
After your job is gone - JJMalina
http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/01/after-your-job-is-gone/
======
DanielBMarkham
"...It’s always hard to say whether economic changes are cyclical or
structural, but I think it’s fair to say that there’s a slowly accumulating
consensus that technology is now destroying jobs faster than it’s creating
them..."

That's a strange thing to say, because I'm of the opinion that more people
_worldwide_ are employed in productive economic activity than at any time in
the past. In fact, that we've lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty in
the last decade or so.

I was going to start this off with "here we go again" because observing this
great change that's overtaking us and catastrophizing about it seems to be a
cottage industry -- and has been for many decades. No doubt general purpose
computers and robots are going to massively change the face of society and
commerce. I'll even go so far and _guess_ that parts of our coming evolution
are going to be painful -- just like it always has been.

But our relationship to the worldwide economy is a funny thing. We can sit
back, assume that we're appropriately educated, tooled, and have the right
attitude for success, then complain when there aren't jobs. Or we can choose
to monitor and adapt to where the economy actually is. When we read about
great changes coming, we should be thinking about the great opportunities
we're going to have and how to adapt to meet the future, not about "what to do
when your job is gone" That's self-fulfilling horse hockey.

There's an infinite amount of economic activity left in the world. The
question is whether we want to learn how to engage in it or sit on the
sidelines worrying about terrible structural changes that will doom us all.

~~~
lkrubner
But you can acknowledge that there may be a real scarcity of work for people
who have low IQ? In the past, there was always manual labor, which could soak
up all labor so long as aggregate demand in the economy was great enough --
and the best way to ensure sufficient aggregate demand, in the past, was
typically a combination of productivity gains and sufficient monetary
creation. But what happens when all the work that can be done by low IQ people
is automated?

You might be willing to respond with "New forms of work will open up that will
allow for the employ of those people with low IQs". However, I am asking you
to consider the hypothetical where every such form of work is eventually
automated by machines that have sufficiently advanced AI.

Between 1850 and 1973 there were immense improvements in labor productivity
that completely transformed the world, and for a long time the rising
productivity created more new jobs, rather than less. But going forward, we
face a situation where increasing automation will still create new wealth, and
it will still create huge improvements in labor productivity, but the
improvements will only be available for those who have enough IQ to understand
the technologies in use.

And much of this scenario might come to pass during the next 50 years. But
imagine even further afield -- imagine 200 years now. Do you think the period
1850 to 1973 offers a reasonable model to think about, say for instance,
economic growth between 2100 and 2200?

What happens if there comes a day when absolutely everything is automated and
humans no longer need to work? We have reached utopia, yes? But you can
probably see where I am going with this: eventually there needs to be some way
to provide an income to people, when the day eventually comes when no one
needs to work.

~~~
thwarted
_What happens if there comes a day when absolutely everything is automated and
humans no longer need to work? We have reached utopia, yes? But you can
probably see where I am going with this: eventually there needs to be some way
to provide an income to people, when the day eventually comes when no one
needs to work._

I never understand the logic of this argument. If everything is automated and
everyone is provided for (this is a utopia, after all), why would people need
an income? By definition, if people _do not need_ to work, then they do not
need an income. The need to work and the need for an income are the same
thing, just worded differently.

~~~
TeMPOraL
The problem isn't with the state of this utopia; the true difficulties lie in
transition process - when more and more things get automated, but the overall
economy still forces you to have an income or starve. The real challenge of
our times is how we get from here to there without a huge mess and a lot of
suffering in the middle.

~~~
thwarted
Yes, the transition will be an upset, like all transitions are. But what I
quoted doesn't talk about the transition to the utopia, it talks about the
utopia having been reached _and people still needing an income_. If people's
needs are not being provided for they will need income, presumably by trading
their time/effort for a means of exchange (money), but if that is the case,
then the utopia has not been achieved.

Nothing happens overnight, and confusing the challenges of the transition with
the endgame, or that the challenges that existed during the transition will
still exist after the endgame is achieved, presents a position that the
endgame isn't worth it because the transition disturbs the status quo.

------
ericb
I once believed this was a danger, but have come to realize it doesn't need to
be. As a thought experiment, all it takes is one infinitely scalable "job" to
make the proposed jobless dystopia implausible. And it exists.
Entrepreneurship. There is no limit to to the number of new companies that can
be created. Some of them will even employ a few non-entrepreneurs.

As for societal tectonic shifts needed, we just need a safety net to make it
safer to fail, and easier to try. Things like socialized healthcare,
simplified accounting rules for small businesses, annual instead of quarterly
filing requirments for small business, no corporate minimum tax (I'm looking
at you massachusetts) can help make this work.

~~~
johnjlocke
I agree with you that entrepreneurship is a good answer, but it's not going to
be right for everyone. Some people are not that brave, or in a position to try
that. And they tried to get an adequate socialized healthcare system in place,
And then Congress stamp their feet and cried, and now we have the bill that's
coming now. Not the same bill that was proposed at the beginning, that the
insurance companies shit a brick over.

~~~
ericb
I agree with you re:health care and our inept congress. In terms of
entrepreneurship not being right for everyone, I agree. However, the thought
experiment was oversimplified a bit.

There are human-required jobs that won't be infinitely scalable. Artist,
masseuse, daycare provider, teacher, author, sales, marketer, circus
performer, mover, software engineer, owner, landlord, nurse, doctor. The
dystopian argument is usually that technology will require _less_ of these
jobs. It usually doesn't go as far as saying "none" and that is where the
people who aren't cut out for entrepreneurship will land.

------
DigitalSea
What happens when there are no human workers to service the robots when they
fail? There's no such thing as a machine with moving parts lasting forever and
I seriously doubt robotics is at a point where a robot can replace its own
failing moving part nor replace a bad power supply or fried circuit board.

Anything involving a repetitive task like assembling a phone, pouring a beer,
flipping a burger or folding a box is of course naturally going to at some
stage be almost completely automated. You can't win in a fight with a machine
when it comes to efficiency. However, good luck seeing a robot replace an
electrician, a plumber, a web developer, a dentist, police officer or
paramedic any time soon.

I think the whole, "robots are going to take our jobs" argument is a little
blown out of proportion. People have been saying since the 50's that they're
worried machines are going to take their jobs and it hasn't really happened on
the large scale people like to think it has nor will in the next 50 years.

~~~
nawitus
>What happens when there are no human workers to service the robots when they
fail?

We can automate the service of robots.

>I think the whole, "robots are going to take our jobs" argument is a little
blown out of proportion. People have been saying since the 50's that they're
worried machines are going to take their jobs and it hasn't really happened on
the large scale people like to think it has nor will in the next 50 years.

It "has happened", but it's just called automation of the industry. Service
jobs have replaced a lot of the jobs in the industry.

~~~
DigitalSea
What happens when the automation of the robot servicing fails? Do you have
servicing of the servicing of the robots? Seems like a massive clusterfudge if
you ask me.

There is a difference between automation and people losing jobs on a large
scale. I'm not talking about automation making the life of a manual worker
easier like it was during the 50's, I'm talking about people being replaced
completely by robots. Even a lot of car production lines which were the first
to embrace machine automation still employ manual workers to operate some of
the equipment and ensure any downtime is minimal.

Even those self service kiosks at supermarkets require staff standing around
because they fail often and people struggle to use them and prefer going
through an actual register and being served. Those self-serve registers drive
me nuts when it incorrectly weighs your groceries and tells you to wait for
assistance.

~~~
eggnet
_What happens when the automation of the robot servicing fails? Do you have
servicing of the servicing of the robots? Seems like a massive clusterfudge if
you ask me._

The same thing that happens if we were talking about humans instead of robots.
They are replaced.

------
spydum
This idea of post-scarcity is very troubling to me. Idle hands are the devils
tools. [http://dcentric.wamu.org/2012/04/the-effect-of-youth-
unemplo...](http://dcentric.wamu.org/2012/04/the-effect-of-youth-unemployment-
on-crime/index.html) People need purpose and to work, it's not just about
earning a wage.

~~~
wittyphrasehere
In addition to using some of the newly created wealth for paying fixed
incomes, as the author mentions, we should be using that money to make higher
education free.

The author says, "let them eat cake, smoke pot, and play video games." I say
let them study art history (or CS). Who knows, maybe it will inspire them to
do something useful in our brave new world.

~~~
johnjlocke
Education is not the silver bullet to a good economy. At every point in which
the economy bloomed, there were sufficient jobs for people who are not
college-educated. Manufacturing used to fill that gap. Part of the problem is
that companies are in a race to the bottom. TechCrunch Touched on that just
briefly. The most vital economies always have a read distribution of wealth
through services. At some point the rest of the country, the non-tech savvy,
will have to redistribute farewell to the people in the tech sector and vice
versa. Wealth creation free handful of people is not the answer by itself.
Because we see that does nothing for the economy at large.

------
hotdox
Very strange article.

Before reasoning further you need to answer very simple question "From where
wealth comes?". If your answer is "from employer", "from the bank" or "from
the VC". Please, think again. I'll wait.

Money always come from customers. Who are the customers in this bipolar model
of the world?

Jobless class cannot be sustainable customer. All the money they have comes
from elite class. It is very strange from the side of elite to donating
jobless. Jobless can pay for elite's product by elite's money. Oh, miracle,
elite can has all their money back! It is stupid cycle. If there is no spoils
in process, elite has no reason to start it.

Elite as a customer is a more gloomy variant.

------
spindritf
> I think it’s fair to say that there’s a slowly accumulating consensus that
> technology is now destroying jobs faster than it’s creating them

Maybe, maybe not.

>> We juxtapose the effects of trade and technology on employment in U.S.
local labor markets between 1990 and 2007. Labor markets whose initial
industry composition exposes them to rising Chinese import competition
experience significant falls in employment, particularly in manufacturing and
among non-college workers. Labor markets susceptible to computerization due to
specialization in routine task-intensive activities experience significant
occupational polarization within manufacturing and nonmanufacturing but no net
employment decline. Trade impacts rise in the 2000s as imports accelerate,
while the effect of technology appears to shift from automation of production
activities in manufacturing towards computerization of information-processing
tasks in non manufacturing.

<http://www.nber.org/papers/w18938>

------
chubbard
Well if we ruin this economy we can just create a new one. :-) And I think
that's what people will do. If this society offers you nothing then just start
your own (see the New Delhi slums as an example). That's what Mennonites,
Quakers, Amish and other groups do. They are loosely connected to the economy
and aren't as affected by this as people fully involved with the global
economy.

In a way activities like urban farming and doomsday preppers share a value
system we'll see on a rise. The value system shared between these two
activities is being self sufficient and control of your own destiny. We'll see
this value of self sufficiency rise as the economy provides less and less to
the unemployed. No one wants a hand out.

------
azatris
Artificial intelligence wont take my programming job during my lifetime.
Should it happen in the future, though, our descendants will have a completely
different mindset from ours, being able to solve the problems at that time.

Nothing to worry about.

------
rcfox
This is actually something I've been thinking about recently. Once we've
automated all of the "manual labour" jobs away in the name of efficiency or
human safety, what do we do with the people who are only fit for manual
labour?

Ethically, we're compelled to support these people. But does it make sense to
maintain a population that contributes absolutely nothing? I imagine they'd
start to get restless as well... I suppose we could always put them into giant
hamster wheels to generate power.

------
coldcode
Society eventually will work it out. If you get too many idle and angry people
you get a revolution, everything is broken in the process, and lots of work to
get back to the beginning of the problem again. Or maybe technology allows us
to move to other planets and have to start again. Or maybe a disease kills 50%
of the population. Lots of possibilities. People always assume the future
won't be much different than the present.

------
greghinch
_"not everyone can be a tech worker..."_

Why not? Isn't it possible that we are affecting our own evolution? Those with
rational and logic-oriented minds will thrive, and the numbers of those who
aren't able to develop that capacity will begin to dwindle. Given the
inclination towards pacifism, scientific reason, and tollerance that most
rational people exhibit, seems like a net win for the future of humanity.

------
leke
Unskilled labour will go (first), but there will be higher demands for
developers, innovators, researchers, and a push to make the tools they use
more efficient.

I only hope the government create a free and continuous education system for
those who are out of work, so that they may develop their minds. I hope
education in this new world becomes cultural.

~~~
a3n
The horse population was huge in the 19th century, and then drastically fell
when they were replaced with cars, trucks and trains for transportation and
machines for labor. We didn't need biological horse labor anymore, and they
became luxury items.

The same thing could happen to humans. I'm sure the 1% or the 53% wouldn't
miss the irritating 99% or the 47% once we're no longer needed to maintain
their lifestyles.

"Look Daddy, that family has a human gardener! Can we get one? Please?"

~~~
jlcx
Well, you're right about human labor being a luxury in a world of increasing
automation. It seems like people are willing to pay for that, though. Until
something really crazy happens, like mind uploading becoming a reality,
automation will result in more people being employed for luxury purposes. Many
of these will be low-wage jobs, but that won't be so bad if technological
progress continues to make things more affordable. But human labor as a luxury
does not necessarily mean low-wage work. For example, mechanical watches have
essentially been toys for rich people for the past few decades, yet they
continue to be produced in significant numbers, and the higher-end watches
generally have a significant amount of human labor involved.

------
nova
This will only be a problem if technology is monopolised by a few. So another
reason to worry about intellectual property.

------
mtct
Yes, but the status quo has to be maintained. Robots don't buy goods, so why
make something if you can't sell it?

------
benguild
Machine labor will become cheaper and more skilled than human labor.

~~~
JamesArgo
I agree, but I do think it's important to point out that a lot of human labor
(like programming, for example) seems to be AI-complete. Once we have full-on
AI, we'll have bigger problems than unemployment. As Bostrom points out,
intelligence and morals are orthogonal. That is, while intelligent agents may
converge on a provably optimal method of cognition, their goals will not
converge. One can't construe conscience and capability. This is a bigger
problem. There doesn't seem to be much point in worrying about unemployment
when strong AI is on the table.

~~~
johnjlocke
The whole TechCrunch article made me think of the Anamatrix.

------
Zigurd
A four day work week would help.

------
kmasters
I dont think TechCrunch is right on this one. Automation is not putting people
out of work. The failure of future reward for a lifetime of effort is turning
careerism on its head regardless of your career field.

Ive been a software engineer for 15 years, I have chosen to not work for
almost 2 years.

I could get a job tomorrow, but I would quit in a couple months because the
working conditions in software shops is pretty bad and the economic reward
that looks good on paper doesn't really translate into anything I need or
want.

And its not that I cant get a GOOD job. The working conditions at big company
X, Y, Z are frankly terrible. Ive been there.

I may not represent the average unemployed person (and no I dont collect
unemployment) but I can see where people are coming from, and I empathize.

Economic motivation will always trump automation.

~~~
rubyrescue
Thanks for writing that. How do you spend your time? Do you find it
fulfilling?

~~~
kmasters
Im bored.

~~~
rcfox
That's massively disappointing. Why aren't you doing something that you're
passionate about, even if it's something like stamp collecting?

~~~
kmasters
Its actually OK. I write code when I get an idea. There's worse things than
being bored. At least Im not spending my time checking facebook all day.

