While this will be a boon for consumers(24 hour, mostly-competent service in English), I feel bad for the coming wave of knowledge workers who will be eschewed in favor of technology like this, much like the factory workers who lost their jobs in the 90s and 2000s to either outsourcing or automation. Unfortunately for these workers, there will be next to no recourse like the somewhat limited recourse for manufacturing employees like there is today, in fields like design, automation, robotics and advanced manufacturing in general.
One of the solutions to this issue, often mentioned in discussions about automation on HN, is basic income. Ie, as automation progressively makes human labor superflous to sustain the economy, a portion of the value generated by the economy is used to provide a small monthly allowance to everyone:
"Basic income has many social, political and economic advantages, but the one pertinent to this article is that it balances power in the labour market. It eliminates desperation as a reason to work, and everyone that wants a job will find a job. It can replace much workplace regulations as well. Minimum wage, maximum hours, rules for layoffs, and so on. The level of $7k-$10k is designed specifically (though guesstimated) as a target that balances exactly the bargaining power (between employers and employees) in the low skill labour market."
"Basic income is providing cash to all citizens. If the amount is in the range of $7k to $10k, it can be paid out of existing tax levels by replacing other social services, and making the benefit taxable so that high income earning citizens pay back a larger portion than poorer citizens. Basic income can also be paid in part or instead through money printing."
Knee jerk "oh no, what will the workers do?!" reactions are understandable, but in the long term society is best served by leveraging technology to get the most services for as cheaply as possible.
If this was not true, we should ditch tractors/harvesters and have everyone go back to toiling in the field all day. That'll provide tons of jobs.
Yes, in the short-term one sector "loses" jobs, but it means a service is provided more cheaply, so consumers have more money to spend elsewhere, and the jobs just move around. Society gets a net win on total output.
See Economics in One Lesson for a better/more detailed explanation.
I see such claims made, but I don't often see them backed up by a corresponding argument.
For a portion of society (restricting scope to the U.S.), things have gotten better. For another, very significant portion of society, they have not.
For society overall...? Well, the freedom I had as a child to play outside unsupervised is largely gone. Education is increasingly again a crapshoot of which school you get to / are forced to attend and in that vein and from an economical perspective, who your parents are.
Police are increasingly viewed as "the opposition" and "their own team".
A lot of people wonder how the hell they're ever going to retire.
A lot of sick people are simply staying sick.
So, "efficiency" is "improving" society? For whom? And if that benefit is not being spread around to some degree, are you simply going to build walls to keep the misery out of your community? Or are you actually going to consent to live within its midst?
I favor helping the people around me and throughout this country (living in the U.S., that is of particular although not exclusive interest to me) because I want to be able to enjoy the community and the country I live in. To enjoy walking down the street, and to not have to worry overly whether or not I should or can safely talk to this person or that.
"Efficiency" on its own is not enough. "Trickle down", also in this regard, does not appear to be an assured method of distributing the positive results.
I'll add that people have a finite work lifespan and finite opportunity to accrue assets including and particularly through investment returns.
"Temporary" displacements can disrupt individual lives to an extent where they never recover. And this is happening to many people, families, and communities, these days.
Also, building into new roles often requires considerable assets including but not only available time.
I think some -- many -- of the people making simplistic arguments that "the workforce will adjust" -- and thereupon simply washing their hands of the matter -- have never had to dig themselves out of a significantly deep and challenging hole.
Even personal illness and injury may not compare, when one has considerable resources and support at their disposal. Poverty is not an individual, often limited term challenge to overcome. It is a relentless, draining trap that can create a desert of resources.
Some people do overcome it. But I don't think that's an excuse to just toss them into it, assuming that they'll somehow come out all right on the other end.
--
P.S. I'll add that I did not vote the parent down. Rather, I think this is a conversation we need to and are going to have to have. The alternative as I see it is violence and oppression -- things I would rather avoid.
Also, I do not begrudge the "rest of the world" a rising standard of living. But I do oppose the hollowing out of our own society that current policies and practices have promoted. (And, per some arguments, perhaps also limitations on those other societies. Distortions including political and socio-economic. Brain drain. Etc.)
As members of a society, I think we have responsibility for that society as a whole. And we've been shirking our duty.
In my case, I also find that is to my -- and, I think, our mutual -- detriment.
Well, your reply echos a lot of Occupy sentiment, but I'll side step that, and just say:
> I think some -- many -- of the people making simplistic arguments that "the workforce will adjust" -- and thereupon simply washing their hands of the matter
1) Saying we shouldn't actively avoid technology improvements (which was my point, because it really does pay off in the long run), doesn't mean we can't help those adversely affected in the short run--it just means we should help them directly, vs. trying to indirectly "help" them, and hurt the majority of us, by ignoring technological progress (which is what politicians/commentators, like the comment I was replying to, frequently propose).
2) I believe we (society/tax payers) already do this, what with unemployment/etc. I'm not going to assert it's all roses and puppies, but it's much more than displaced workers would have traditionally got.
Ok, looking at my condensed reply in lieu of working further on my initial draft, I see that I'm still not making a good, coherent argument, myself.
So, I'll revise by thanking you for your reply and saying that I do take your points.
I'm not in favor of avoiding technological development. I do tend to disapprove of large controlling interests that work to inhibit or control its deployment to their exclusive benefit. I think part of the problem in the U.S. is that such activity aided in the disenfranchisement of many who are now struggling here.
I always wonder if this conundrum is not really more of an opportunity than a problem. Maybe its time we stopped believing everybody must have a job, and restructure our societies in ways that reflect that we can now get along just fine with a significant portion of society not being forced to work?
How is this going to work out legally/politically? Its a good notion, and a lot of good discussion exists on HN for merits/etc..
Can you fathom any sort of political debate on moving towards such a thing in the US (being US centric here, but perhaps certain EU countries would fare better).
Notwithstanding this somewhat exists by way of "welfare" programs and their like, and yet those are continually disparaged/hot-button topics which typically move nowhere in any type of reform (expansion or contraction).
I agree it is hard to imagine in the US right now. Here in Germany, the idea of a guaranteed basic income is still kind of 'out there', but not as much as one might think, and ithas supporters across the political spectrum, so if it keeps up its momentum, it might actually happen one day.
This is of course just one side of the story. The much harder part will be changing the attitude people have towards this. How do you stop people from thinking people who do not produce anything are parasites? Thats a tough one...
I think it's time for this issue to move to the front of our minds.
So much technological innovation has turned computers into workers that compete for low level jobs. Huge swaths of the economy no longer support human life, and with every advance the future looks worse for taxi drivers, farm workers, etc.
I believe it's time to start thinking how we can create jobs with technology. Creating new industries that will use computers to enable human beings to do jobs they couldn't before. Groupon did an OK job of that, creating positions for 10k people, doing a form of sales no one had conceptualized before.
But I think in time we can do much better than sales jobs. Groupon was still developed to send investors further into the stratosphere, it just uses people in a way that makes them hard to dispose of, and needed in quantity. While that seriously rules, I believe the idealistic goal of growing an organization that treats employees as 1st class citizens, rather than clueless investor carrying mules is fully possible.
