
The Next Industrial Revolution Could Put Millions Out of Work - edward
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/the-next-industrial-revolution/498779/?single_page=true
======
coldtea
...and it might not auto-magically create new jobs, something which some
people repeat as if it is as inevitable as a law of nature.

Also, a large part (40-50%?) of the population might not be needed, or even
desired, e.g. poor and older people that put a strain in the economy, so, they
might be delegated to "b class" citizen status, and might end up living in
some developing world like wasteland/slums in the next 50 years or so, while
another big percentage has service jobs, and a 10-20% of luckier people live
in closed communities.

It's not some sci-fi fantasy, it's already in development, and even the norm
in lots of parts of the world, nothing (and surely not naive techno-optimism)
prevents it from coming to the West.

~~~
tdb7893
As of right now both views seem to just be idle speculation. I'm not an
economist but every other time similar things have happened in industry the
economy has balanced out. What I don't get is how what is happening now is
fundamentally different to the point where the economy won't correct?

~~~
anexprogrammer
If robots and AI are eliminating an entire sector (starting with driving for
instance), what other manual or low skill jobs are there _that aren 't already
targeted for AI replacement?_ We don't need 2m more car mechanics or farm
workers. This time it seem likely a certain class of job is going away.

Half the population is below average intelligence, and perhaps 25% (total
guess) might be best suited to a manual or semi-skilled role. What are we
going to do with them?

When similar things have happened previously, the once semi-skilled (eg)
shipbuilder becomes a low wage driver or call centre worker. Many in an area
didn't get those few roles, so became unemployed (and often depressed) for the
rest of their careers. Some steel or shipbuilding towns haven't fully
recovered even today.

Longer ago the farmhand could get any number of manual roles in the growing
industries. Blacksmiths became car mechanics, fuel attendants and so on.

Also when it's only a number of regional cities affected, like with coal,
steel or shipbuilding, it's much easier politically than when it's national.

~~~
daniel_levine
Relatively low margin, fragmented service jobs. Waiters/waitresses, fitness
instructors, barbers etc. Those jobs are often still better than the jobs
being automated away (truck driving), just less economic to build such
specialty robots, at least in the near term.

~~~
AndrewKemendo
Except none of those types of jobs offer the stability of the original
industrial jobs, and are generally geared more toward younger workers, who
have longer. So it's a much worse situation for those workers as the jobs are
higher risk.

If you were a 55 year old long haul trucker, you aren't going to be able to
replace the income/benefits you had with a $7/hr (pre-tip) service sector job.

~~~
unprepare
>$7/hr (pre-tip)

waitstaff isnt paid that much hourly. Its generally on the order of 2-3$ per
hour.

edit: since im being downvoted i assume someone disagrees - here is a source:

from nolo.com:

>Employers must pay tipped employees at least $3.23 an hour in 2016, $3.38 an
hour in 2017, and $3.52 an hour in 2018.

[http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/michigan-laws-
tipped-...](http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/michigan-laws-tipped-
employees.html)

~~~
anexprogrammer
Confused Brit question - how? That's below min wage, which I thought was
national law. I imagine it's a bit lower for youngsters.

~~~
unprepare
> Under federal law and in most states, employers may pay tipped employees
> less than the minimum wage, as long as employees earn enough in tips to make
> up the difference. This is called a "tip credit."

Technically you can sue your employer if they wont pay you the difference if
you dont end up making enough in tips to end up at or above minimum wage - in
practice however, suing your employer is generally not a great way to stay
employed

[http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/michigan-laws-
tipped-...](http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/michigan-laws-tipped-
employees.html)

~~~
anexprogrammer
Damn, that's harsh.

Only way I know round UK min wage is to be self-employed, or one of the fake
"self-employed" like some delivery drivers have had to become. Surprised the
IR haven't slammed the door on that little scam yet.

------
JumpCrisscross
A consequence of roboticisation is the decreasing military value of large
populations. If robots can build tanks and fly planes and shoot soldiers,
having more people isn't an advantage. Having more robots is.

Given how our civilisations ultimately compete through force, this raises
interesting questions around optimal design. Namely, every civilisation will
have to choose between subsidising their poor or quarantining them. (If we are
honest, we already do this to some extent with borders and welfare and
immigration controls.)

~~~
placeybordeaux
Nuclear weapons changed the formula on competing by force already. After a
certain amount of nukes the number of people involved didn't really matter.
Now all shows of force have to be done through proxy wars in nations that
don't have nukes. Sucks for Iran that they never made it to nukes.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
There's a range of tactical and strategic options between nukes and, say,
deploying a covert team of special ops.

------
JDDunn9
I think the biggest potential threat here is the rising skill requirements. AI
/ robots are eliminating the least skilled jobs, and creating highly skilled
jobs. Out of work truck drivers aren't going to get jobs working at Google's
self-driving car team. No new jobs will be created for humans that a robot
could do, just like no one thinks about using a horse to power a machine. At
some point, the bottom 10-20% in intelligence and education could be
unemployable through no fault of their own.

~~~
wolfgke
> At some point, the bottom 10-20% in intelligence and education could be
> unemployable through no fault of their own.

If their parents are not people of high intelligence, these people should
rather complain to their parents that they gave them birth: Knowing that in
the future a lot less people of bottom but much more of high intelligence are
necessary, the parents willingly produced children of genetic material that is
probably badly suited for the future.

Thus the "bad guy" is not the political system, but people of low intelligence
producing children of low intelligence (in statistical average).

~~~
jonathansizz
So you're advocating forced sterilization of undesirable segments of society?

~~~
wolfgke
I am against _forced_ sterilization (this would be a violation of the basic
right of physical integrity). This does not contradict that it would perhaps
not a bad idea to give a financial incentive for sterilization (though I have
to think more about the best way of implementing this).

Nevertheless I see the much larger problem in the fact that many pairs choose
to bring children to the world because this is the action that is encouraged
in society (most people are simply conformists). If we could make it the
default that it is _frowned upon_ if a couple, for which it will be rather
likely "from available data" that the children will be in a bad position in
future society, nevertheless decides to have some, I think a large part of the
problem would be solved.

I also would encourage children from the bottom quantiles of intelligence or
earnings to say clear words to their parents that they are part of their
problem.

~~~
jonathansizz
So you _know_ that most people have children merely to conform to societal
expectations? It couldn't be any other reason, such as an innate drive?

But it's comforting to know that you wouldn't _force_ sterilization upon them,
but instead merely encourage their children to reproach them for having
brought them into the world.

Maybe these children could also volunteer for euthanization to reduce the
burden on society imposed by such worthless individuals? This would also have
the benefit of making the idiotic, conformist parents remorseful for having
indulged in their mindless rutting.

------
kamaal
Most fears in the comments here are uncalled for.

Let me narrate to you an alternate view from a formerly a socialist country,
India. Prior to the mid 90's there was immense resentment towards computers,
there were heavy import duties on computer products and anything related to
them in general. It was so expensive to work with automation that it almost
throttled the economic growth for a good two decades.

I hear a lot anecdotes from my dad from around 80's. Unions in India called
for a national strike, like a total shutdown when the prime minister wanted to
introduce computers to the country. It was believed job losses would be so
immense it will impossible for the ordinary person on the streets to meet the
basic needs. Also around about that time, most factory assembly workers used
to protest against PCB assembly machines all the time, government offices
hated digital record keeping etc.

I remember even in the 90's telephone connections used to take years to get,
and things like TV's/Refigerators used to be considered very expensive to own.
When Washing Machines came around most people used to identify the lazy with
those buying these machines.

Yet today all of this is common. Every house hold has these devices. And the
introduction of computers and automation only increased jobs and overall
quality of living has only improved.

------
wklauss
I guess it is a great time to start researching basic income and other new
economic aproaches for society.

------
eitaporra
The Next Industrial Revolution Could Put Millions Out of Work ... Just as
every other ones

~~~
imglorp
I don't think this time is the same because of the scale and the cost
accounting pressures that were not present last times.

First: Drivers obviously: 10 million people. Fast food: 3 million. Walmart:
1.4 million. Etc.

Secondly: offshoring (NAFTA and TPP) was never happening at the scale those
treaties are indented to impart.

These two things could decimate the US workforce if they're not contained.

~~~
eitaporra
"I don't think this time is the same" its another big moto for industrial
revolutions

------
mikebelanger
The next industrial revolution doesn't even have to automate jobs to kill
them. It just has to make them all so specialized that it will be highly
improbable that there's any people who have that specialization.

------
AndrewKemendo
The reason this time is different is that the pace of change is faster than
the workforce can respond to it.

In the past, a displaced worker could transfer their skills or pick up a new
skill relatively quickly (6mo-1yr).

Today though, it's much harder for a high-school educated person to completely
change their skill set to building ML systems.

I think this is solvable through education programs and shifts in how humans
can train machines, but so far those systems aren't being built or deployed.

------
abz10
I wish they would stop calling it "machine intelligence." It's a crappy made
up buzzword by people who wanted to call "machine learning" "artificial
intelligence" (AI) but couldn't without being ridiculed. Now that AI is cool
again we no longer need the term Machine Intelligence. If you want to be taken
seriously by practitioners you call it ML if you want to extract money from
investors call it AI.

------
grecy
Great! We can finally get that quality of life increase we were promised way
back in the day when we bought into this "go to work more" stuff.

We can average it all out, and everyone can work 3-4 days a week and have way
more time to explore our passions and side projects. Imagine how much better
the world will be when people have time to spend with their kids, to learn
other languages, to write that book they dreamed of, etc.

Bring it on, I say!

~~~
balabaster
...and no money to afford all the consumables or pay their mortgages.

I agree with you, but we need to make a plan for all those that will put out
of their existing jobs and make it possible for them to transition to jobs
that can't be replaced by technology.

Technology is what drives us forward. It's necessary and is the only way we
can legitimately effect our advance as a species - aside from other more
controversial topics. But we cannot be blind to those it will leave behind if
we allow it. They cannot be lost in the shuffle or we all lose.

------
ekianjo
> The main reason is machine intelligence, a general-purpose technology that
> can be used anywhere, from driving cars to customer service, and it’s
> getting better very, very quickly

Oh, that's why we are still dealing with the crappy automated support from
Google or Steam that does not seem to be working much if at all ?

~~~
aioprisan
Providing customer support isn't a business decision for them, in the sense
that the won't put billions of dollars and decade(s) of thousands of
engineers' time to win this zero sum game.

------
stonemetal
Meh. That industrial revolution already happened. The number of workers needed
by a factory is already 25% of what it was in the 60s. Will it fall further?
Sure, as we learn how to automate more jobs. But it will be much slower, The
low hanging highly profitable fruit has already been consumed.

------
denisd
I don't think people really grasp what is going on here, people won't have any
other jobs to move to, even if new type of jobs are created, AI will be able
to do them too. Just as cars replaced almost all functions horses had, AI will
replace all functions we humans have.

~~~
krapp
People are under the likely false assumption that _they_ won't be replaced by
AI, because _their_ jobs require too much intelligence or creativity. At one
time, rug weavers believed the same thing, and now it seems to be programmers,
designers and artists.

But I think you're right - as a general trend, any job that can be automated,
will be automated, as long as consumers find the product acceptable. Of
course, you can't automate _everything_ because someone, somewhere, needs
money to spend on the goods and services, but with a global consumer base and
efficient automation, companies can probably still make a profit in the midst
of mass unemployment.

------
mtrn
Can anyone recommend an a good paper or essay on this subject? This
development looks like an amazing economical shift and I would love to read
semi-sci-fi-ish scenarios by serious economists studying past and present
systems.

------
codegeek
Say What ? I don't understand this line of reasoning. For every job that is
lost, a new one is potentially created due to these industrial revolutions.
For example, when Cars were invented, I am sure a lot of buggy drivers lost
their jobs. But they probably learned to drive and moved on. Yes when the
transition happens, there may be a period of adjustment but why not. That is
how we have been able to progress from the stone age till now.

If things like Robots take over blue collar jobs, I bet we will need the same
humans to operate those Robots at some capacity. Computers, anyone ? And yes,
may be AI will change things a bit more but I am sure we will come up with a
way to manage that as well.

~~~
ekianjo
> If things like Robots take over blue collar jobs, I bet we will need the
> same humans to operate those Robots at some capacity. Computers, anyone ?
> And yes, may be AI will change things a bit more but I am sure we will come
> up with a way to manage that as well.

Exactly. It seems like most people on HN reason with the "work revolutions"
being zero-sum games or something. It's been proven over and over again it
never ends up being like that, despite the numerous revolutions the Human Race
has seen. It's getting a little old.

~~~
jklinger410
So for autonomous trucks how will human truckers keep their jobs? For the auto
manufacture industry, how many less humans does Tesla employ to produce a
vehicle vs in 1996? For the service industry...how many jobs are being
replaced as McDonalds rolls out kiosks?

You are uninformed if you believe these jobs are staying. There is no way,
mark my words, that our economy doesn't experience a net negative in jobs
during this next revolution.

It's not all bad though, it could push us towards UBI, maybe a supply based
economy. Otherwise we're basically saying jesus take the wheel.

A guy can dream.

~~~
ekianjo
> You are uninformed if you believe these jobs are staying. There is no way,
> mark my words, that our economy doesn't experience a net negative in jobs
> during this next revolution.

People were saying the exact same thing when sophisticated machines were
introduced in automotive industry manufacturing. Sure, some people could not
convert and lost jobs, but everyone else moved on to be productive in other
areas.

This prophecy of Doom is happening every 10 years or so.

~~~
jklinger410
>Sure, some people could not convert and lost jobs, but everyone else moved on
to be productive in other areas.

Tell this to the midwest, where the lie of our government's unemployment
reporting is most obvious. It's honestly kind of offensive that you said that
as I am from Michigan.

And as I have said in other comments
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12605690](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12605690)),
there are factors like the stagnant minimum wage and self-interest at play
that have kept jobs in these companies that could be replaced _currently_ let
alone in 10 years.

I am not here to convince you to change your mind about potential job loss.
Understanding the technology, our current economy, and the political
atmosphere around jobs should be enough to convince you of this truth.

As others have said, maybe there are imaginary jobs that will be invented to
make up for these losses. I'm sure the banks will do their best to make sure
that happens.

------
djschnei
[https://fee.org/articles/the-curse-of-
machinery/](https://fee.org/articles/the-curse-of-machinery/)

------
kolbe
'Millions' is actually an understatement.

------
aurizon
Become a pet to a robot, have it feed you, rub ur ears etc, and put you to
sleep when you are suffering...

------
paulftw
"AI will replace all jobs" is the new "safe nuclear energy is only 10 years
away"

~~~
intopieces
Safe nucelear energy is here, and has been for years. The number of people who
have died from exposure to coal dust is far higher than those who have been
harmed by nuclear anything.

~~~
paulftw
I'm referring to promises of reliable, cheap and zero waste cold fusion or
plasma or whatever reactors that were promised to 100% replace fossil fuels.

A handful of reactors here and there while an awesome achievement in itself
doesn't really meet the expectations people of the sixties had for the year
2000.

Other analogies I considered using but was too lazy to mention in my comment
were jet packs, space tourism, cure for cancer and HIV. (and you could say all
of these have also been delivered... to some extent)

------
johngalt
How many programmers were put out of work when compilers became common?

------
acqq
Somehow I don't see it to insightful...

It seems she gives examples of AI-powered voice chat-bots instead of call
center workers, the robotic burger flippers instead of humans. The cause:
because "minimal wages will raise."

Have I missed something?

~~~
criddell
I think you did. Basically, no jobs are immune to the next wave of automation.
I think entertainers and sex workers will still make money, but I'm not sure
what else will.

------
jdmoreira
Yeah, but by then Elon Musk will have made humans an interplanetary species
and we'll be ready for the first wave of interplanetary immigration :)

Mars, the land of opportunities for the next industrial revolution?

~~~
justaman
[http://i.imgur.com/GDxqs2c.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/GDxqs2c.jpg)

------
pdog
Could? It's already happening.

------
Findeton
... or not.

