
America's Jobless Future? - cwan
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/201003/jobless-america-future
======
sharms
It is important to note that roles which are automated only require a shift in
skill set. Cashiers may turn into Uscan machines, but Uscan machines require
more administrators and support staff.

With the money saved with the automated, the retailer may choose to cut
prices, or reinvest in their business. If they cut prices, consumers now have
money to invest in other industries, the demand spawning new positions. If
they reinvest in their business, these positions, not previously open, will
also be available.

If they simply take their savings, and pay it out to share holders / keep it
in the bank, this allows more capital for investment.

The more steps that are automated, the more abundantly we will all live. It is
a great thing in terms of material desires.

~~~
DenisM
fast forward: there is one person who is producing all our food and one person
who is producing all out clothing. they trade with each other and the rest of
the people have nothing to offer in return for food.

~~~
sharms
In this scenario, if there is only one person providing food, at that point it
becomes economically viable for individuals and consumers alike to produce
food, and fill that void.

You didn't include it in your comment, however it is important to note how
_much_ each producer is producing. With economies of scale, it is likely both
producers create enough goods to exceed the demand of either consumer.
Rationale being if "food producer" became efficient enough to put all other
food producers out of business, they likely can feed more than just the
clothing producer.

~~~
DenisM
They could feed everyone but why would they? The rest of the people have
nothing to offer in return.

The reason why competing food manufacturing would be impossible to start in
the era of absolute automation is that you need the machines to do that, in
other words you need the capital. Who in their right mind would provide
capital to manufacture food for people who have nothing to offer in return?

I'm stretching the argument here, but only to illustrate the problem that I
see - automation satisfies needs and thus destroys jobs tied to satisfying
those needs. I see only two ways out of this - create new needs (which we've
been doing successfully so far) or exert the power of the state to take the
products from producers (progressively heavier taxation).

~~~
Groxx
_They could feed everyone but why would they? The rest of the people have
nothing to offer in return._

You're implying that, in this (dis)utopian future, luxury goods don't exist?

Once you have those three things, you have an entire economy. Heck, arguably
_clothes_ are a luxury good, so all you need are food and luxury goods.

------
johnohara
In America, you are either self-employed or you're not.

So-called "unemployment benefits" are taxed as income meaning you are actually
self-employed while receiving them. It's a matter of perspective. Where does
your income come from and how much is it?

I'm an optimist. I believe growth in the production and movement of goods and
services (the economy) will come from millions of people acting in their own
self-interest. A massive collection of interconnected garages, basements,
home-offices, libraries, schools, etc. -- all making stuff.

Government can stimulate all it wants, but the heart and soul of our success
has always come from individual initiative.

~~~
RyanMcGreal
Don't forget the economic role of cheap liquid fuels at relatively stable
prices. Those days are over, probably for good. Any economic recovery is
vulnerable as long as rising GDP triggers severe oil price volatility.

 _Edit_ can the person who down-voted this please explain why?

------
kowen
It seems to me that we have the resources and technology to solve a lot of
problems for good, but a permanent (or even just "better") solution would get
in the way of profit. (I saw the documentary "who killed the electric car"
recently, which describes one instance of this.)

There was a discussion here on HN a few weeks back about automating and
simplifying taxes <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1072955>

Automating and simplifying certainly seems like the right thing to do - but
lots of people would lose jobs. On the other hand, they would be free to do
something more productive (in the larger sense, producing value instead of
papering over the cracks) and certainly more interesting!

Why can't we just automate away the boring stuff, and just work less? I'd be
interested to see if it were possible to open source more than software. (Open
source organic farming, anyone?) I know, I know, this is utopian and
unrealistic and probably plain silly.

I'm not trying to suggest that we should all go create a hippie commune and
get rid of money, but _not_ solving a problem right because of some legalese
or pure profit just seems _wrong_ to me!

Another thing that I find perplexing is that the depression doesn't only put
people with automatable jobs out of work. My father is an extremely talented
craftsman. He builds traditional log cabins, wooden boats, furniture,
beautiful houses... Right now he is living in a van, and not-quite eeking out
a living picking fruit. He sells a couple hundred lbs of fruit a few days a
week. He also shoots deer every once in a while which provides protein.

He's this great resource, but hasn't had a job for well over 2 years. If he
didn't have to worry about food, he'd work for the sheer pleasure of creating
something useful and beautiful. The thing that confuses and frustrates me is
that my father would be delighted to work for free provided that his needs
were met (seriously! Food, a beautiful view, a sauna, and some poetry. Seems
simple enough, right?)

He loves to build beautiful things, and certainly there are people who need
houses (even small log cabins would be an upgrade for many). I don't know what
the solution is (obviously). It just seems strange that legal tender or lack
thereof could get in the way of creating real value.

~~~
jwhitlark
It's not about legal tender; that's just a way to exchange value. It's a
brutal truth, but worth is defined by what resources people are willing to
give up for something. If they are not willing to trade their resources for
yours, you have NOT created real value, but destroyed it, by consuming
resources that people would pay for and creating something they won't.

In the same vein, railing against profit is ridiculous; Profit is the
difference between your inputs and your outputs. If you don't create a profit
doing something, you are again destroying value. (It's perfectly legitimate to
have a profit in non-monetary terms, though. In that case it's you who is
making the decision to trade more resources for less, because the process or
result has value to you; You decide on its worth, and pay the price.)

~~~
kowen
I'm not railing against profit in itself, I just find that sabotaging a good
solution that would profit many people (but not you in the short term) is
illogical.

------
fnid2
I think it's really tragic what is happening to the youth in america. they
have no power, no wealth, no experience, no education, no skills, no credit...
nothing. People who are older have worked and gathered all the above and
still, congress gives them more. More drugs to keep them living longer and
sapping the system. Free health care. Social Security, reduced taxes in the
form of mortgage credits, dividend and capital gains discounts...

It's really pathetic.

Until the younger generation combines their voting power (if they'll start
voting at all), they will not be listened to and will continue to suffer. With
even 10% pooled voting power, they can control the outcome of nearly every
election in the nation, local and national.

If all people aged 18 to 35 vote for the same person, that person will win. If
a person caters to that demographic and listens to them and makes the future
of America and the world better for _them_ then it will be better also for the
older generation.

But the older generation votes and the younger generation does not.

------
coolnewtoy
There's an arugment in favor of elite brand-name degrees, presumeably over
state universities, or vocational degrees:

"The research of Till Von Wachter, the economist at Columbia University,
suggests that not all people graduating into a recession see their life
chances dimmed: those with degrees from elite universities catch up fairly
quickly to where they otherwise would have been if they’d graduated in better
times; it’s the masses beneath them that are left behind. Princeton’s 2009
graduating class found more jobs in financial services than in any other
industry. According to Princeton’s career-services director, Beverly Hamilton-
Chandler, campus visits and hiring by the big investment banks have been down,
but that decline has been partly offset by an uptick in recruiting by hedge
funds and boutique financial firms."

------
va_coder
I read the book "New Ideas from Dead Economists" when I was in college. It's a
great read. One of the recurring themes is how economists seem to always
predict gloom and doom.

~~~
0wned
100 years ago they were predicting that the world would starve to death
because of the industrial revolution. "All the people are moving off the
farms, who will grow food to feed us? We will all starve to death. More and
more babies are being born. The sky is falling!!!" They did not count on
technology increasing food production and making it more efficient. Today,
food is so plentiful and convenient that we're all too fat.

To hell with economists and meteorologists too. Both groups attempt to predict
the unpredictable. Why believe anything they say... ever?

~~~
ciupicri
I think that we should also have a look at the quality of food. While the
quantity of available food has increased and you can find cheap food, it's
quality has decreased dramatically.

------
ippisl
Another scenario of the automation vs jobs is, very unstable economy job-wise,
for long terms. many many people would experience large periods of
unemployment , a constant need to shift jobs and professions , and all the
psycho-social negatives that come with this.

This might become a basic nature of the economy as automation becomes more
rapid. some might even say it's already happening.

I think we would need to optimize economies for well being , instead of GDP to
solve this.

------
flogic
I'm going to go out on a limb here. This is the inherent weakness of the
capitalist system. Eventually productivity outstrips need. The process is
kinda backwards but that seems to be the truth. In my world, a manager lays
people off to save money. Then they realize work isn't getting done because
they have less people. So they use automation to fill the gaps. Those jobs
don't come back.

~~~
msluyter
I assume you've been downvoted because there's a somewhat reflexive faith here
that new classes of jobs will always be created to fill those that have been
taken over by increased automation/productivity. That _may_ be true, but for
anyone who believes that, I recommend at least taking a look at the arguments
Marshall Brain presents in his"Robotic Nation." One of his conclusions is that
-- unlike with previous revolutions where new classes of jobs appeared to
replace the ones that were destroyed (industrial for agricultural, for
example) -- no new class of jobs appears to be on the horizon _that is also
not automatable._

~~~
lionhearted
I can't recommend the book "Economics in One Lesson" highly enough. It answers
this question.

Full text here: <http://jim.com/econ/>

I think it should be required reading for everyone during high school. This
chapter is relevant:

"The Curse of Machinery" - <http://jim.com/econ/chap07p1.html>

Long story very short? We'll be okay. It's been a worry for a long time, and
it's always been false. But the chapter of the book says it much better than
me, and it's a short read. Actually, I'm going to submit this now as a
separate submission. Really, highly recommended, very insightful stuff.

Edit: Submitted here if you'd like to discuss:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1127345>

~~~
msluyter
_It's been a worry for a long time, and it's always been false._

And therefore it will always be false?

~~~
Zot95
The "TL;DR" doesn't cover it, but in the chapter the previous commenter
references, he does explain why it's a logical fallacy. At the risk of putting
something incomplete and/or incorrect, TL;DR summary of the explanation of the
fallacy is that the productivity saved by automation is always available to
fuel further production.

------
CoryMathews
The reason America is jobless is because everyone is in debt. People (talking
majority) spend more then they make. They take out 3 year financing on
toasters (exaggerated but sadly not much). To be in debt is a way of life.
People buy things on credit long before they have the money to pay it off.
Thats why America is in a recession and jobs are closing.

If people (again majority) had common sense as most on HN seem to have then
America would be fine.

The second major reason IMO that America is going to be jobless is because the
overhead cost of everything is far to high, especially in government. It takes
so many people to sign off for anything that it will end up costing way more
then it should. Take a look at large government states vs small government
states and tell me which is doing better. (ie Cali vs Texas) Cali has to raise
taxes to pay for all the overhead which causes business owners to pay more
which causes them to not hire more people.. Pretty easy to see what needs to
happen.

~~~
petercooper
_To be in debt is a way of life. People buy things on credit long before they
have the money to pay it off._

Like, say, houses? Or a college education?

The problem isn't debt, per se - it's reaching a _level_ of debt that can't be
easily serviced by future earnings. Debt/credit is useful to invest in assets
that return benefits to you over the period of paying the debt off. The
ability to make these investments are a cornerstone of why the West has been
so successful over the past 3-400 years.

~~~
CoryMathews
I meant smaller things then houses or and eduction. Things such as TVs, PCs,
Ovens, ect. Items that are not as expensive as college or a house but are in
the under $3k range.

I agree that some debt it unavoidable and did not mean to come across that ALL
debt is bad and should be avoided because well some of it cannot (ie the
house). However buying many of these sub 3k items that are not needed then
paying them off over 3 years is crazy. Thats more what I was getting at.

~~~
petercooper
In that case, you're mostly right, but I think the "using credit to buy
assets" point is worth reiterating. Books, training courses, tools, etc, are
usually under $3K but could be a "good" use of credit. If someone without much
disposable income has the opportunity to take credit to become, say, an MCSE
to find a better job, that seems a reasonable use of credit.

In terms of needless consumer goods that return little value, however, right
on. The problem, then, is you either have to ruin credit for everyone (good or
bad) or you need to find a way to reduce "bad" borrowing.. which is seemingly
next to impossible.

------
euroclydon
I'm over 3/4 of the way though the article and it just keeps getting more
depressing. Somebody please hide all the sharp objects!

I've felt for a while that high unemployment (20-30%) is the normal state of
affairs. 20% of folks should probably be engaged in some sort of sustenance
living. It wouldn't really have to be that bad, like digging in dumpsters or
anything, but just living in a commune, farming, and building their own debt-
free shelter.

~~~
jcromartie
Comfortable high-tech subsistence farming is around the corner. Efficient
local renewable energy, RepRap machines, domestic robots... it's going to be a
very interesting century.

~~~
rcoder
Farmers are the original pioneers of "renewable energy." Their main energy
source is sunshine, converted directly to foodstuffs by some amazing works of
generic engineering (a.k.a. "plants). Biofuels? Yeah, they've been burning
corn and vegetable oils for decades. Robots? How about _biological_ labor aids
-- horses, herding dogs, chickens, etc.

Regardless, there's a reason you seldom hear "comfortable" and "subsistence
farming" in the same sentence. Growing enough food to feed yourself is a full-
time job, even _with_ modern agricultural tech. Yeah, there could be a
singularity-style event that makes traditional farming obsolete, but RepRaps
and Roombas ain't it.

------
sabat
_Ultimately, innovation is what allows an economy to grow quickly and create
new jobs as old ones obsolesce and disappear. Typically, one salutary side
effect of recessions is that they eventually spur booms in innovation. Some
laid-off employees become entrepreneurs, working on ideas that have been
ignored by corporate bureaucracies, while sclerotic firms in declining
industries fail, making way for nimbler enterprises. But according to the
economist Edmund Phelps, the innovative potential of the U.S. economy looks
limited today._

He had me until the end, where Edmund Phelps declares innovation in America is
"limited". HAH. Watch our smoke, Ed!

~~~
Groxx
He's probably pulling from the brain-drain problem we've been having since
schools started to go down the creek. Arguably, our environment is also
hostile to newcomers many times, due to patently absurd patent laws and higher
business taxes than many places (not all, mind you, just many).

~~~
sabat
Brain drain problem? What, all the entrepreneurs are moving to India and I
didn't hear about it? ;-)

The US may be "hostile" to newcomers -- you're right, we do have stupid patent
laws and some of the business taxes can seem ridiculous -- but then again,
most countries have stupid patent laws (see the WIPO) and many many countries
tax business at much more aggressive rates.

Even more importantly, if we're talking about technology: Silicon Valley has
never been replicated full-scale. Yes, there are pockets. But what draws
people to Northern California -- aside from the unique culture, natural
beauty, and the weather -- is that there has been an innovation pow-wow going
on since Hewlett and Packard took to the garage. People want in on that,
especially if they're into innovation themselves.

There are more startups starting up right now, especially here in CA, than
I've seen in years. Not all will innovate, but many will, and at least some of
that innovation will stick and maybe even change the world.

No innovation? Really? Has this guy seen the frickin' iPod? Oh, and heard of
Twitter? (Just to name some easy examples.)

~~~
Groxx
The startups recently are probably partly due to the decline, and the
projected improvement. People with money can capitalize on cheap locations to
do what they want, because the people who don't have money are gone.

And they're not all moving to one place, and of course there's evidence both
ways, but smart people _typically_ want to educate their kids well. Our
schools have been slipping a _lot_ for quite a while. Meanwhile, the rest of
the world is catching up rapidly for the first time in who knows how long. How
much you equate to coincidence and how much to causes A-ZZ varies by person,
of course, but I really do think this is _part_ of it.

~~~
anamax
> And they're not all moving to one place, and of course there's evidence both
> ways, but smart people typically want to educate their kids well. Our
> schools have been slipping a lot for quite a while.

What definition of "our" are we using?

Are Palo Alto's public schools slipping? Are the private schools in the valley
slipping?

Or, are you talking about universities? How many countries have 4 schools that
would be considered top 50 in the US? How about 10?

