting. I'll stop. Way off-topic [but NOT...cuz we would be way past where we are if much of what we know/can do AND the most important things we need to know/could do weren't controlled by the odd idea and the result in fact that having the most "tree words" means you get to rule the goddamn forest...and that our "tree thoughts" were actually a limited resource...like actual trees, which very few people seem to give a fuck about destroying as long as "tree words" keep flowing.

Hee...thanks for listening if you got this far.
It DOES make sense...or at least solid line if I filled in the leaps. But at that length NO ONE would read it to the end.
Better that peeps get spots in the whole the map and empty territory between than know every inch to the state line and have no idea that Hawaii exists.

[aliantha]

I'd be more than happy to live in the new body. I think I'm going to like it there a lot. Hey, if there's a way (short of waiting 'til I'm eligible to retire in late 2019) to quit my soul-sucking day job and concentrate on writing, without having to worry about where my rent payment and so on will be coming from, I'm there.

I think I understand what you're saying -- that money only has power because we've granted it that power (which I agree with, btw -- it's one of the foundations of MMT, right?). But I'm not sure where you're going from there. Are you saying we're transitioning to a world where money *won't* have power? Because the only way to live that way right now, as far as I know, is to drop out and move to the middle of nowhere.

I think you're dancing around the edges of what I'm talking about, though -- that we're going to need to have a sea change in the way we view not just money, but the whole working-for-a-living thing. But what I'm saying is that getting from here to there is going to hurt. If there's a way to skip past the transition, I'd love to know what it is.

[SoulBiter]

What you are all describing is only going to happen after a full 'Socio-Economic' upheaval that will rival the Great Depression. No one is going to easily decide to turn loose of what they have worked hard for.

Example me... My wife and I worked our asses off, saved, did the right things, got good jobs, saved... etc etc... we will retire very well off compared to 90% of Americans. Yet if this were to come about, all that work and savings means nothing because money would mean nothing. Then you have to redefine what is worth doing anymore.. what brass ring do people strive for? People (for the most part) need something to strive for. A sense of purpose....without that, you would be looking at a world of depressed people who don't know what to do with themselves.

[Vraith]

I think you're dancing around the edges of what I'm talking about, though -- that we're going to need to have a sea change in the way we view not just money, but the whole working-for-a-living thing. But what I'm saying is that getting from here to there is going to hurt. If there's a way to skip past the transition, I'd love to know what it is.

Hee...I'm not dancing around the edges [if you were talking to me, and I think you were cuz it came right after mine and there was a significant time space between them...and you mentioned my "new body" line...but hey, you might have been ignoring my ramble, I know I went La La...I'll still reply], I'm trying to get peeps to move to the core/pit of the problem [which in that quote from you, you are trying to do as well].
That's why I said in previous that the entire lexicon [and the beliefs attached to those words] has to change.
I'm sure it IS going to hurt.
I wish it WASN't.
I don't think we can prevent all of it.
We COULD prevent some of it...but we won't.
MMT is one necessary piece...especially the definition/description of what money is, how it functions. Even it will need changes in application once the real changes are in place. [but it is descriptive mostly and very little prescriptive, so no biggie]
We have to do similar with the rest of the accepted definitions, functions, and value.
And we have to base the policies/structures on real effects, real evidence tied to those definitions.
And let's be clear: MMT does NOT say what its critics CLAIM it says.
It also doesn't say what some supporters claim it says when they malapropriate it for their own agendas. [I'm pretty sure you know that...pretty sure I saw posts from you indicating that]

The real automation that is coming is not a threat because it makes the underclasses obsolete...the underclass is USED to that, even if hating it and having more paths to express that outrage than previous generations...
...it is a threat because it makes the overlords obsolete. It makes their hierarchy/power obsolete.
This has happened before, but always it was only matters of degree [cuz it was people and people and the changes only made people temporarily unqualified.]
This time is different.
Because it doesn't make just some portion temporarily unqualified...where effort/education and some luck restores you...or your children or grandchildren.
It makes a huge percentage...and a percentage that has exponential growth, reciprocal to technological growth...that are permanently incompetent in nearly every field.