What will happen when all the low skill jobs are gone?

The Randy Riverbeast · 30-05-2016 03:03PM

eeguy wrote: »

So very bad news for low skilled workers this week.

60,000 jobs gone in Foxconn, Adidas is moving it's shoe manufacturing back to Germany to a new robotic factory and McDonalds is turning to automation to reduce it's wage bill.

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/economy/article/1949918/rise-robots-60000-workers-culled-just-one-factory-chinas

http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2016/05/24/fmr-mcdonalds-usa-ceo-35k-robots-cheaper-than-hiring-at-15-per-hour.html

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/25/adidas-to-sell-robot-made-shoes-from-2017

We're well insulated from this in Europe, but with all the immigration issues, will automation result in even more people travelling here in search of work.

Net makers out of a job too, robots won't throw themselves off buildings due to the conditions.

smash · 30-05-2016 03:05PM

Captain Chaos wrote: »

All these people will need to train to look after and install the robots that are replacing them....

Until they make robots that will look after other robots and so on....

Until eventually we won't need to work for money and money won't be needed anymore as we approach singularity with nature.:)

And then the robots will take over and kill us all!

30-05-2016 05:20PM

Superhorse wrote: »

Personally think the days of low unemployment in many countries is gone. 10-15% will be the norm for many in the coming years.

We really need to redefine what is considered a working week and a living wage, for example we could all work a three day week with half doing Monday to Wednesday and the other half doing Thursday to Saturday while getting a living wage. A plan like this would solve the unemployment issues, but only if the elites allowed it to be so.

30-05-2016 05:52PM

Bo wrote: »

..

You signed up to say that.

The elites are in the driving seat when it comes to what the wages are and if they decided it was worth paying the equivalent wage for someone doing a three day week as they would et paid for doing five days, it would get quickly adopted. If I could do three days for the same wage as now, I would jump at it. But I couldn't support a family on the three day week at the current hourly rate.

The other thing to remember is that if we double the number of jobs, the taxes needed to support social security also drop!

Widdershins · 30-05-2016 06:15PM

smash wrote: »

And then the robots will take over and kill us all!

Actually, the future of humanity institute have spoken about that.

Widdershins · 30-05-2016 06:17PM

See : UK Complex website article ''scientists prepare for potential end of the world''.

30-05-2016 06:18PM

Barbecue Burrito wrote: »

So you could work three days a week but you wouldn't get as much money as working 5 days. Why should that be different. You should get more money working 5 days than 3 days doing the same job.

I don't think people generally understand how the economy works.

Essentially if you are an employee offer your skills/effort in exchange for goods and services, money just makes it an indirect exchange.

There's nothing to say that you can't set a living wage for a three day week with full employment and the economy will still function correctly.

If anything the extra leisure time will create even more jobs.

30-05-2016 06:34PM

Barbecue Burrito wrote: »

Who pays this living wage and what determines how much it is?

If 40% less work is being done society will be a lot less prosperous, poverty would increase dramatically.

No, 20% more work is being done and prosperity is shared between more people as I said with full employment there would be no need for the dole that will put more money in everyone's pockets.

Magico Gonzalez · 30-05-2016 06:35PM

In the next 10 years we will have the potential to automate most jobs not reliant on learned behaviour. I don't mean robotics used in factories, I mean machine learning, online virtual automated assistants. SIRI for your boss, for the public.

Uber will eventually get to having driverless cars. Macdonalds and co are moving towards much more automation in food services.

What this means, I'm not sure but the amount of investment (not speculating, I have seen the figures) and emphasis that large companies are putting on automation is startling. We are using technology advances to make ourselves redundant.

Within 20 years time we need to figure a new way to usefully employ ourselves.

30-05-2016 06:45PM

Magico Gonzalez wrote: »

Within 20 years time we need to figure a new way to usefully employ ourselves.

Or share out what little work there is between all of us while paying a living wage. The alternative is a few working and paying huge taxes to support all those on the dole, or cutting the dole and waiting for a repeat of the French revolution!

30-05-2016 06:45PM

Barbecue Burrito wrote: »

Less work would be done, poverty would rise.

less goods and services would be produced.

Why?

Mr. teddywinkles · 30-05-2016 09:07PM

Magico Gonzalez wrote: »

In the next 10 years we will have the potential to automate most jobs not reliant on learned behaviour. I don't mean robotics used in factories, I mean machine learning, online virtual automated assistants. SIRI for your boss, for the public.

Uber will eventually get to having driverless cars. Macdonalds and co are moving towards much more automation in food services.

What this means, I'm not sure but the amount of investment (not speculating, I have seen the figures) and emphasis that large companies are putting on automation is startling. We are using technology advances to make ourselves redundant.

Within 20 years time we need to figure a new way to usefully employ ourselves.

The funny thing about this is that people that own these companies and shareholders are trying to save money through wage reduction and automation but will eventually be asked to foot the bill to keep economies afloat through more taxation due to heavier reliance on welfare by the general public in years to come.

Lyaiera · 30-05-2016 10:06PM

Imagine a world where people will have to define themselves through passion, and self determination and not the decking they can afford.

Pinch Flat · 30-05-2016 10:11PM

Widdershins wrote: »

See : UK Complex website article ''scientists prepare for potential end of the world''.

Great articles on there. Apparently the world as to end in December last year. I might have miss it, haven been drunk in a haze of beer and whiskey and missed the whole thing given the time of the year.

This one made me loooool

http://uk.complex.com/pop-culture/2015/10/new-apocalypse-prediction-says-world-will-end-in-december

KomradeBishop · 30-05-2016 11:15PM

It's just a bizarre debate this - that people view automation taking over jobs (i.e. the absolute skyrocketing of productivity) within the economy, as a bad thing, which will somehow hinder prosperity - when it signals the exact opposite, massively increased productivity, which can benefit everybody - so long as proper distribution of wealth is sorted out.

There will never be a lack of work for people to do, because fields of work such as e.g. scientific research are effectively infinite - and there will never be less work to do in such fields.

There will always be more work to be done, forever - but much of that useful work can not be done on a for-profit basis, thus eventually yes, the private sector will become unable to employ enough people - which means that necessary work will have to be funded in various ways from the public purse instead (which sorts out the issue of how distribute the benefits of increased productivity, to everybody, in a fair - you have to work for it - way).

I don't get why people don't see that, and why it seems like such a controversial idea to people.

eeguy · 30-05-2016 11:29PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It's just a bizarre debate this - that people view automation taking over jobs (i.e. the absolute skyrocketing of productivity) within the economy, as a bad thing, which will somehow hinder prosperity

The issue is that automation is happening so quickly the societal changes to properly take advantage of the opportunities won't be realised.

There are hundreds of millions involved in jobs that will likely be automated in the next generation.
You cant simply tell every taxi and truck driver to become a scientist or researcher.

There's going to be a lot of pain for a lot of people before we enter this utopia you describe. Take the Foxconn example. What would you tell the 60k people who've lost their jobs in the last 2 years? Go to college and get a PhD?

Capt'n Midnight · 31-05-2016 12:26AM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It's just a bizarre debate this - that people view automation taking over jobs (i.e. the absolute skyrocketing of productivity) within the economy, as a bad thing, which will somehow hinder prosperity - when it signals the exact opposite, massively increased productivity, which can benefit everybody - so long as proper distribution of wealth is sorted out.

Consider the wealth transfer over the last decade to the super rich.

In 2010 just 388 people had the same wealth as half the population
Now it's just one sixth of that number equaling the poorest half of humanity

It's absolutely obscene. Roughly 10 million people die from extreme poverty every year. For each of those 62 billionaires that's a preventable death every 3 seconds.

https://www.oxfamireland.org/blog/62-billionaires-same-wealth-half-world

We now have a world where 62 people – so few they would fit on a single coach – own as much as the poorest half of the world’s population. This number has fallen from 80 last year and 388 as recently as 2010.

https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2016-01-18/62-people-own-same-half-world-reveals-oxfam-davos-report

the wealth of the poorest half of the world’s population has fallen by a trillion dollars since 2010, a drop of 38 percent. This has occurred despite the global population increasing by around 400 million people during that period. Meanwhile, the wealth of the richest 62 has increased by more than half a trillion dollars to $1.76tr.

Maximus Alexander · 31-05-2016 05:04PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It's just a bizarre debate this - that people view automation taking over jobs (i.e. the absolute skyrocketing of productivity) within the economy, as a bad thing, which will somehow hinder prosperity - when it signals the exact opposite, massively increased productivity, which can benefit everybody - so long as proper distribution of wealth is sorted out.

There will never be a lack of work for people to do, because fields of work such as e.g. scientific research are effectively infinite - and there will never be less work to do in such fields.

There will always be more work to be done, forever - but much of that useful work can not be done on a for-profit basis, thus eventually yes, the private sector will become unable to employ enough people - which means that necessary work will have to be funded in various ways from the public purse instead (which sorts out the issue of how distribute the benefits of increased productivity, to everybody, in a fair - you have to work for it - way).

I don't get why people don't see that, and why it seems like such a controversial idea to people.

When a business automates away 60,000 jobs, you have 60,000 people now without a salary. The money that would have been going into their pockets is now shooting up the chain to wealthy few at the top instead. Wealth inequality increases every time a job is automated away.

Now I'm all for technological advancement, I have a huge love for science and technology. But with the way our society is currently structured the advancement disproportionately serves a small few and their power grows all the time.

So, realistically, how do we get to the utopia you describe when control of the world's wealth and resources is rapidly being handed to a smaller and smaller group of elites? And what sort of suffering is going to have to be endured by how many people in the interim?

You say "so long as proper distribution of wealth is sorted out" as if that's something that's inevitable, or even likely. As though it will be an easy, natural progression; but I can't see how it will be if things keep moving on their current trajectory with ever more people falling by the wayside.

ScumLord · 31-05-2016 05:29PM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

When a business automates away 60,000 jobs, you have 60,000 people now without a salary. The money that would have been going into their pockets is now shooting up the chain to wealthy few at the top instead. Wealth inequality increases every time a job is automated away.

But every time a job is automated that machine that took the job gets cheaper and more accessible. What was cutting edge and only available to the biggest multinationals 20 years ago is now cheap and available to the smallest workshop.

Ronald Wilson Reagan · 31-05-2016 05:59PM

...And Justice wrote: »

We'll have to kill the poor

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgpa7wEAz7I

KomradeBishop · 31-05-2016 10:13PM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

When a business automates away 60,000 jobs, you have 60,000 people now without a salary. The money that would have been going into their pockets is now shooting up the chain to wealthy few at the top instead. Wealth inequality increases every time a job is automated away.

Now I'm all for technological advancement, I have a huge love for science and technology. But with the way our society is currently structured the advancement disproportionately serves a small few and their power grows all the time.

So, realistically, how do we get to the utopia you describe when control of the world's wealth and resources is rapidly being handed to a smaller and smaller group of elites? And what sort of suffering is going to have to be endured by how many people in the interim?

You say "so long as proper distribution of wealth is sorted out" as if that's something that's inevitable, or even likely. As though it will be an easy, natural progression; but I can't see how it will be if things keep moving on their current trajectory with ever more people falling by the wayside.

It's very easy to sort out the problem of wealth distribution: Government.

If the private sector can't deliver useful work and money into the hands of enough workers, on a for-profit basis, then the only alternative is for government to deliver useful work (and thus money) into the hands of workers, and on a not-for-profit basis if need be (which there is an infinite amount of work to do - particularly in fields like e.g. scientific research).

It's really that simple. If people can get enough work and money this way, it will sort out the problem of wealth distribution automatically, over time.

Wealth inequality isn't perpetuated primarily by taking a greater and greater share of economic gains - it's by denying other people the means of gaining their fair share of economic gains, through high unemployment and such - and the only answer to that, is government intervention.

Given that there is an infinite amount of useful work to be done, people should really be viewing having a job - i.e. having an opportunity to earn a living and thus have a chance at a decent quality of life - as a right, which must be provided by government when the private sector fails to (which it has failed to adequately provide, for almost a decade now - and that's going to become multiple decades).

Instead of handouts being provided by government, as things are now (and as the Basic Income advocates desire) - a proper hand-up, in the form of useful jobs, needs to be provided instead.

Mr. teddywinkles · 31-05-2016 10:22PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It's just a bizarre debate this - that people view automation taking over jobs (i.e. the absolute skyrocketing of productivity) within the economy, as a bad thing, which will somehow hinder prosperity - when it signals the exact opposite, massively increased productivity, which can benefit everybody - so long as proper distribution of wealth is sorted out.

There will never be a lack of work for people to do, because fields of work such as e.g. scientific research are effectively infinite - and there will never be less work to do in such fields.

There will always be more work to be done, forever - but much of that useful work can not be done on a for-profit basis, thus eventually yes, the private sector will become unable to employ enough people - which means that necessary work will have to be funded in various ways from the public purse instead (which sorts out the issue of how distribute the benefits of increased productivity, to everybody, in a fair - you have to work for it - way).

I don't get why people don't see that, and why it seems like such a controversial idea to people.

So everyone will be scientists and researchers. That even sounds more bizarre. Everyone has that level of intelligence to make it in these fields of expertise.

KomradeBishop · 31-05-2016 10:28PM

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

So everyone will be scientists and researchers. That even sounds more bizarre. Everyone has that level of intelligence to make it in these fields of expertise.

That's not what I said though - scientific research is an area, where the amount of work left to do, is effectively infinite - so I used that solely as an example, of how the idea of people being left unemployed because 'there will be nothing useful for them to do' is just utterly ludicrous; even automation won't stem peoples ability to contribute there.

There is a huge amount of work to be done outside of just scientific research - there are massive infrastructural changes that are needed across the whole planet, to stem human contributions to global warming - just for starters.

peasant · 01-06-2016 07:29AM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

That's not what I said though - scientific research is an area, where the amount of work left to do, is effectively infinite - so I used that solely as an example, of how the idea of people being left unemployed because 'there will be nothing useful for them to do' is just utterly ludicrous; even automation won't stem peoples ability to contribute there.

There is a huge amount of work to be done outside of just scientific research - there are massive infrastructural changes that are needed across the whole planet, to stem human contributions to global warming - just for starters.

There would just be the tiny matter of who is going to finance it?

Our current profit based economy relies on human labour and human consumption to keep it going.
With little labour left, consumption goes down and so does the amount of available money.

Scientific research and infrastructural work requires huge investments with little to no immediate profit ...all profit that can be made is deferred to the future, if it materialises at all.

There may be long term gains to be had for society or the greater good of humanity ...but no immediate profit that might entice investors.

Sleepy · 01-06-2016 08:55AM

I think it's pretty obvious that KomradeBishop is suggesting that such work would be funded by high taxation of the private sector?

Eugene Norman · 01-06-2016 09:00AM

Sleepy wrote: »

I think it's pretty obvious that KomradeBishop is suggesting that such work would be funded by high taxation of the private sector?

There won't be much of a private sector working class left so I doubt it. He might mean printing money.

KomradeBishop · 01-06-2016 10:55AM

peasant wrote: »

There would just be the tiny matter of who is going to finance it?

Our current profit based economy relies on human labour and human consumption to keep it going.
With little labour left, consumption goes down and so does the amount of available money.

Scientific research and infrastructural work requires huge investments with little to no immediate profit ...all profit that can be made is deferred to the future, if it materialises at all.

There may be long term gains to be had for society or the greater good of humanity ...but no immediate profit that might entice investors.

People generally don't have a good understanding of how public finances work - they don't work like private finances.

Publicly funded efforts generally don't generate any profit - and that is the way it is supposed to be - that is why essential services are often public, because they have to prioritize social benefit over profit.

Only the private sector requires profits - as private finances are largely determined by inflows (profits) and outflows (expenditure), and it's simply not sustainable to run private business at a loss.

The public sectors finances are completely different - the health of public sector finances, depends on the health of the overall economy, because the healthier the economy, the higher the tax intake, and the faster public debt becomes manageable because of GDP growth.

This means it's better to take on public debt, in order to make the economy as robust/healthy as possible - including using public funding to push for full employment - this actually makes 'Public Debt vs GDP' fall faster in the long run, by making GDP grow faster. The point is, to always keep the economy, so that GDP growth is maximized (which is analogous to keeping permanent full employment) - let public debt float/adjust as needed, to do this.

Even something as simple as this is too complicated for most people to 'get'/grok though - usually people are too short-sighted to get past the idea that 'debt = universally bad', without even bothering to see that low interest debt has hardly any cost to it, such that public debt isn't universally bad.

People then just pick from a handful of prominent memes/myths - without actually bothering to think things through for themselves - just repeating some variation of 'public debt = bad'.

KomradeBishop · 01-06-2016 11:02AM

Sleepy wrote: »

I think it's pretty obvious that KomradeBishop is suggesting that such work would be funded by high taxation of the private sector?

Eugene Norman wrote: »

There won't be much of a private sector working class left so I doubt it. He might mean printing money.

You don't need high taxes or money printing when there is low interest public debt - you loosen taxes and expand public spending, until GDP growth is maximized (i.e. until full employment is reached) - and only then do you ramp back spending and increase taxes (which is required when full employment is reached, otherwise you begin overheating parts of the economy).

Low interest public debt, is almost as good as printing money.

What will happen when all the low skill jobs are gone?

Comments