Why Robots Won't Cause Mass Unemployment

Mises Institute ^ | 08/02/2017 | Jonathan Newman

[DuncanWaring]

Where’s that leave those on the left half of the bell curve?

[CincyRichieRich]

There’s a huge field of tech support out there to fix/program these things.
...
Awfully good point...touche

[SoCal Pubbie]

I would not be superset, because I know all about it. I know a guy who developed a new neck brace for paramedics that used Elwyn Industries years ago for such rote tasks, and I’ve read similar stories since. So I agree with you there.

I am not a Luddite nor am I necessarily fearful of the future in reguards to these developments. I do wonder however if the buggy whip analogy holds true anymore. In the past, new technologies shifted human labor from one individual another. Companies like Boston robotics I believe it is, I developing android type robots that will replace manual workers. And that scenario, only highly educated, very intelligent workers will find jobs and probably fewer than today.

I believe that within the next 100 to 200 years the overall population of the earth will begin to shrink dramatically. I could see a future with half the number of people on the planet that there are today. What that means for the economies of the future I don’t know.

[aquila48]

I wouldn’t go quite that far...

I don’t mind at all individuals and private organizations helping poor people.

I just don’t want the government in the compassion business, and telling me who I should support.

As it has been proven now over a long time, that system is rife with corruption, creates dependencies and an attitude of entitlement and has all the wrong incentives.

The sense of gratitude that is the other side of compassion is completely missing. Instead of showing gratitude, many wouldn’t hesitate to sue the government, using a lawyer that we pay for, if they don’t get their entitlement in time.

[aquila48]

” a Chinese American - says that you cannot accept the financial figures of Chinese companies or the government - their books are not trustworthy.”

You don’t have to accept government figures if you don’t want. Simply go there and believe your lying eyes. If you had gone there 20 years ago (like I did) and you go there now, it’s like night and day in terms of standard of living. From 30 years ago the change is even more dramatic.

“Or, taking your statement as fact, one could say any benefit of the productivity spurt from U.S. companies from the technological revolution was EXPORTED to China, Korea, Taiwan and Japan, with a “screw the American worker and domestic economy” stamp on it.”

True but that does not counter the point that high tech has created tens of millions of jobs, either here or abroad. If many of them were exported that is a political issue, not a job creation issue.

“Once they are built out as far as needed, that job engine will be much slower, robotics and automation will be even higher, with even slower job growth, for their 1 bil plus populations.”

Of course, as their wages begin to approach ours their growth rate will be more like ours. That is to be expected and has nothing to do with automation. The same thing happened to Japan in the 80’s as their wages rose to our level.

[aquila48]

“You are better off listening to the guys that built products and are heads IN THE INDUSTRY like Bill Joy, Elon Musk, Ray Kurzweil or Bill Gates vs. a college Professor that lives in an Ivory tower. It’s a lot like taking economic advice from Antifa that lives in their mommy’s basement.”

Do you also listen to them about global warming or climate change? They all believe like Algore believes?

Personally, I’d rather think about things myself - consider the available evidence and come to my own conclusions. That is not to say that I don’t want to hear what those guys or other experts have to say. I admire what they have done and the contributions they’ve made to the world, but I would consider their opinions critically, I wouldn’t blindly accept their conclusions.

And being a freeper I got a feeling you don’t accept the climate change BS because “experts” tell you you should. Or am I wrong?

And you’re probably also aware that one of the logical fallacies is “argument from authority”. So beware of experts.

[aquila48]

“First try to stay focus on this debate. We are talking about the future and not the present or the past.”

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” - Santayana.

Past experience of similar situations can tell you a lot about the future of similar situation today. Not perfect but much better than extrapolating through willful ignorance. You may want to study a bit of history - it would make you even more enlightened.

“That validates my entire point that the companies are hiring less people..., “

That validates your ignorance and understanding of what any company does. The purpose of any business is to make money not to create job. The only reason a business would ever hire a person is if adding that person makes the business more money. And yes he will replace that person if a machine comes along that makes the business more net money. That’s been true forever.

“as technology does more and more jobs in all industries and every walk of life.”

Technology has been doing more and more since the industrial revolution. Given that technology has been doing more and more for 200+ years, by your logic everybody should be unemployed by now. Last I heard the unemployment rate is about 4.4%.

“Yes they did, but many of their new jobs, like their previous job, are slowly and incrementally being impacted by automation and A.I.”

And like before new needs and jobs will be created. Why do you think that things will remain static?

“You some how think most people will be able to run off to some other job that will not be impacted by automation or A.I. That’s complete nonsense.”

Where do you think millions of ignorant farmers who lost their jobs to farm mechanization at the turn of last century ran off to? As I said, study a bit of history, it’ll do you good. (I’m curious, How old are you?)

“However, it will not be true 30 years from now at the direction we are heading.”

I may not be around 30 years from now at the ripe old age of 99, but I would love to make a bet with you that, barring stupid policies from the government like “guaranteed income” and other idiocies, the unemployment rate won’t be that much different than it is today.

“You are arguing an old debate that’s already over.”

Oh, settled science, I see!! How could I possibly argue against “settled opinion”.

“all agree technology, Automation, A.I. and robots will for the most part take over most jobs.”

Are the robots going to buy their own products, or will all the unemployed people buy the products with the money they don’t have? Do you see the idiocy in that scenario?

“The arguments you are making is nothing I have never before or considered.”

If you in fact considered them, based on your comments, you must have done so with the same depth, diligence and knowledge of a high school freshman.

[zeestephen]

As robots and expert software increase, the price of goods and services will decline, and the tax collections on the much higher business profits will increase.

Automation will indeed cause much higher unemployment.

But government will provide a basic standard of living for all those without jobs or savings.

[aquila48]

“Automation will indeed cause much higher unemployment.”

Are you sure about that? Did farm mechanization starting at the turn of the last century, when 80-90% of the people worked on farms, cause much higher unemployment?

And given that and all the addition automation since then, it’s surprising anybody has a job today! Yet unemployment today is 4.4% and illegals have no problems getting jobs.

[poconopundit]

Real nice post, aquila48. PING

Most of the stuff we have in our homes was made, in part, by robots. 150 years ago they did not have robots... and they had less, and less complicated, stuff. So more robots = cheaper stuff = people have more stuff.

Real nice, Talon.

Our minds think of robots as some futuristic thing -- walking/talking servants or the mass adoption of those huge robotic welding machines that help build cars.

But robots include smaller gadgets that allow work to be done faster. Even a small computer program that increased an individual worker's productivity is a mini-robot.

And so, looked on in that way, robots are already pervasive. They are merely hiding in Excel sheets, wine bottle openers -- automated gadgets on a large or small scale.

What do ya think?

[central_va]

It’s hard to advance manufacturing process, increase productivity and the accompany wealth creation to benefit the US economy IF THE FACTORY IS IN CHINA. That benefits our economic enemies.

[Wuli]

It is not a question of living standards in China having risen, and that fact is regardless of how trustworthy the financial books in China - government OR PRIVATE - can be trusted. They can’t.

Japan has been stagnant economically for one reason - building it’s export driven economy produced robotics & automation & information computerization on an economy wide level faster than everyone else. Job growth has run out.

[Sirius Lee]

I miss the days when womenfolk worked all day carrying pots of water on their heads. The invention of irrigation tossed so many water jug employees to the curb.

[PapaBear3625]

If robots take over all the jobs, who will have money to buy their products?

The people who own the robots

There are three main economic classes:

1) The people who live off investments.

2) The people who live off payments for their work.

3) The people who live off charity from the other two classes.

What automation does is to shift some people in (2) into different occupations. Those who do not find a new occupation, drop down into the underclass(3).

Meanwhile, class (1) is unaffected by automation, except by the need to shift investments from dying fields to rising fields.

[PapaBear3625]

It’s very easy to get rid of unemployment - get rid of 90% of welfare, section 8, food stamps, minimum wage, fake disability, and unemployment will become non existing, robots or not.

What welfare does, is it enables the poor to have lots of kids. Meanwhile, middle-class couples have to work (to pay taxes for welfare) and can't afford kids.

Eliminate welfare, and suddenly there will be people willing to do service jobs that make it easier for middle-class parents to have and raise more kids. And middle-class kids are more likely to be the ones to create the new companies to employ people.

[PapaBear3625]

Robots today are in manufacturing. I think it’d be a while before one shows up at your door in a driver-less car to do housecleaning or repairs.

Roomba vacuuming robot:

Husqvarna lawn mower robot

[tbw2]

We do need to find better ways to engage the average and below average people displaced by automation.

Dr. Jordan Peterson - IQ and The Job Market
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjs2gPa5sD0

[Enlightened1]

You keep mixing apples with oranges and then try to compare them.

The people pushing the lie of Global Warming/climate change rubbish are career politicians, career government bureaucrats, Academia that benefit financially for pushing the lie, ditto some businesses and Hollywood. What you will find is that most of these Shills never built product in their life. Furthermore, they do not practice what they preach. All they do is parrot each other vs. exercising critical thought. There arguments are chalked full of holes, many unanswered questions, and malarkey. Finally, it’s a scam that has been in the books for a very long time.

Again you are comparing apples to oranges.

The guys I listed for you have built, managed, innovate and lead the technology industry for years. They are some of the top minds in the industry that have added Trillions of dollars to the U.S. economy , and probably quadrillions to the global economy combined.

Anyway, I can tell you are very new to this debate just like the nutty bow tie professor. The public debate started about 20 years ago, but it goes way back to the 1950s and even before that, but it was more theory at the time. I’ll spare you that history. Anyhow, that’s why I originally linked you that article from Bill Joy from 2000. Did you notice the date?

The debate position you are taking was basically argued until about 2013. You don’t have to believe it. I am just telling what the Industry is saying, and we can actaully see it in practice through workers migrating to different fields. You seem to believe the industry growers linear when it’s growing exponentially.

Perhaps you believe all theories are timeless and will always apply. Sorry but bot all theories are timeless. For instance, Moore’s law. If you are not familiar with it, then please look it up. Some theories have shelf life and others are timeless. What you are arguing is a theory that works for a period of time.

Life is just not that simple. I know you want to believe in absolutes. But there are no absolutes in life. Generally you can have idea, a guide so to speak, but that just a starting point.

I know in Academia one of the biggest flaws is that Professors love to read books that are about 5 years old. They master the book, and then think they know the answer to everything. Haha! You know it too when they use the phrase “the Key. I roll my eyes every time I hear this. They act like think they have some skeleton master key that will unlock the universe. Haha!

Let me clue help you out. By the time the Professor cracks open that 5 year old book and masters the ideas in it have changed at least 500 times because that’s how the real world operates.

The industry I work in literally changes every 10 days. This is because Global Corporation is fast changing industry. If you can’t keep up, then you will never make it. Change is the only constant in business. Business is dynamic like a kaleidoscope, and not almost static like a college university campus that changes at a snails pace.

[dfwgator]

This is my concern. There will always be jobs for smart people.

But people with little or no skills are SOL, and all you have to do is look at the inner-cities to see where that leads.

[tbw2]

Or the rising unemployment and shift to opiate addiction for poor rural whites so bad their life expectancy dropped under Obama.