
Ask HN: How would you crack the upcoming unemployment wave? - bsvalley
AI will lead us to the largest unemployment wave in history. Maybe in 10 or 20 years from now. How would you avoid chaos?
======
tarr11
How is AI any different from other technology improvement such as electricity,
automation, personal computers, steam engines, or the cotton gin?

All of them destroyed some jobs, and created new ones.

Are you sure that the impact of this one thing will be larger than other
events, such as climate change, space travel, video games or war?

The only thing that is likely from AI of is perhaps increased productivity,
which, on its own, will not create chaos. And, we have had several false
starts in the past on that with AI, so even that is unclear.

My suggestion is to continue living your life in the best way you think
possible.

~~~
3pt14159
Unequal distribution of gains.

That is the primary difference. If a founder creates a technology from
Singapore and sells it worldwide it can replace millions of workers without
those workers or their countries seeing any gain, relative or otherwise.

A secondary difference is that it may fully obsolete some humans, just as cars
fully obsoleted horse drawn carriages. In the past, farmers could move to
factories, but once robots are able to understand simple commands and enact
them with human-like limbs at a all-in cost lower than minimum wage, then a
good part of human society becomes unable to earn a living. Sure, some things
only humans can do (those that require a belief that the job must be done by a
human: therapist, tour guide, politician, etc) but it doesn't seem especially
likely that this will absorb the billions of low-skill workers.

~~~
tarr11
These reasons would apply to the cotton gin as well.

~~~
gremlinsinc
cotton gin didn't replace dr's, lawyers, teachers, truck drivers, surgeons,
taxi drivers, delivery drivers, writers (many news agencies already use AI to
write articles) customer service / tech support, and even coders (there's a
project to teach AI to code). The end goal of ai/automation is a society where
nobody has to work at all but can live like kings because the robots take care
of everyone..

~~~
AstralStorm
The real question then becomes one of what will the masses do? Hedonism is a
short trip, next sets in boredom. What we need is scientists and explorers in
space. Ultimately, a risky adventure. That takes even more science in areas
that are much more undeveloped than AI: psychology, sociology, science-based
politics and definitely biotech (which is on the cusp of important
breakthroughs ) and space travel. (Elon Musk plan in essence)

The meantime would require a massive shift in thinking of elites from greed to
charity and cooperation.

~~~
majewsky
> what will the masses do?

Doing all the things that fall outside the realm of economy: \- Caring for
their children and elderly relatives. \- Pursuing artistic and scientific
endeavors. \- Volunteering in their local community.

All of this would certainly keep _me_ busy. I honestly don't know if this
reasoning applies to 100% of people; that's a hard prediction.

------
fixermark
World war.

History suggests that the massive devastation and annihilation of labor
resulting from a multi-continental war is extremely economically stimulating
to the survivors. So many opportunities for jobs rebuilding and restoring the
things and people that were destroyed!

(I am, of course, being sarcastic, but it's useful in these contemplations
sometimes to consider the stakes by putting a null hypothesis of sorts on the
table).

~~~
atemerev
I don't see any sarcasm here. Two previous macroeconomic transitions
(industrial revolution, post-industrial white collar economy) were indeed
resolved by world wars.

I considered this scenario extremely likely to be repeated.

~~~
AstralStorm
See, the main difference is the scale of the destruction. WW2 exactly ended
because it escalated to really horrendous levels. (If the Japanese or Germans
got the nuke first, we'd be in a very different world now.)

~~~
atemerev
That's fine.

WWI culminated in development of chemical weapons. They were used in wartime,
assessed, and stockpiled. But everybody was scared of ever using them again.
Chemical weapons were not used in WWII.

The same thing happened with nuclear weapons in WWII. They were used,
evaluated, and then stockpiled. But everybody was scared of ever using them
again, and they weren't. Nuclear weapons most probably will not be used in
WWIII.

------
mchannon
Do nothing.

Plenty of able-bodied people today don't work. They live off investments, the
government, and/or the largesse of friends and family. Many lead lifestyles
you or I might find very limiting, but they're Americans and they vote. They'd
become available to work if something matching their work ethic, life
situation, and BATNA was to come along. For many, nothing ever will.

Our world is not really in very much chaos over this, compared to the chaos of
the past 100 years from other sources.

Futurists once predicted that the 40-hour workweek would become a thing of the
past as automation made leisure time more available. I submit that we're
actually seeing that, though maybe we don't recognize it: many of us working
more than 40 because we have jobs that require it, and with those of us
working single digits being pretty quiet about it, the aggregate average is
slipping further below 40 every year.

A society where 10% of the people work really hard and 90% of the people
barely work at all sounds more like the popular concept of a utopia than a
dystopia, at least to me.

~~~
putsteadywere
This makes me a bit sadder about the fact that I averaged 55 hours a week last
year.

------
TaylorAlexander
My solution is to end our reliance on "jobs" for survival.

This can be done by building machines that produce everything necessary for
human survival, and making those machines as low cost as possible.

In general I refer to these machines as "survival machines", and I see them as
somewhat similar to a computer operating system but for human beings.

I've written a few essays about this concept, and am actively developing
robotic hardware to build the first prototypes now.

[http://tlalexander.com/machine/](http://tlalexander.com/machine/)

------
colanderman
Revive unique ornate embellished design. Centuries ago, every product in the
home of the wealthy was its own miniature work of art; almost necessarily,
because it was all hand-made. Certainly kept artisans busy.

Today, flat design is considered desirable – by definition, devoid of
embellishment. Embellishment is considered tacky. This trend is no doubt
encouraged by mass industry, which benefits from more uniform design: it is
easier to produce, and easier to mass-market.

A market for unique embellishment could provide employment for many. By
definition, unique embellishment cannot be scaled, else it would not be
unique. So-called "hipster" culture has already started going this route, with
hand-made "artisanal" goods and services (food) becoming trendy and employing
many producing what would otherwise be a fraction of a large factory's output.

Of course, the problem is maintaining the key trait – uniqueness – as
desirable. Ornate embellishment can be mass-produced. The trick is convincing
people to spend more to buy something that was inefficiently produced, as
opposed to something that _looks_ like it was inefficiently produced.

~~~
RUG3Y
This is a cool idea, but isn't it a chicken or egg scenario? I need lots of
disposable income to buy unique, handmade things. If not enough people have
money to buy these things, then the market won't be able to support many
artisans. I'm not sure if I'm missing something here.

~~~
colanderman
You are right. It is a practice that has to start from the wealthiest. Of
course, this is why artist communities thrive near centers of wealth. I'm not
sure how to kickstart such a larger trend.

------
surfmike
As a society, fund jobs where humans are still best. Caretaking of elderly,
daycare, more teachers for more hands-on learning. Unless robots are full on
conscious beings, people will always need that human connection for their own
proper development and well-being.

Case in point, Norway has a ton of oil money and they could almost live off it
as a country. But instead they save as much as they can and invest the rest in
a strong social state that takes good care of the young, elderly, poor,
disabled.

~~~
gremlinsinc
There's only so many people that can fill those types of jobs..I'm a developer
though --so an introvert - I'm never going to want to take care of elderly for
sure.. I could def. see myself teaching because - I do like to do that, but
I'd probably teach coding, and when there are no coding jobs - when all
teaching is about taking care of elderly or becoming a teacher... or a massage
therapist - I'll be out of a job there as well.

There's 9 billion people on the earth and if we try and divy up all jobs that
require a human touch -- we'd still have about 8.4 billion people left
unemployed. Full on conscience robots aren't impossible either - further out
for sure (2050-2060 by most estimates) - but w/ AI's help in
researching/coding next gen AI that timetable could move up exponentially.

------
estro
I'm not sure why people continue to ask this question when the threat of
massive global food web and ecosystem disruption caused by human-driven
environmental damage is arguably far more imminent than job displacement. I
say arguably because there are arguments that state the contrary, but they
aren't realistic. Drastic job displacement due to automation will take at
least 10 more years, while we're already seeing unprecedented droughts,
groundwater depletion, pollinator extinction, and massive biodiversity
eradication in the oceans. Scientists are literally saying that we are past
the point of no return [0]. So why would people think that a massive
unemployment wave will strike before an ecological catastrophe does? I'll tell
you why: because rich people don't even know what they're doing. If they did,
they'd know it would be in their best interests (granted, long-term best
interests) to use their massive capital advantage to improve the longevity of
the human race, i.e. their customers. And, as time has shown, the only way to
wrangle in stupid rich people is by a revolution, and probably a violent one
unfortunately. So ironically, as I say that there are more pressing issues at
hand, my solution is to have a revolution. Disclaimer: I don't want this to
happen any more than the next person, but it will regardless.

[0] [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/donald-trump-
clima...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/donald-trump-climate-
change-policy-global-warming-expert-thomas-crowther-a7450236.html)

~~~
majewsky
> I'm not sure why people continue to ask this question when the threat of
> massive global food web and ecosystem disruption caused by human-driven
> environmental damage is arguably far more imminent than job displacement.

Because it tickles your brain more to think about this. (No sarcasm or
anything, just neutrally offering a hypothesis.)

------
jackcosgrove
>How would you avoid chaos? Encase myself in a robotic super suit and fend off
the hordes one bullet at a time.

In all seriousness, I think the most likely course of action is that a
significant part of society will retreat into virtual reality and drug
addiction. As we are already seeing in Europe, east Asia, and parts of the US,
in the absence of economic opportunity the population drops once people have
some experience of modern life and see that it's not all it's cracked up to
be.

~~~
bsvalley
"a significant part of society will retreat into virtual reality and drug
addiction."

Sound like chaos to me ;)

~~~
jackcosgrove
I don't think we can pretend that most people will be employable, and employ
them in make-work jobs. That won't fly even for those who benefit from these
jobs - people are too knowledgeable and incredulous now. They will know it is
just a game.

The population will fall, and indeed it already is falling. VR and drugs sound
like a way to sedate people, not drum up chaos.

~~~
RUG3Y
It sounds an awful lot like the Brave New World.

~~~
AstralStorm
Indeed it is one possible model of a surprisingly stable society. One other
intermediate is to cart them off to space. And then next once population is
low enough so that only the best remain in the genetic pool, we might see
something special. Plato's republic? That was never possible because you could
not have every one be a philosopher scientist as the support base was never
there to begin with.

Utopia of a kind, probably with people who are no longer quite exactly homo
sapiens but a new species even. (super advanced AI could be it)

There are many ways to have a temporary dystopia but how many to have a
permanent one?

Huxley foresaw specialising humans to the kind of work they are supposed to
do, but he never foresaw the tools we now have.

Now then, we need not agree with Mond's goal.

------
wu-ikkyu
_Redesign the monetary system from the ground up with modern goals in mind_ ,
as opposed to the legacy goals stated in the 1913 Federal Reserve Act.

As it stands, 2 of the 3 explicitly stated goals of the Federal Reserve system
are:

1\. achieve maximum employment

2\. maintain stable prices

Exponential growth of computing and automation makes #1 a sadomasochistic,
obsolete, and counterproductive goal as putting everyone to work would mean us
having "too many cooks in the kitchen".

Stable prices is also counterproductive and counterintuitive, as automation is
making goods and services better, faster, and cheaper. Prices should tend
toward zero in an increasingly automated labor market.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephemeralization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephemeralization)

------
Someone1234
Live a lifestyle by then which is very inexpensive and build up savings.

Meaning: Own your own property. Reduce or eliminate long term contracts
(vehicle loans, two year commitments, etc). Reduce overall spending (so your
savings last longer).

There's a reason why, in 2008, retirees as a group were least impacted. They
had more stable lifestyles that didn't depend on an active job. Plus even if
the AI revolution never happens, this strategy has benefits for the next
recession, illness, or other unemployment.

------
rm_-rf_slash
Culture itself has to change. A winner-takes-all global capitalist system is
already on track to pile loads of wealth upon the wealthy and hollow out the
middle class into a modern serfdom.

We as a people need to better value kindness, volunteering, or even the basic
dignity of life itself.

If we are lucky, we will achieve these things in time for the machines to
learn them from us. If we end up creating super-intelligent machines in the
mould of Ayn Rand, I suspect our future will be harsh and unkind.

------
clarkmoody
> AI will lead us to the largest unemployment wave in history.

Citation needed.

But let's assume you're right. I think the last thing we need to do is hand
more power to governments.

For instance, if AI bring massive productivity increases across many sectors,
than price pressure will be downward. Anti-market solutions like price floors
(to support business) or minimum wages (to support workers), will not allow us
to fully enjoy the improved standard of living brought about by falling
prices.

Some localities or states will outlaw self-driving cars (as they hurt driver
jobs), but that will simply prevent delivery prices from falling in that
locality, hurting the many for the benefit of the few.

Imagine if the cost of living dropped to 10% or 1% of what it is today, while
at the same time quality and quantity of goods increased. We wouldn't need
government to assure some income based on today's cost of living. Instead, a
meager amount of savings, a small amount of charity, or a small amount of work
could sustain everyone's existence. Propping up current wage levels with UBI
would be fighting the natural economic forces driving cost of living down.

~~~
putsteadywere
So, AI brings massive productivity, which drops cost of living... and then
what happens to the industries whose costs were reduced as part of that?

What if the impact of AI reducing costs looks like the impact of on textile
industries in countries that receive mountains of donated clothes?

"The result of this harmful practice is increased dependency on foreign aid in
countries like Kenya and Uganda. Local industry can't compete, so factories
close down, taking priceless jobs with them. It's a huge problem."

[0] [http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/spiegel-
intervie...](http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/spiegel-interview-
with-african-economics-expert-for-god-s-sake-please-stop-the-
aid-a-363663.html) [1] [http://blog.wovin.org/faq](http://blog.wovin.org/faq)
[2] [https://techcrunch.com/2013/11/23/lets-kill-the-aid-
industry...](https://techcrunch.com/2013/11/23/lets-kill-the-aid-industry/)

~~~
AstralStorm
The main problem with robotics is the very high barrier of entry to making
silicone electronics. This obviously concentrates power in the hands of the
very few.

------
Beltiras
Enact a tax on automation. Don't do it immediately, do it when the tech hits
the knee of the adoption curve. Use the income to implement a guaranteed basic
income. Otherwise it's going to end in dystopia.

~~~
tarr11
Does that mean I have to use a government approved text editor every time I
automate something with code?

~~~
grhmc
Eight Monitors and Constantly Surveilling

------
spcelzrd
Historically, technological advances do not lead to widespread unemployment,
though they do generate widespread speculation about future unemployment.

If this time is different, then I think the answer will be in something like
universal basic income. Preparing for that and avoiding chaos means
introducing social structures and ideas that can lead us out of capitalism.

------
ebbv
To me this is like asking how do we crack the littering problem from tourists
on Olympus Mons?

I still think we are really far from this. Siri, Alexa and Google Assistant
aren't anywhere near good enough to replace a human assistant. Siri has been
out for _5_ years and look at how slowly the improvement in digital assistants
has been since then. At the rate seen over the last 5 years we're at least a
decade or more away from digital assistants putting human assistants out of
work.

Now we talk about AI actually putting jobs that require more training than an
assistant (which I am not denigrating, it is a hard job, but easier to train
someone on than some other professions) and I think we're 50-100+ years away
from AI actually causing some kind of employment crisis.

------
carsongross
Implement a Georgist tax regime[1], take the money production facility away
from the banks (direct issuance by the goverment for infrastructure, profit
share the results), implement Distributist[2] policies to spread capital
ownership as broadly as possible, and implement a gently eugenic basic income
regime. (Not happy about that last one, but it has to happen to make things
sustainable.)

[1] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism)

[2] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism)

~~~
GavinMcG
I have no idea what a "gently eugenic" regime would be. Or, if it's what I'm
imagining, why it would be necessary for sustainability. Mind elaborating?

~~~
carsongross
An example would be to make basic income only apply to citizens over 18, so
having additional children would not increase payments to a family, and then
making children a large tax break, encouraging people who can afford them to
have children.

I'm ambivalent about it, particularly since I'm catholic, but I'm afraid the
alternative is idiocracy and, eventually, far more human suffering.

------
lotsofcows
AI? 10 or 20 years? You're out by at least an order of magnitude.

The upcoming unemployment wave will be caused by the automation of middle
class jobs exacerbated by the failing economy caused, ironically, by the
decreasing population.

------
SubuSS
I believe the next step is expanding our footprint out of earth and colonizing
other planets. That will provide people who aren't the beneficiaries of the
current economy a new start. There will be fringe planets that are
'uninteresting' but still viable for human life.

I don't believe that a basic income would be the right way forward. It might
be a good stop gap measure while we try and figure out super-fast travel and
terraforming - but it will marginalize a huge portion of the society.

Historically no society has been kind to 'freeloaders' and I don't expect that
to change anytime. (Please note the quotes - it is not my opinion, it is just
what the opposition thinks). We don't need UBI, we need universal opportunity
for jobs for everyone so that they can feel a measure of dignity and go about
their life instead of looking at a life of netflix and chill.

The other choice I can think of happening is androidization of people. Once
you are able to upload your consciousness into a network, there won't be any
shortage of space. I think this is even further out though sadly :(.

------
scarface74
Yeah I know. I'm about to say something that is sacrilege.

In nature, the population and the available resources tend to equalize. I am a
bleeding heart libertarian (let people do what they want to do as long as it
doesn't affect others but I don't mind paying taxes to provide a safety net),
so I'm not saying people should die on the street, but maybe we should stop
having as many children and things will stabilize.

I even think it would be cheaper long term if we subsidized birth control for
the people who wanted it.

~~~
6d6b73
I used to be a hard core libertarian, but not anymore. It will simply not work
in an era of full scale automation and AI.

~~~
scarface74
That's why I qualified it as a "bleeding heart liberterian". I don't believe
the government should mettle to much in what private corporations do with a
few exceptions, but I do believe its first responsibility is to its citizens
and to provide a safety net. I don't mind my taxes going to help others who
got left behind

As far as exceptions to when the government should mettle: it shouldn't allow
companies to actively harm people (pollution), it should force companies to
give consumers all relevant information on whatever they are trying to sell,
and they shouldn't allow mergers that decrease competition.

------
k__
The health and social systems desperately need people to work there. I don't
think truck drivers want to start a career in nursing, but well, many people
driving taxis today didn't think they switch to driving taxis when they lost
their jobs.

Another way would be pumping money in (re-)education of all these people.

I'm don't think every one of them can be changed into a lawyer or physicist,
but I saw a bunch of "street-smart" entrepreneurs whos businesses at least
made enough money for them.

------
j08n
You're asking how to solve a problem that hasn't emerged caused by a
technology that hasn't matured, with a solution you haven't created.

Sounds like a problem for government! ;)

------
randomdata
Conveniently, nuclear fusion is also 10-20 years away. With the energy problem
going away at the same time, we won't need to worry about working anymore.

~~~
vax
Nuclear fusion is ALWAYS 10-20 years away.

~~~
detaro
I think that's the point of randomdata's comment.

~~~
AstralStorm
Actually it has been progressing nicely linearly so the original predictions
were way too optimistic, but it is at break even now. In the meantime, there
are major improvements to be made in fission.

Making it progress faster would take more genius scientists plus somewhat more
funding. Not a lot more though. But where do you find and view do you
cultivate such physicists and material scientists?

------
lukasm
The biggest problem is the backward compatibility with the current system.

Negative income tax with a government backed efficient job market where to
overhead of hiring someone for 2h is minimal. As a result, someone working 20h
a week would have the same quality of life as someone working 40h today for a
minimum wage. Worker can spend the extra 20h on education, leisure or more
work.

I don't think anything other would fly pocitally.

------
brogrammer2
If it does happen, there would surely be a new wave of employment in areas
unimagined before.

~~~
gremlinsinc
That worked great for horses, right? After cars they were employed in lots of
places never imagined... --we use glue for tons of stuff now adays.

------
partycoder
I think our society might be changing a little bit more. This talk explains
it:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMYYx_im5QI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMYYx_im5QI)

------
j08n
You're asking how to solve a problem that hasn't emerged caused by a
technology that isn't developed, using a solution you haven't created.

I know. Government will solve this! ;)

------
skilesare
I'm working on the problem at catallax.info. My book should be out soon. I'm
going to be looking for lots of input and collaboration.

------
billconan
Learn ai as hard as I can.

~~~
fixermark
That's a good personal solution but it does not scale. But by all means, do
that; we need more people who understand the capabilities and limitations of
the technology in the space.

------
MK999
Invest in chip companies. AI requires a lot of computes.

------
bsvalley
Why is this post dropping to the bottom?

------
qntty
Work to seize the means of production

------
jetsnoc
Robot tax.

