
Report: 47% of U.S. Jobs At Risk of Being Automated Out of Existence - up_and_up
http://technoccult.net/archives/2013/10/08/report-47-of-u-s-jobs-at-risk-of-being-automated-out-of-existence/
======
acgourley
A thought experiment: Imagine a pre-singularity world with near-intelligent
anthropomorphic robots which can do most manual tasks - including resource
mining, food production and building more of themselves. Imagine most menial
white collar jobs have been replaced by clever software written by people on
this site. There are still some jobs for humans to do - in game design,
fashion, service, music, etc. But any way you look at it, there are not enough
jobs for everyone to do. Lets call this the "high unemployment future."

Currently we exist in a "low unemployment present" but if you believe a "high
unemployment future" is possible, you should reasonable believe we're smoothly
approaching it. So if you think my thought experiment can come to pass - we
need to be very concerned.

If you're going to bring out the tired argument about how the cotton gin
didn't cause mass unemployment, instead I would challenge you to paint a
picture of a far off future where most jobs haven't evaporated.

~~~
owenmarshall
> So if you think my thought experiment can come to pass - we need to be very
> concerned.

We only need to be concerned if we make the assumption that societal
expectations won't adjust as well. "Hard work" is seen as a virtue; someone
who takes government assistance is pitied at best, considered "parasitic" at
worst.

If we take those views into your world it will be a _disaster_. But instead
the real question should be "why does everyone _need_ to have a job?" If we
provide for the needs of people displaced by the new machines, we'd free
people up to pursue arts, philosophy, or even simple leisure. We'd be living
in Bertrand Russell's paradise of 'idleness'.

~~~
argonaut
> we'd free people up to pursue a̶r̶t̶s̶,̶ ̶p̶h̶i̶l̶o̶s̶o̶p̶h̶y̶,̶ ̶o̶r̶
> ̶e̶v̶e̶n̶ ̶s̶i̶m̶p̶l̶e̶ ̶l̶e̶i̶s̶u̶r̶e̶ mindless hedonism.

Corrected.

Positive statement, not normative as below might think.

~~~
owenmarshall
> mindless hedonism.

Ignoring the fact that this is a pretty offensive reduction to apply to most
people, I'd ask:

Does it really matter? And if so, _why_?

------
codegeek
Another report: As more jobs are getting automated, it opens up "new" job
opportunities in new fields that are coming up. So net effect: not much. Point
being that for centuries, we have been automating things that were done by
humans at some point in time. Not much different even today.

Take one example of cellphones. It probably eliminated many "jobs" for people
working in landline industries in the last decade or so BUT it probably added
a lot more jobs in the telecom industry in general.

EDIT: based on some replies, I am not dismissing the fact completely that
automation can have impacts on jobs. They definitely do but the point is that
the number of jobs themselves do not dimish. It is the "type" of job that is
changed which could surely be a problem for the displaced workers because they
might not have the new skillset/experience ready to be employed.

~~~
arrrg
That is (very likely) true in the long run, but it would be foolish to
overlook the short-term effects that can be devastating for many individuals.

The weavers faced real problems, had a real existential crisis and struggled
with real poverty and hunger for many decades. Yes, the industrial revolution
brought a tremendous increase in wealth and living standards to everyone, but
only eventually to everyone.

It is tremendously important to take care of the people who are cast by the
wayside by those changes.

~~~
mc32
I agree with this. Not sure how viable, but it'd be nice to see some kind of
federal program which allowed for a 5-year transition program for people where
their industries collapse precipitously (by some definition) and are
guaranteed 100% their wages but must study/prepare for a new career.

Not sure how to avoid the occasional dilly-dallier who thought they'd make a
good chef, but maybe we'd just have to put up with that fact.

~~~
luckyno13
To address the dilly dally issue you would more than likely have to only give
the transitional aid to someone involved in Science, Engineering, and Math
fields, much like current STEM¹ scholarships.

¹[https://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5257](https://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5257)

------
randomdata
Somewhere around 90% of U.S. Jobs were automated out of existence in the late
1800s/early 1900s. Is this time different?

~~~
hyperbovine
Interesting, that is a much higher number than I had supposed. Do you have a
source / link for it? I'd love to read more.

~~~
alexeisadeski3
Farmers dropped from 30 million to 3 million.

[http://www.agclassroom.org/gan/timeline/farmers_land.htm](http://www.agclassroom.org/gan/timeline/farmers_land.htm)

------
Patrick_Devine
With strong AI, wouldn't 100% of U.S. jobs be at risk? On the bright side, as
software engineers, I would think our jobs will be the last to go.

My guess is as a species we'll just find something else to do, just like we
always do. Who knows, maybe inefficiency will become fashionable at some
point.

~~~
TheCoelacanth
Yes, but realistically, we are no where near strong AI. We're getting pretty
good at making AIs to handle single specialized tasks, even ones that we
consider very difficult, but making a generalized AI that can handle any task
a human can is probably not going to happen in the near future.

~~~
Patrick_Devine
Yes, you're probably right.

I'm glad I didn't heed the advice of my grade 12 computer science teacher in
1991. He was convinced that we wouldn't need programmers in the future because
we'd have AI which could write software for us.

------
VLM
The train example is a pretty bad one, I'm the first in four generations not
to work for the local railroad and five union dudes on a train crew pretty
much went away in the 1970s. You do typically have two guys and you really
need two for safety as sometimes you need human eyes looking out both windows
at once (freight trains have poor visibility compared to trucks).

A freight train with one dude strikes me as unlikely. The few single person
trains out there have excellent visibility for the one driver. So you'd have
an interesting capital expense if you tried that with freight trains. I do
know some small switcher locos run single person but thats in a barb-wired
switchyard well away from the general public. So you'd "have to" eliminate all
grade crossings or something, another big expense.

------
RivieraKid
The problem is that the relative price of human time decreases, while the
relative price of land and resources increases. So wealth moves to people who
own resources.

Another problem is that the standard deviation of the price of human time is
increasing. The typical example is someone of average intelligence who was an
accountant but her job got automated. In general, jobs requiring an average
intellect are disappearing and people who did these jobs are more often moving
down (manual labor) than up (programmer, designer, etc.).

So the real problem of automation is not unemployment – you can always find a
slave-like job for a few bucks per hour – but wealth inequality.

------
dferlemann
Not even an estimated time schedule. Not like it's gonna suddenly drop 47%
employment next year. It would be a slow process of replacing laborious jobs
to intelligent jobs. Adapt and survive, isn't that how it suppose to be?

~~~
maxerickson
We are at least somewhere close to the point where we can choose how we want
it to be without paying any mind to how it is supposed to be.

------
gremlinsinc
I say AMEN! Imagine a society where 25 hour work weeks is the norm, everyone
gets a living wage, some of it possibly subsidized by the government, -- each
household earns a guaranteed 2500 per month to grow the economy. Every worker
gets 4 weeks paid leave. Companies move from being self-serving to realizing
if they make their employees super happy -- they will go out and buy their
products, or other companies products - but support the economy in general and
grow all companies.

We are work-a-holics, and then we spend our weakest part of life sitting on
our arses waiting to die- if we had more quality of life time to travel, see
the world, spend time with our families, while in the prime of our life--time
to pursue entrepreneurial ideas, philosophical/artistic endeavors...

Not only would poverty be put to shame, but quality of life would rise
universally. Sure, sounds like a Utopia, maybe it is, maybe it's what we're
headed towards..it's not like there's not enough money floating around to pay
for it...

------
up_and_up
Link to the source paper:
[http://www.futuretech.ox.ac.uk/sites/futuretech.ox.ac.uk/fil...](http://www.futuretech.ox.ac.uk/sites/futuretech.ox.ac.uk/files/The_Future_of_Employment_OMS_Working_Paper_1.pdf)

------
cygwin98
On the referenced pdf[1], there are two professions related to us:

130 0.042 Software Developers, Applications

293 0.48 Computer Programmer

The former has 4% probability to lose to automation, while the later is 48%.
What is the difference between the two?

[1]
[http://www.futuretech.ox.ac.uk/sites/futuretech.ox.ac.uk/fil...](http://www.futuretech.ox.ac.uk/sites/futuretech.ox.ac.uk/files/The_Future_of_Employment_OMS_Working_Paper_1.pdf)

~~~
TheCoelacanth
They appear to be using the BLS categorizations[1][2]. Essentially, the
difference is that Computer Programmers do none of the planning or design that
Software Developers do; they only do routine coding. Since Computer
Programmers only do routine coding and none of the more intellectually
challenging parts of software development, they can more easily be replaced by
using higher-level languages or better tools. It's worth noting that Software
Developers are already 3x more common than Computer Programmers and the number
of Software Developers is increasing 10x as fast, so even many of the people
who call themselves programmers are probably classified as Software
Developers.

[1] [http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-
technology/c...](http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-
technology/computer-programmers.htm)

[2] [http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-
technology/s...](http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-
technology/software-developers.htm)

------
f_salmon
Money has a natural tendency to get more and more concentrated in fewer and
fewer hands. We need to start keeping an eye on this.

~~~
sliverstorm
Clever of you to notice that.

------
yodsanklai
I'd like for my work to be automated as long as I can keep my salary. But it's
not going to work because I won't be the owner of the "machine" replacing me.

------
wprl
It's hard to see this is anything but the symptom of sick global economy, and
a sick global society. Automation should be making people's lives better in
the short term, not just in the hypothetical long term. We exist within a
system that doesn't respect human life.

------
nawitus
The probability for software engineers is 4.2% in the paper.

All jobs will be automated in 100 years in my opinion (if technological
development continues). In fact, work itself will be automated away. (But some
will continue to 'work' for other reasons than gatheting resources).

~~~
nilkn
Bertrand Russell hoped for a similar future back in 1932:

[http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html](http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html)

~~~
nawitus
Yeah, it's a prediction which has always been wrong. However, my prediction
depends on the development of an artificial general intelligence which will
make human work worthless.

------
sluckxz
I think PG's essay is an excellent compliment to articles like these. It
certainly offered a perspective I hadn't ever considered.

"Mind The Gap"
[http://paulgraham.com/gap.html](http://paulgraham.com/gap.html)

~~~
dpweb
Thanks, hadn't re-read this PG essay in a while. It makes some good and
important points, but if the theme is _don 't hate on the wealthy_.. I don't
think you can ignore the fact that many people don't believe the 100x
productive/add value idea.. Although I think many of us technologists and/or
capitalists know first hand that it is true, that is, it is possible..

But, all the wealth accumulation is not the result of a pure capitalism/reward
system. 100x wealth does not necessarily equal a 100x contribution of value to
society.

There does exist undeserved rewards. That perception, sometimes true,
sometimes not, is at the core of the wealth haters and quite a bit of outrage.

Much wealth is controlled by entities that have quasi-governmental status,
special protection and privileges (ie.. the entire banking system).
Interestingly enough a more pure capitalist system may be more effective at
leveling the field instead of a socialist system.

------
eli_gottlieb
All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at
last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his
relations with his kind!

Faster! Get rid of all the jobs before people can get used to permanent
unemployment-ridden depression! Push them into revolting!

------
jmt7les
So that's why we learn algebra.

------
stefan_kendall
I wish I could hide luddite articles like this permanently.

Technology improves efficiency, which eliminates the need for workers.
Economics is not a zero-sum game, however. More money saved means more money
invested, either by the individual or the bank in the case of pure savings.

Easier lending means more businesses in more industries. Everyone didn't
starve to death during the industrial revolution. Dock workers didn't just
commit suicide en masse when most of them were obviated by the invention of
the shipping container.

------
andyl
Is technology the problem, or public policy?

[http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/25/technol...](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/25/technology-
middle-class-jobs-policy)

