

Jobs, automation, Engels’ pause and the limits of history - Futurebot
http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2015/03/09/2120134/jobs-automation-engels-pause-and-the-limits-of-history/

======
blfr
You can draw a different lesson from the 20th century history.

 _[...] generally speaking, when you look at the 20th century, it 's the era
of the masses, mass politics, mass economics. Every human being has value, has
political, economic, and military value, simply because he or she is a human
being, and this goes back to the structures of the military and of the
economy, where every human being is valuable as a soldier in the trenches and
as a worker in the factory._

 _But in the 21st century, there is a good chance that most humans will lose,
they are losing, their military and economic value. This is true for the
military, it 's done, it's over. The age of the masses is over. We are no
longer in the First World War, where you take millions of soldiers, give each
one a rifle and have them run forward. And the same thing perhaps is happening
in the economy. Maybe the biggest question of 21st century economics is what
will be the need in the economy for most people in the year 2050._

[http://edge.org/conversation/yuval_noah_harari-
daniel_kahnem...](http://edge.org/conversation/yuval_noah_harari-
daniel_kahneman-death-is-optional)

~~~
marcosdumay
We are entering a where people have huge potentials. It's not that everybody
adds some value, but that anybody could add a huge amount of value, and we
have no means of knowing who.

It may end before it fully starts, if computers do replace us. If not, things
may get quite interesting (in a good way).

------
toyg
It's an interesting but interlocutory piece. Nobody is wrong but nobody is
right either, and it all turns out for the best... except it really doesn't.
The author seriously downplays the huge political effort that was required to
change living standard and grow wages; among other things, modern
representative democracy was "invented" and violently forced upon the ruling
classes, but it doesn't really get a mention (whereas slavery and socialism do
-- probably because they feel like they've been dealt with for good).

It feels like the author is trying to sweep hard truths under the carpet of
the last few paragraphs: "the problems [...] will naturally involve the issue
of wealth distribution" and "such a world is likely to demand more than [...]
incremental reform". Coupled with "Best to be prepared", it sounds like a call
to batter up for an upcoming political storm, but it doesn't really suggest
which "not-incremental reform" should be attempted, nor does it say anything
about who should ask for such reforms and how.

~~~
crdoconnor
It's yet another in a LONG long line of articles that tries to shift the blame
for stagnating wages on to:

* technological progress

instead of:

* steady de-unionization and

* obfuscated trade policies designed to fuck normal people (NAFTA, CAFTA and now TTIP AND TPP).

tl;dr - "dem robots took 'er jerbs" and "pay no attention to the man behind
the curtain writing trade policy".

~~~
geogra4
Correct. Just sweeping under the rug the labour history that made the mid 20th
century so egalitarian with respect to wealth.

If we want a more egalitarian distribution of wealth, we have to demand it.

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

~~~
icebraining
While I'm fully supportive of unionization and organized labour, that doesn't
seem like a particularly good example. What exactly did they gain from the
march, besides getting shot at?

The 1941 Rouge River strike it mentions in passing seems like a much better
example.

~~~
geogra4
Fair enough. There are hundreds of episodes to pick from in labour history.

------
nickstefan12
Interesting thought: what if it's the effeciency of technology rather than the
automation that is the real problem to old school economics?

In order for me to be able to pay rent and eat food, and still have money left
over, means that I'm "making a profit" in the business of me. In perfect
competition, companies don't make any money. Technology is taking us closer to
perfect competition between laborers. Everyone is now in competition with
everyone and isn't this what we would expect in perfect competition: no one
saves any money, you only get paid enough to eat and live.

Software engineers are fine for now, but look at the competition between soft
skill positions, it's so fierce that people are barely making it.

My point is that it isn't automation, it's the lowering of friction between
different laborers, and the commoditization of knowledge workers.

------
dataker
Growing up in a developing nation, it's somewhat weird to see these
discussions. Many 'techstarts' never had to see real poverty, so their
arguments on automation become somewhat limited. Some American entrepreneurs
dislike horizontal growth, but it might have much more impact(socially and
even financially).

------
padobson
10 years ago, if you were able to watch high quality TV and use the commode at
the same time, odds are you were in a household with an income in the top 98%
of any given developed economy.

Today, I know inner-city kids that can do this with Netflix and a tablet.

So I absolutely agree that we can't predict what kind of change is coming,
which is why I disagree with this statement:

 _Creativity, subjective cultural judgment and empathy would still be there,
but we can’t all become entertainers, art critics and psychologists._

Entertainers and therapists have historically only had the affluent as their
clients, but distribution technology and efficiencies in other realms makes
hiring these professionals more accessible all the time. Seeing a therapist or
discovering a new pop star is no longer something relegated to the wealthy.

And I've always made my biggest earnings gains by making entrepreneurial
moves. Automation and globalization absolutely benefit the entrepreneur. A
person flipping burgers for $8/hr could buy a grill and 5x their income and
easily run the administrative part of their new venture from a smart phone. If
you're living in an economy that gives an advantage to the owners of the means
of production, then the means of production is a good investment.

Plus you could also use it to watch TV on the commode.

~~~
moe
_A person flipping burgers for $8 /hr could buy a grill and 5x their income
and easily run the administrative part of their new venture from a smart
phone._

Umm. Yes. All those stupid burger flippers, why don't they just buy grills...

Oh, maybe it's because McDonalds can leverage automation and globalization a
lot better than your entrepreneurial burger flipper. There's a _tiny_ bit more
to a Burger venue than buying a grill. "Running the administrative part from
your smartphone" doesn't exactly tip the scale.

~~~
padobson
You're probably right. Big businesses like McDonald's and Hilton and Hertz
could never be overcome by the little guy.

On a completely unrelated note, if you ever find yourself in North East Ohio,
I have some nice apartments you can stay at that are much cheaper than the
local hotels:

[https://www.airbnb.com/rooms/2235649](https://www.airbnb.com/rooms/2235649)

The airports are a bit of hike to here, though, so you may want to use Uber.

~~~
moe
_could never be overcome by the little guy [...] airbnb [...] Uber_

Yep. These two companies, valued at $13B and $40B respectively, employing 800
and 2000 people respectively, are the definition of "little guy". It doesn't
get more underdog than that. /s

~~~
padobson
Ugh.

I'm the little guy. Airbnb and Uber are the automation that enables my
apartments to compete with the Holiday Inn and Marriott less than a mile away.

~~~
moe
_I 'm the little guy._

Just the average 'little guy' with 3 spare apartments...

I'd wager the guess most $8/hr burger flippers (or $12/hr Uber drivers) might
disagree with your self-assessment.

~~~
padobson
Well I was making $9/hr as a telemarketer 5 years ago. If you want to discuss
via email, I'd be happy to explain how I went from being a little guy to a
marginally bigger little guy.

In the end, I'm simply advocating for the decisions that got me from there to
here.

------
CSMastermind
This reads like a CGP Grey video.

> the terrifying scenario in which half of all jobs are quickly lost to
> automation

This completely ignores the very long development that such advances will take
and the fact that most jobs won't just be displaced over night. For years
we've been able to replace toll collectors with baskets and yet there are
still toll collectors employed. Change will happen but it won't be sudden and
there will be plenty of time to adapt.

Anyone who believes we're going to have fully self driving cars in the next 7
years is living at the "peak of inflated expectations" on the Gartner hype
cycle.

~~~
marcosdumay
What, do you consider 7 years as "long term" for social evolution?

And yes, count me along the people that expect fully self driving cars to be
available in 7 years. I also expect truck driving to be an extinct profession
by about there (10 years at most). City driving will probably live longer, and
people'll probably keep driving their own cars.

~~~
greenrd
But Google's cars can't even merge on the freeway yet, and they need vastly
detailed maps which must be kept 100% up to date. (The existing car companies
are trying to avoid the latter drawback, but there's no proof that they will
be able to achieve this any time soon - it's just an ambition.)

~~~
marcosdumay
Do you know what'll make the task of maintaining maps much easier? Self
driving cars.

Yes, they can't merge on the freeway now. People keep not understanding the
behaviour of exponential growth, and keep getting surprized once only in a
single doubling things grow from "only half there" to "completely done".

(And I'll be among the first to call the end of Moore's law. But altough our
electronics are not in exponential growth anymore, it's still growing
increasingly fast.)

------
sudioStudio64
The main problem in the US is that we are no longer getting our money's worth
from the elites.

The deal has always been...you run things and get the most rewards, but
everyone does better over time. They need to uphold their side of the bargain.

~~~
rebootthesystem
The deal? What deal? What side of what bargain?

Sorry, this point of view is delusional at best.

~~~
sudioStudio64
The US has always been a society run by elites. First it was the landed
gentry. Since then it has been a political and financial elite. Keeping in
mind that times when they were actually fulfilling their role of stewarding
the country well...it wasn't done in a way that was good for everyone...but it
was a type of social compact where the elites were granted a great deal of
autonomy in running the country and everyone's situations improved.

That being said, since the late seventies they have been accumulating wealth
at an ever increasing rate and not raising the wages of their employees,
investing in education of their employees children, or investing in
infrastructure. Instead of raising wages as profits rose they started offering
cheap credit.

At some point that trend has to be reversed and the people that run this place
will have to care about the people that live in it. There's an upper boundary
on how much suffering people are willing to put up with.

Also, I love how you think I'm delusional even though you didn't seem to
understand what I was saying. I'm really tempted to be rude to you. Seriously.
But I'm trying to tone down my online responses to match what I would say in
real life. People need to remember that in the end they are speaking to
another person.

~~~
rebootthesystem
No, no. What is delusional (and there might be a better word but I'll stick to
that one for now) is proposing or promulgating the idea that there was or is a
"deal". No such thing. Rich people never got together to work out a "deal" or
be granted a "deal". That is purely a fabrication. And mind you, I am not
attacking you but rather the ideology that you and others have subscribed to.
It's utter nonsense. Sorry.

Feel free to be rude if you need to get it out of your system. The beauty of
reality is that it doesn't change based on emotion, yelling or screaming. A
circle is still a circle. My position is factually correct and shooting the
messenger will not change reality. I could literally stop right now, tell you
"you are right; we are run by a bunch of evil elites" and that would not
change the facts of the matter. A circle, is still a circle.

"when they were actually fulfilling their role of stewarding the country"

Again, this is delusional. What role? Who gave them that role? Did they accept
that role? Sorry brother, your choice of words might just be a bit misguided.
Again, you are not delusional, the ideas you are putting forth through your
choice of words are. Maybe this ideology would like them to have had this role
(or have it now). Did they sign-up for it at some secret meeting?

"a type of social compact where the elites were granted a great deal of
autonomy in running the country"

One more time. What grant? Who granted it? Was there a contract? Did all the
"elites" from east to west coast circulate a secret telegram agreeing to some
kind of a deal in order to be granted privileges? And, did these contracts get
ratified on a yearly basis for over 200 years in order to reach today's elite?

Please think. You are probably repeating something you were taught. And, if it
was taught by a liberal leaning institution it is likely that they also told
you that the US is evil and we all deserve to die. It's OK to listen to all
points of view. That's how we learn. What isn't OK is to do so and not use
critical thinking to evaluate the validity of what is being proposed.

"and the people that run this place will have to care about the people that
live in it."

We agree on that one 100%. However, it isn't the elites, it's the hordes of
crooked and incompetent politicians who are destroying this nation from the
inside out. And the hordes of ignorant voters who let them get away with it.
Their only motivation is to stay in office and enjoy the ride on the
taxpayer's back. They don't care about you, me or our children. That's the
problem.

"accumulating wealth at an ever increasing rate and not raising the wages of
their employees"

One thing has nothing whatsoever to do with the other. Executive compensation
and employee wages are controlled by different variables and different market
forces. Nobody is going to pay a welder $100 per hour because it would be a
violation of fiduciary responsibility to do so when the market does not
support such a wage due to either local forces or the fact that in a global
economy you can get a welder in China (or wherever) for $5 per hour. The
executives running that company are paid based on the performance of the
enterprise, investor or stockholder returns, etc. Different metrics.

It's like proposing that you should pay your gardener twice as much as
prevailing market rates because you got a new job and your salary doubled.
And, BTW, not to be an evil elite, you ought to also call your cable company
and ask them to charge you twice as much. And your electricity rate should be
twice as much. In fact, you should pay twice as much for everything or you are
evil. Why? Because it isn't fair that you are accumulating more wealth now and
the employees who service you directly or indirection won't see their salaries
improved.

Of course this is a flawed and ridiculous exampled but it does illustrate the
point about the ends of the scale not being drive by the same variables.
Making such a connection is nothing short of nonsense.

Any entrepreneur knows this. If you are running a business, large or small,
one of your goals is to not pay more than the lowest possible market rate for
anything you need. Why? Because your customers will get on Amazon and look to
pay the lowest possible price for the widget you and a hundred other
manufacturers make. And so, it's a closed feedback loop where you, the
entrepreneur or executive, are controlled by a range of market variables in
your decision making. You simply can't pay your welders twice as much because
sales improved. That is not how the real world works.

Many years ago Apple was nearly out of business. Today they are one of the
richest (if not the richest) companies in the world. Was Steve Jobs evil elite
for not doubling or tripling his programmer's wages as the company skyrocketed
and he got filthy rich? No. Of course not. Nobody would propose that when it
comes to Steve Jobs but most of the same people would crucify executives
running companies like GE, Ford, GM and others under much lesser growth
scenarios. This is due to three things: 1- Ignorance of the business process;
2- Academic indoctrination; 3- Attacking the "elites" as a tool for political
alignment and gains.

I could go on but I'll stop here. All I ask is that you try to reason through
some of what you are saying. Show me ONE, just ONE country run by poor people.
And, if you find one, show me the degree of economic, educational, industrial,
scientific, health and standard-of-living success they've had. Now compare it
to any other society where, yes, if you have financial resources you can move
in circles often denied to the masses. Not under some "grant", "deal" or
"plan" but simply because that's the way it works. Obama does not invite you
or me to the White House. He invites actors, singers, entertainers, industry
leaders and political heavy-weights. Why? Because he is par of the "elite" now
and that's the way it works. Yes, there's a side of society most of us will
never see or experience. It's the people buying $250K cars when we might
struggle buying a $250K house. Get over it. That does not make them evil and
it does not create a secret society of evil-doers under some equally secret
pact to act with the goal to oppress the little guy. That, my friend, is
delusional.

Going back to the grind brother...

~~~
sudioStudio64
By elites, I meant politicians and wealthy people. You seem really invested in
the idea that there isn't a class aspect to our situation. I never said elites
were evil. I said that they were the elites. Simply, they were the people that
were running things and have ran things...whether they inherited their
position or worked their way into it.

It was an implicit social contract. I never said or implied that people got
together in a smoky room.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that your either a conservative or a
libertarian with the smug way that you are telling me "how the world works".

If you look at rising wages and corporate profits...they both rose at roughly
the same rate until the advent of cheap credit lines in the mid to late
seventies. At that point, business stopped giving larger shares of the profits
to employees and started loaning it to them. By that I mean businesses banked
the profits, didn't issue raises in the same way, and then the banks made
credit cards available with the surplus deposits to people that, until then,
didn't have them. I don't know how you could look at the divergence of profits
and wages around '75 in any other way. It's obviously a better situation from
a financial standpoint if you are running a business or are an "entrepreneur",
but it had deleterious effects as well.

I never implied this was evil. I don't really use the word "evil" a lot in
writing or language. It smacks of magical thinking. I think that most of this
stuff is largely amoral.

So, lets see. You've called me delusional. You've essentially made my argument
out to be some laughable conspiracy theory...while not really rebutting what I
actually said. You've insinuated that somehow I don't love my country because
I'm an unthinking liberal idiot? You've lectured me on business. You're kind
of a dick.

How bout you just leave me alone?

