
What did the tech CEO say to the worker he wanted to automate? - jamesjyu
http://www.marketplace.org/topics/wealth-poverty/what-did-tech-ceo-say-worker-he-wanted-automate#.Uh6EtAC_2Bw.facebook
======
shubb
The thesis of the audio clip appears to be that an unsolved problem with
automation is what becomes of the automated workers.

My girlfriend works in a government job, at a regulator.

Most jobs there exist because they insist in dealing with paper forms instead
of internet ones - for most employees, half the work is in correcting invalid
forms (e.g. no contact address).

The other half is in applying rules that they have to know because they have
never been codified in a database (instead living in large regulation
documents).

Recently, they have been downsizing. One of the employees that was fired was
primarily responsible for sorting emails that arrive in a centralized inbox,
allocating them equally to staff. She also ordered stationary, and watered
plants. When she left, she was entirely replaced by 2 Outlook rules, one to
allocate the mail, the other to periodically order stationary by automated
mail.

I wonder what will become of that lady. She had a fear of technology, not even
mastering how to send email though it was her primary role for 5 years. She
regularly cried in the office, and when asked to do anything outside that
small role, approached a nervous breakdown.

There are a lot of people who are not able to cope with advanced roles, by
which I mean normal jobs a normal person could perform. Either we are willing
to pay for them to be comfortably unemployed (as the CEO implies we should
be), or we are not. I suspect we are not. So they will be punished, and made
to feel terrible, until they are diagnosed with something and can be disabled.
At this point, their livelyhood relies on not being able, and this seeps into
the soul.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
Yes, to be provocative about it, here are some options for what to do:

1\. Support them comfortably for the rest of their lives, retrain the ones who
wish to be retrained. (too crazy?)

2\. Euthanize them in a kindly fashion, ie with laughing gas. (obviously
ridiculous)

3\. Euthanize them in a cruel way, ie humiliate them by making them beg their
families for care and resources, starve the ones with no family. Let them die
of exposure if they haven't saved a fortune and can't cope gracefully with
rapid technological progress. (the way we've been doing it)

~~~
wyager
You did a very good job of making it sound as though it is someone else's
fault, even intention, when someone fails.

Of course, calling failure "euthanization" is ridiculous fallacious bullshit.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
1\. The post was intentionally provocative. I said so in the post. I don't
really care about the blame as much as the solution.

2\. It is a serious dilemma for me. I've worked in, and now I teach industrial
automation. I have probably automated thousands of peoples' jobs away. While I
don't believe it is my fault, or my client companies' faults that there are
box packers and fruit sorters who are unemployed. I do feel enough
responsibility that I should at least advocate for the people's sake. I also
don't think it is the fault of the workers. One thing I do know is that wide-
scale automation of labor is a potential social disaster if we don't figure
out how to handle the transition gracefully.

3\. I'll double down and tell you my opinion that "euthanasia" is really too
kind a word for what happens to the sick who are also poor in this country. Do
I think it is deliberate? Maybe, judging by the priority policymakers have
placed on alleviating the problem.

~~~
AYBABTME
`euthanazia` implies that somebody is doing something to another, in this case
that we actively make them suffer a cruel sort with the intention of killing
them.

It's obviously not my intention, nor do I think it is the intention of most. I
believe it is more correct to simply state that human life can be tough walk.
If you don't manage to keep your head up, you'll suffer the wrath of some
evolutionary conspiration.

We as societies can try to alleviate that minimum suffering by choosing to
provide basic needs. Some societies decide to do it, some don't. I believe
societies who don't are of this opinion because they are blind to the
benefits, not because they are evil.

~~~
unclebucknasty
> _I believe societies who don 't [provide for basic needs] are of this
> opinion because they are blind to the benefits, not because they are evil._

It's likely also a side effect of the current structure, which dictates that
we must all work. Of course, this mantra is required to encourage people
(especially low wage workers) to continue working.

------
fchollet
Two remarks about taking the booth lady as an example:

1) Her job has _already_ been automated, thus validating the automation
thesis. Her job has/used to have two aspects: ticket sales, and information.
Tickets are now being sold by automatons, and she only has to handle the edge
cases of people unable to use the machines, or the machine failings. As for
information, most people will now use convenient smartphone apps to navigate
BART, and she will only handle the few people who don't --tourists or people
unwilling to use smartphones.

2) She was a terrible example in that you _cannot_ automate her, since she is
precisely what is left after the automation of her job. The work that comes to
her is what did not fall into the automated use cases.

The value of some jobs is the human contact, or human interface they provide,
and she falls into this category. This is also why we won't automate, say,
barmen, or waitresses.

But what CAN be automated about BART, are train drivers (absolutely
unnecessary in our day and age), and train dispatchers. They don't do
consumer-facing human interaction, and machines would do their jobs better.
And in time, they _will_ get automated.

~~~
cjensen
BART was originally designed to run without train drivers. That was rethought
after the automation system launched the "Fremont Flyer" into a parking lot.

You really need drivers for safety reasons.

~~~
tomflack
> You really need drivers for safety reasons.

One incident does not a point prove. There are many completely unattended
trains in operation, several of which are in the United States.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_driverless_trains](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_driverless_trains)

~~~
beedogs
None of the systems listed are very complex. One or two lines, or a loop of
track, with very few level-grade crossings. Most of the ones in the US are
just airport shuttles. Sure, that's easy to do.

I wouldn't move the subway systems in New York City to UTO operation, though.
Not a chance.

~~~
willyt
It's already done. The docklands light railway in London is more complicated
than the metro systems of most cities and it's been driverless since the
1980's
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docklands_Light_Railway#Map](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docklands_Light_Railway#Map).
On the other hand, it still has a staff member, 'Passsenger Service Agent', on
every train to deal with customer service. They are also trained to drive the
train at very low speed (I'm guessing <10mph) when the automation fails, which
it does occasionally.

~~~
drakeandrews
"Passenger Service Agents" are on some, not all trains. And on about a third
of the trains they are on, they are manually operating the train at full speed
(generally for "diagnostic" (read as sanctioned joyriding) purposes, I am
informed by a friend at TFL).

------
jamesaguilar
Yep. If your job could conceivably be done by an automaton, eventually it will
be. Since we are just automatons, that means that every job could eventually
be automated. Which is ok. I'd rather not have to work. But it's also
basically proof that someday we'll need socialism because there will be no
jobs at all.

~~~
adisbladis
A thousand times yes! Automating away a lot of jobs as the economic system is
now be disastrous, just think of Detroit at a very large scale.

"Wouldn't that be perfect if she could actually pursue her hobby?" is a very
ignorant statement if you start to consider the implications of industry
automation for all of the workers who have been automated away.

I believe that if we don't fundamentally change the economy through reform
this will eventually lead to the next large revolution.

~~~
wyager
When you replace someone with a machine, the cost of creating whatever object
or service they worked to create goes down.

Either the customer gets a better deal (and has more money), the shareholders
get more profit, or some combination of the two.

Either way, the customer buys more stuff or passes the benefits onto _their_
customers, and the shareholders buy more stuff. All of a sudden, there is more
demand for labor, and over time, the displaced humans get hired again.

You are invoking the luddite fallacy.

~~~
pmichaud
This is a fantasy. There has to be diminishing returns at some point--there
has to be a tipping a point where the Luddites are actually correct... it just
wasn't 1811.

~~~
wtallis
The Luddites were correct in recognizing that there was a problem to be
addressed, but they weren't correct about how to deal with that problem.
Halting technological progress and forgoing the economic prosperity it enables
will never be the right answer for society as a whole - it's only a selfish
and shortsighted response that gets triggered because our current society is
unable to put that new prosperity to good use and instead leaves people out in
the cold.

~~~
pmichaud
Yeah, I agree with you -- the part I was saying the Luddites were right about
is that at some point, technology obviates the need for everyone to be
employed. I think that's a great thing, and I welcome it despite the
enormously painful process it'll be to transition the economy.

------
chrischen
In my opinion the BART kiosk employee is a bad example of a job that can be
automated. The fact is her job _is_ already automated and probably why we
don't have 10 of those kiosk workers per station handing out tickets and
processing them by hand.

Her job is really just catching the 10-20% of people who don't know how to use
tech that need hands on support at the stations, and random other odd jobs at
the station that in fact can't be automated or automated to the same level of
quality.

~~~
yaddayadda
"Her job is really just catching the 10-20% of people who don't know how to
use tech..." or people that need something that current tech simply doesn't
provide.

The last time I traveled to another big city I actually sought assistance from
the metro kiosk worker - information that wasn't limited to metro data. Could
I have gotten the info I needed in other ways - yes, but it would have taken
me longer than the time I had available. The kiosk worker was familiar with
the area and the metro and was able to address my needs in a way that
technology simply can't (at this point).

~~~
NamTaf
Precisely. The job is already automated; the worker is a value-add resource.
That's not entirely unlike what many other 'advanced' roles do, just in a
different form.

The same applies to technical support - for the most part, there's FAQs and
the like to resolve common problems, but also additionally there's tech
support people who can value-add by solving the more difficult, fuzzier
issues.

~~~
rrwhite
Exactly. Customer service jobs are actually increasing in pay and
sophistication because there's less overall work to be done but what's left
behind after automation is more complex.

------
ssivark
Amara's Law: "We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short
run and underestimate the effect in the long run."

Not to seem like a luddite, but let me play the devil's advocate here. 15
years, IMHO, a huge exaggeration. The standard technology of today: IVRS
systems suck so bad that they make me want to slam the phone down after 2
minutes, if I cant talk to a human. Siri or GoogleNow aren't much better. When
you force a human to interact with a computer, _you are handicapping them and
taking away most of their expressiveness_. Guess what, humans don't like that.
You reduce them to the level of the computer which can only understand a few
pre-programmed options. That seems like a far cry from _human communication_
which it will try to replace. And we don't even know if that's possible even
_in principle_. All we have is the hope from a bunch of people who are
generally excited by technology, and the ensuing hype.

Keeping Amara's law in mind, I would imagine that such a drastic change would
take a longer time (almost 1 generation's working life?). Incremental changes
summed up might displace jobs over decades, but if someone can adapt to those
incremental changes, I would imagine that they can manage their whole working
lives. At least as applicable to people born till (say) 2000 and would
presumably live till 2100 or so. Any "predition" beyond that would be a wild
leap. As for humans being born circa now...

However, I believe that a few questions are still of supreme importance and we
need to tackle them for the sustenance of mankind (pun unintended).

1\. If a computer/robot could exactly replicate a job (and do it on a
macroscopic scale), will such a solution be energy efficient? [Assume that you
already have a population of X billion whose needs you will have to meet]

2\. What is the real aim of automation? Is it to save costs from the
perspective of the business owner, or to give people leisure?

3\. Let's say robots/computers replace a large segment of jobs. Presumably, a
small number of people will own and operate those systems of scale (you just
have to make a 3D printer which can print other 3D printers). Then what is the
role of the "unemployed" humans? And most importantly, any such structure we
come up with, must lead to a stable society.

~~~
snom380
I find it interesting how many smart people seem to truly believe that things
will just work itself out. Kind of like the idealist libertarians or
communists, only with technology as the solution to every problem.

~~~
Ilverin
They generally also believe in the invisible hand of the capitalist market.

~~~
mason240
That is something that can only "believed" in or "disbelieved" as much as
gravity can be "believed" in or "disbelieved."

~~~
wildwood
Gravity can be tested just by dropping your pencil. The invisible hand takes a
lot more faith and fervent wishing, IMO.

~~~
icebraining
To test the invisible hand, as described by Smith, you just need to buy
something useful from someone who just sold it for money, and not out of any
desire of helping people.

People just inflate the concept to ridiculous levels, which were clearly not
intended by the author.

------
alukima
It's interesting to watch the SF tech vs. blue collar debate as someone who
has lived in both worlds. It was almost impossible for me to read an article
during the strike without cringing.

It's easy to forget that there are people who know nothing about technology
through no fault of their own. My nephews go to low income schools that still
don't have computers in the classroom and their parents can't afford them.

On the flip side, many people assume that tech workers are all smug bastards
who work 10 hours a week who have had everything handed to them. Even if they
had many advantages there's still hard work involved, sure it's not manual
labor but that doesn't negate someone putting in 50 hours a week and spending
another 20 keeping up with their trade.

------
andrewflnr
I think this is related to another trend that's a little closer to home for us
hackers: software that solves common problems tends to become free over time.
Eventually an open-source option picks up steam, and proprietary vendors find
their product has been commoditized. This is nearly identical to having their
job automated away.

I think customization and support are the future. Just like the woman in the
article was able to provide specialized help for the other person who couldn't
figure out the ticket machine, there will always be room for someone to fit a
generic solution more closely to some company's specific needs. It will at
least be the next phase before strong AI (possibly) takes over and makes
people completely obsolete.

------
staunch
One thing I thought was funny was when he suggested that perhaps the
information desk worker might instead work remotely via video chat. She
laughed at the suggestion, saying that was a long way off. I saw this exact
use case, and I mean _exact_ use case, in Japan a couple weeks ago. It's
technically trivial at this point.

~~~
guard-of-terra
It's not much cheaper but much more limiting - you no longer can help people
out.

It's an example of false economy.

~~~
hershel
They used it in japan. It's probably economic. Why, because you could:

1\. Outsource the job.

2\. Use dead times more efficiently/share loads.

3\. Now it's easier to automate more stuff. For example, after hearing you're
request , the lady could give you a map+text+video explanations and move to
the next customer.

------
kordless
Just because you have a distinct view on the future doesn't mean it's OK to
push that view into others. Telling someone their job is going to be obsolete
is akin to saying, "If you don't make the choice to get a new job in the next
15 years, it's likely you'll be out of a job." Honestly, if someone told me
what I do for a living would be not needed soon, I'd probably go on a Tweet
bender myself. It's a frightening proposition, even if it is interesting and
exciting.

~~~
iaskwhy
> Just because you have a distinct view on the future doesn't mean it's OK to
> push that view into others.

I guess that's why he didn't. The conversation seemed to be very calmly
introduced even when that lady had no idea of what was coming.

~~~
NoPiece
Yes, and it isn't doing anyone a favor to not talking about the reality of the
future.

------
marknutter
I reject the idea that there will suddenly be a shortage of jobs due to
automation and technological advances. It didn't happen after all our
agricultural advances, it didn't happen after the industrial revolution, and
it hasn't happened in the information age. Think about the types of jobs
people have today and compare it to the types of jobs people had 100 years
ago, or even 50 years ago. I would argue the majority of today's jobs not only
didn't exist back then, but didn't even seem conceivable.

As long as something exists that someone else doesn't want to do, there will
be work. Even when robots handle 90% of our labor intensive work, there will
be new annoyances and problems that require a human element. Artificial
intelligence is a long ways away from being better than even the most simple
human mind for most creative tasks, and the more information we have to parse
the more opportunity there will be for people to help curate and manage it. Or
maybe, once we've run out of jobs that are aimed at making our lives
comfortable we'll create jobs aimed at making our lives more exciting. More
immersive video games and cinematic experiences. Missions to mars and space
tourism. Extreme sports. Nature restoration. Etc, use your imagination.

We can't possibly know what the jobs of the future might be, but I'm pretty
sure there will be enough for everybody.

~~~
lsc
>I reject the idea that there will suddenly be a shortage of jobs due to
automation and technological advances. It didn't happen after all our
agricultural advances, it didn't happen after the industrial revolution, and
it hasn't happened in the information age.

Many people believe it's happening now.

>We can't possibly know what the jobs of the future might be, but I'm pretty
sure there will be enough for everybody.

That's the thing, there aren't enough jobs for the unskilled and semi-skilled
right now. And those that exist provide dramatically lower pay (relatively
speaking) than the unskilled or semi-skilled jobs of our parent's era.

It's hard to quantify unemployment, but it's been historically bad for more
than half a decade now.

Of course, you are going to have a hard time pinning that down on automation
(or any other one cause) - but the point remains, there are a lot of folks who
would like jobs, who would have had jobs in the '90s, who are unemployed now.

The valley is a huge exception right now.

Now, on your overall point? I... am sympathetic to your view; My view on the
unemployment problem (and I recognize that this is... insulting, and that my
view comes from a place of privilege.) My view is that something is wrong with
the economy; Nobody has spent enough effort figuring out how to make money off
of semi-skilled labor.

I also think that we have a cultural problem. We have generations who were
trained to "do your job" \- e.g. the boss will tell you what to do and how to
do it. You follow those steps, and you make money for the company, and the
company pays you.

Most job growth that I've seen has been in jobs where the boss kinda waves in
the direction she wants and you do something reasonable. Sometimes, you get to
participate in deciding which direction in which to wave. There's a big
difference in the way of thinking.

------
codexon
_Then White was the one smiling. “See?” he said. “Wouldn 't that be perfect if
she could actually pursue her hobby?”_

I don't understand how this person could be the CEO of uservoice. How can she
pursue her hobby if she loses her job?

~~~
alcari
He's thinking a few steps further: she loses her job due to advancing
automation (along with a large segment of the population), _and_ guaranteed
basic income becomes a reality.

~~~
codexon
That's a pretty big assumption given the current status of welfare in the US.

~~~
rrwhite
Which is why I talked about the concept of basic income. I don't know the
answer but people are arguing about whether automation is good or bad which is
irrelevant. These jobs will be automated whether you like it or not. If we
play our cards right then perhaps more people can pursue their passions. If we
don't... well I'd rather focus on making the former happen.

~~~
codexon
Well think about how your request plays out.

She stays on her job for the next 2-3 years until they figure out how to
automate her job.

Then for the next 30 years she is destitute or working a more menial job until
the number of marginalized citizens become a large enough to pass a basic
income bill.

Then all the people in control of these automated industries ask themselves,
why am I going to pay 20% more tax for these deadbeats when I can move to
Ireland or Dubai?

~~~
rrwhite
And how does your request play out?

We halt any technological improvements which would result in lost jobs. Is
there any historical precedence for such a thing?

~~~
codexon
I didn't make a request nor did I ever pretend to know the answer.

What I do know though, is wanting someone's job to be automated soon so she
can pursue her hobbies on some personal hope for a basic income, which there
isn't a historical precedence for either, is not something she should be
excited for.

------
ajays
I feel that often such discussions tend to the extremes: either do nothing, or
replace _everyone_ with robots. The happy middle ground, for example, is left
out because it's the least controversial.

There are some jobs that are best automated. The BART "train operator", for
instance; it is _already_ automated! People don't realize that the BART train
runs by itself; the "operator" just hits the "close door" button when needed.

Or, for example, the cleaner who is (purportedly) supposed to clean the cars.
A Scooba-like robot would do just fine.

On the other hand: a customer-service job is best done by humans (for now),
because when we need help, it is reassuring to speak to a person instead of
Siri.

So casting this debate as one between "replace all humans" and "keep the
current inefficient system" is wrong.

~~~
wtallis
There's a difference between "replace everyone with robots" and "replace
everyone with robots _now_ ". We can't really say what the limits are to what
kind of jobs can some day be done by robots, so we all have to live with the
knowledge that our jobs might be automated before we're ready to retire.

------
nraynaud
The real problem here is the working people, chasing the slackers, mocking
holidays, praising people with long weeks. Nobody will want this free time if
it's stained with stigmata. There will be the work alcoholic saying "I'm
working more than him, I don't want to pay for his free time". Moreover we
work more now than before. So the free time thesis is just a joke, it might me
economically feasible, but to sell it to the society will be hard.

The idea that the maximum output of a system is very not often achieved when
all of its components are at their individual maximum is already impossible to
act on in a company (ie. it might be better to have some slackers), I can't
see that happening with money directly involved.

------
StandardFuture
That Richard White guy has a blog post of his thoughts on the topic:

[http://rrwhite.com/on-the-inevitability-of-automation](http://rrwhite.com/on-
the-inevitability-of-automation)

And for a shameless self-plug I made a recent blog post on the same topic of
automation a couple of weeks back (although from a different angle):

[http://standardfuture.com/post/58571196148/a-fully-
automated...](http://standardfuture.com/post/58571196148/a-fully-automated-
society-overly-simplified-and)

Automation in society IS something we (especially as hackers) should feel
responsible for discussing, planning for AND acting on.

I know we are some fairly smart people, I just hope that we are all smart
enough to take this seriously. :)

------
ryguytilidie
Stories like this always assume that the benefits of things like automation
are equally shared. As if because business A saves X amount of money doing Y,
they will divide that money up by the whole of society and just cut us a
check. However, as we've seen, automating BART would now be done by a private
company who would pocket all the profits. Pretending that this theoretical
world where LaNesse does her hobbies is great seems to miss the point that she
will join the ever growing ranks of Americans living in poverty. I don't even
understand how statements like that are taken seriously.

~~~
ssivark
Let alone distributing the benefits among mankind. For starters, you'd want
the displaced ("obsoleted") workers to get a share of the benefits. You might
ask why they deserve a share of the benefits when somebody else designed a
system to replace their jobs... These are people who signed up for "risky"
jobs, those which could be obsoleted within their working lifetimes. If we
refuse to compensate them for that, we would face problems with people running
away from any field which is "soon" to be automated, well before the jobs are
actually automated. It's like asking them to hold the door open so someone
could kick them out. To not compensate them (and hence ensure a smooth
transition for _everyone_ ) would be tatamount to exploitation. It is
interesting to note that a union of sorts will preserve employee interests in
such a situation, by giving them bargaiing power.

------
thret
I recommend
[http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm](http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm)

A nice little dystopian story about runaway automation and the effect that
might have on society.

------
akjetma
It seems like he doesn't understand the complexities of her job. Automating
repetitive tasks isn't hard, but automating a person is.

~~~
snom380
Yes, and he's not the only one. Just look at how many people are convinced
that pilots can easily be replaced by autopilots.

~~~
akjetma
Yeah, but then again there are services like Siri that do a phenomenal job at
understanding complex user input. I don't think I've ever experienced Siri not
understanding my intended query and then giving me a generalized response that
has nothing to do what I asked for, so maybe people in roles like this woman's
_can_ be easily automated. It's probably trivial to encompass every function
that she performs. Maybe a weekend project!

~~~
qu4z-2
I was worried you were serious until I got to the last sentence. :)

------
lhl
The problem with the arguments of people like White are that they ignore the
fundamental negative consequences of automation. When workers (lets call them
the "proletariat") are displaced by automation, _they_ don't see any of
society's productivity gains - those benefits are instead captured and
concentrated by a smaller and smaller set of owners/capitalists (lets call
them "bourgeoisie").

Yes, everyone who's displaced is now free to pursue their "hobbies" but let's
not forget that the IRS (rightly) defines hobbies as unprofitable activities.
It's one thing to say that you should pursue your passion, but another thing
to also not provide any method to ... you know, pay for stuff.

This should worry White (and us a lot more) because economic/technological
logic is no doubt going to drive this displacement, but it's _not_ going to
address the resulting social instability creating a massive and literally
unsustainable underclass.

------
smsm42
One interesting nugget from Superfreakonomics book: whaling industry in the US
at the 19th century was fifth largest (think all the insurance industry right
now) and employed 1% of the total workforce (think twice the auto industry
now). It has almost completely vanished now and yet US economy did not
collapse (for the smarties out there - I know about the Great Depression, has
nothing to do with it).

I deduce from this that even a huge market shift can be absorbed by a healthy
economy and healthy society without too much harm. Now, for the people that
get caught in it, it can suck big time, and means must be found to help those
of them that can't help themselves (the toll booth lady from the article who
has a hobby of buying and selling houses probably is going to be fine anyway),
but economically if you say we can't do without some industry or sector, more
frequently than not it's just a failure of imagination.

~~~
TheRealDunkirk
"... can be absorbed by a healthy economy and healthy society..." Are we
playing Spot the Problem with the Argument? Because I think I have a possible
winner.

~~~
smsm42
If you're implying that US economy and society is hopelessly sick, it is not.
If anything, we have wastly more support programs for needy than in 19th
century, and vastly more opportunities for mobility and career change.

~~~
dionidium
Still, you are sort of begging the question, which is whether we actually
_can_ absorb this shift and something you state as fact.

~~~
smsm42
We could absorb the shock of industry of size of the whole insurance industry
now disappearing and amount of people roughly equivalent of twice the whole
car industry now having to find new jobs. What exactly says we couldn't absorb
a bunch of toll booth attendants or cashiers having to look for other job?

~~~
eropple
There's a pretty big difference in terms of employability between a toll booth
attendant (whose skill set is probably largely fit for the same easily
automatable jobs) and, say, an insurance adjuster (who may not have
transferable general skills but is likely to be significantly more educated
and more desirable as a worker).

That's the core of the problem that you're not really addressing: we'd be
_absorbing_ the unemployment of more people already only marginally capable of
employment as it is.

~~~
smsm42
Are you saying some people are too stupid to do any job except the job they
happen to be doing right now? It sounds to me a) pretty condescending and b)
plain wrong just because there's a lot of jobs not requiring particularly high
qualifications or a lot of training.

>>> only marginally capable of employment as it is.

This of course is a damning statement about our government-run education
system (which I have no illusions about - in best-of-breed big cities it now
produces people that finish the school not being able to read their own
diploma) but I still think even for those there's plenty of jobs if you bother
to look. I'm paying someone to cut my lawn, for example. And the federal
government pays someone to deliver my mail. Both don't really need a doctorate
to do.

~~~
eropple
_> Are you saying some people are too stupid to do any job except the job they
happen to be doing right now?_

No. I'm saying that there are certain strata of jobs into which most people of
the jobs you propose to eliminate fall and that that strata of job is being
systematically reduced as automation takes more and more of that cut of the
pie. They are not effectively substitutable workers.

 _> I still think even for those there's plenty of jobs if you bother to
look._

Reality indicates otherwise, as demonstrated by the massive underemployment
and unemployment among marginally-skilled workers (both with college degrees
and without).

------
xarien
Robots aren't cheap. Complicated systems aren't cheap and neither is the
maintenance required to ensure an up-time of near 100%.

However, will there be markets where the high investment will be justified as
the return is also high as well? Yes. San Francisco is a prime example.

But, with that said, much of the argument here isn't actually technological,
but political. Take wages for instance, many of our current policies such as
minimum wage actually muddle the ground between an economical policy and a
social policy.

If we are able to separate the two types policies, human resource cost
reductions such as automation and out-sourcing would actually make much less
sense given that labor rates would be more closely tied to output and required
skills of a given worker. Of course, as a society, we would need to implement
policy including a minimum universal health care to ensure a sustainable life
style even in our large metropolitan areas.

------
martinshen
If you read some of the comments on the article they simply cite automation
techniques that are focused on decreasing costs for merchants like grocery
checkout. It's true, these are arguably worse than the human alternative.
However, this is extremely short sighted as in time we will have automation
that is superior to the human alternatives. Grocery checkout will be replaced
with self-stocking kitchens (which decide on a menu based on the FitBit in
your blood stream) delivered by self driving cars. Instacart is a good example
of the "hack" version of this.

With that being said, I think there'll still be room for the "human touch" in
leisure oriented businesses like restaurants or high-touch pricey services
like high end wealth management.

You can see that this article appears to have an anti-futurist, anti-
technology sentiment. Its opinion represents the vast majority of the world's
view which tends to only forecasts out 3 to 5 years out. Significant change is
a scary concept especially to those subject to the change. I believe that
wealth disparity will continue on the trend that it has been and likely "get
worse". But it is my hope that someday a high standard of living will be so
affordable that the poorest will have a very high quality of life.

Currently, we technologists are building products that improve the quality of
life of the wealthiest 25%. I see this as a good testing ground. Take a page
from Tesla's strategy with products and services for the wealthiest to later
understand how to bring those products/services to even the poorest.

A note to the technologists/futurists here: as much fun as it is to be
"disruptive" especially to large enterprise and put ourselves against them,
this is not the most pragmatic approach for middle class jobs. Instead, let's
emphasize that automation/technology will ultimately improve everyone's lives
so that the middle class lifestyle will be the new "poverty". That's the type
of "poverty" I'm happy with.

EDIT: reworded/reorganized/clarified

~~~
tartle
"let's emphasize that automation/technology will ultimately improve everyone's
lives so that the middle class lifestyle will be the new poverty"

except there's no reason to believe it will happen. possibly new poverty will
be good, old poverty as we know it - just extended to what used to be middle
classes. when mass labour is no longer needed, those who possess the wealth
have no incentive to share it. last 30 years fly in the the face of the
"trickle down" narrative. when those who sell their labour will face further
weakening of their negotiating position, this trend will rather accelerate.

~~~
rodgerd
Well, there are incentives. Unfortunately history suggests that,
unfortunately, wealth and the wisdom to share enough of it to avoid bloody
revolutions rarely go hand-in-hand. There are more 1917s and 1789s than
Bismarks.

------
JulianMorrison
The answer nobody's facing is that the system of working for a living is going
to have to stop. We all retire, or we're all sacked, pick one. Because
eventually ALL jobs, without exception, will be automated. Even in the near
term, a lot of jobs you wouldn't expect, ones that look "creative" or
"decision making", will be automated.

~~~
guard-of-terra
Playing in a band isn't exactly a job today, but I can't see how it can be
automated. It can become less popular or forgotten altogether, but not
automated.

~~~
icebraining
It depends on how you define "playing in a band", but I'd say that's what
Hatsune Miku does.

~~~
guard-of-terra
She's not playing, she's the act.

Someone "wrote" her and (s)he is the artist.

~~~
icebraining
Yeah, but it's turtles all the way down, isn't it? She's just software, so in
theory someone can metaprogram that as well. If you're writing a generator of
virtual performers, are you really "playing in a band"?

~~~
guard-of-terra
You're no longer in the music business but you don't replace musical bands.
You can't. You just created a new genre of music while bands happliy bang
away.

------
TheZenPsycho
I bet I could write a program to automate away the job of a start-up CEO.
Think of the vast amount of money we'd save!

And the start up CEOs of the world, freed from the burden of making any money,
could pursue their personal hobbies of... what is it exactly that they
contribute to the world other than smugness anyway? I'm a bit unclear on that.

------
kaa2102
What if AI, automation, and the goal to maximize short-term profits leads to
robots only making things for other robots?

------
juliendorra
I'd like to point the most excellent Automation Song (1964) by Phil Ochs as
still relevant here:
[http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WbSTnuXv_3Y&desktop_uri=%2Fwatc...](http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WbSTnuXv_3Y&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DWbSTnuXv_3Y)

------
hoi
A good example is the docklands light railway in London, already automated
railline that serves the financial district -
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docklands_Light_Railway](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docklands_Light_Railway)

------
gbog
Seen from China this debate becomes at the same time epic because of the
proportion and in a way easily solved. Here if you have no salary you just
borrow a few tools from a relative and choose a street corner where to fix
passers by's bicycles.

------
kumarski
I'm waiting for fast food to be automated.
[http://momentummachines.com](http://momentummachines.com) could be on to
something huge.

------
francispedraza
Next time, don't do something automate-able. You're a human, remember? Do
things that only humans can do.

------
shitgoose
automating unions? good luck with that... not before they automate you with
the crowbar.

------
chris_wot
The first job _I_ would automate would be the job of Tech CEO.

