|
BobTheJanitor posted:That WH report seems to shy away from advocating any kind of basic income solution and only hints at vague things like 'increasing the social safety net' while mostly falling back on retraining as the solution. Which, of course, doesn't deal with the obvious question of what you're going to be retraining these people for as more and more jobs automate away, or how you're going to fit the millions of people in need of retraining into a system that's hardly built to contain them. Again, the current situation only requires that people get 2-year degrees in addition to a high school diploma. Maybe one day when 4-year degrees are obsolete it will be time to give up on education as the solution.
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 20:31 |
|
|
Why is two years a real solution and not four? Why not a PhD? The job market isn't demanding higher and higher academic credentials because a normally clever person who'd have been a machinist in 1960 couldn't figure out how to use Microsoft Outlook without an associates' in math. The job market demands degrees because it's contracting and employers can take their pick from the hundreds of applicants struggling to find work, so an otherwise intelligent accomplished person with a high school diploma is at a crushing competitive disadvantage against scores of equally desperate intelligent accomplished people who do have one. When everybody has a college degree, the goalpost for basic employability will shift to the next thing that makes a candidate stand out from a hundred others, and the next, indefinitely so long as there's substantially more people with the same baseline qualifications who need a job to live than there are jobs to help keep them alive. UBI addresses this problem by exchanging the promise of a basic living (and, looking at what a 6+ month gap in your resume can do to you already, the promise you'll never again see better than that) for surrendering ownership of everything to the capitalist class and giving up the last bargaining chip the average worker has in negotiating with the rich - the economic value of their labor. It's a reversion to feudalism, except this time around the nobles don't actually need 99% of the serfs for anything at all, which through mysterious means translates to they'll happily underwrite them taking up a life of fingerpainting and playing DOTA indefinitely. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Dec 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:Why is two years a real solution and not four? Why not a PhD? The job market isn't demanding higher and higher academic credentials because a normally clever person who'd have been a machinist in 1960 couldn't figure out how to use Microsoft Outlook without an associates' in math. The job market demands degrees because it's contracting and employers can take their pick from the hundreds of applicants struggling to find work, so an otherwise intelligent accomplished person with a high school diploma is at a crushing competitive disadvantage against scores of equally desperate intelligent accomplished people who do have one. When everybody has a college degree, the goalpost for basic employability will shift to the next thing that makes a candidate stand out from a hundred others, and the next, indefinitely so long as there's substantially more people with the same baseline qualifications who need a job to live than there are jobs to help keep them alive. These aren't vanity degrees, it's the simple fact that there isn't time to teach CNC/medical specializations/etc in high school. Some day I'm sure you'll be correct and UBI will be a necessity, but it's not going to be for quite a while.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
Not everyone's going to be a CNC operator or a radiologist, though. In fact, you couldn't employ even one in a hundred people doing that; there'd be nothing for them to do! An associates' degree won't help you get into those positions even now, and we've got no shortage of aspiring doctors and engineers with better qualifications than that who still can't get jobs. And you're misreading me: UBI will never become "a necessity", it's a dead end predicated on the fantasy that if you let them have all the money and power in the world the Goldman Sachs board of directors will ask the government to redistribute it to you. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 21:26 on Dec 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:Not everyone's going to be a CNC operator or a radiologist, though. In fact, you couldn't employ even one in a hundred people doing that; there'd be nothing for them to do! An associates' degree won't help you get into those positions even now, and we've got no shortage of aspiring doctors and engineers with better qualifications than that who still can't get jobs. That is currently not even remotely true. Employers are desperate for people with relevant 2-year degrees, and even more so for good doctors and engineers. edit: and I'm sure the next argument will be "then they should pay more" and the circle will thus remain unbroken SaTaMaS fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Dec 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
It seems like UBI almost requires a functional economy in order to start it rolling. If we wait and try to implement it when it appears to be a necessity, after 50% of the population is out of a job and monetary circulation has flatlined, it would probably be too late. What transactions are you going to tax in order to fund it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
The ideal solution is probably socializing the means of production, not just giving everyone a paycheck. But that's never going to happen and neither will UBI. Having said that, i'm skeptical that automation is really happening. Technology is moving more slowly these days. Things aren't rapidly advancing. AI is still a buzzword that doesn't mean anything. Selfdriving cars, for example, are pure hype. We're still decades and decades away from having the necessary technology. Robots are still dumb and slow. There are jobs that are threatened by automation but it's mostly stuff that can already be done over the internet. For things that require face-to-face communication, skilled labor, the trades, food service, etc., humans will still be doing those jobs. Maybe bank tellers are going the way of the dodo, but if you're a mechanic, electrician, plumber, teacher, doctor, nurse, caretaker, salesman, or work in food service at any level, you're safe. Delivery drivers and truck drivers are probably safe, too. The problem is that many of us are going to be wage slaves for the rest of our lives.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
BobTheJanitor posted:It seems like UBI almost requires a functional economy in order to start it rolling. If we wait and try to implement it when it appears to be a necessity, after 50% of the population is out of a job and monetary circulation has flatlined, it would probably be too late. What transactions are you going to tax in order to fund it? Yeah, but once you are living in the singularity to the point that 50% of all jobs are replaced by robots money as a concept is obsolete. like you can't dream of living that far into a sci-fi story but pretend that wouldn't change anything else in society.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
Yeah, the thing everyone is worried about is that the sci fi story we're going to end up with is Womack's Ambient/Random Acts of Senseless Violence.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:AI is still a buzzword that doesn't mean anything. I work on Google Photos. When we had our 1.0 launch with automatic content search and face clustering, it was a big deal. Yes, those existed in some academic form or in a lower-quality consumer form (Flickr) a bit earlier, but AFAIK this was the first time in a major consumer service where the quality was generally good (my sister has identical twin boys, and it could tell them apart even in baby pictures, when even she struggled). Now this probably didn't eliminate any jobs, some AI advances will be like this where they're just a minor quality of life improvement. It's still machine intelligence though. quote:Selfdriving cars, for example, are pure hype. We're still decades and decades away from having the necessary technology.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
Cicero posted:(my sister has identical twin boys, and it could tell them apart even in baby pictures, when even she struggled). Was info about this published anywhere becuase that is super interesting
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Was info about this published anywhere becuase that is super interesting Edit: looks like my sister isn't the only one with this story: quote:Google Photos is scary good in face recognition Cicero fucked around with this message at 22:59 on Dec 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:The ideal solution is probably socializing the means of production, not just giving everyone a paycheck. But that's never going to happen and neither will UBI. "technology" isn't a Sid Meier's Civilization score that's easy to quantify but there've been absolutely tremendous changes in how we relate to work and what work it is we do in the past three decades, prompted by technology. Networked computers are blowing steam engines out of the water, like imagine trying to explain this sentence quote:There are jobs that are threatened by automation but it's mostly stuff that can already be done over the internet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:Selfdriving cars, for example, are pure hype. We're still decades and decades away from having the necessary technology.  I'm not even sure if I'm falling for troll bait, but... the basic technology is here, and it works. it's only a matter of regulations catching up at this point. Like, yeah, if you want to get technical, we don't have anything that you can just punch in a destination and then take a nap while it drives you there through all weather conditions, yet. But normal city or highway driving are perfectly doable and have been done.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
I know I'm mirroring the same exact thing that has been said a hundred times in this thread, but people going "lol self driving cars are a fantasy" forget that we already have cars in the market that have an auto-parking feature. It's not gonna be "BOOM self-driving cars overnight!", it's going to be more gradual, first you'll get a "highway mode", or "doze-off protection" - it's always in the form of stuff that helps take the load off tasks, until suddenly the transition from "car that -almost- drives itself" to "car that drives itself" is so blurry that you didn't even notice you had it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:I know I'm mirroring the same exact thing that has been said a hundred times in this thread, but people going "lol self driving cars are a fantasy" forget that we already have cars in the market that have an auto-parking feature. It's not gonna be "BOOM self-driving cars overnight!", it's going to be more gradual, first you'll get a "highway mode", or "doze-off protection" - it's always in the form of stuff that helps take the load off tasks, until suddenly the transition from "car that -almost- drives itself" to "car that drives itself" is so blurry that you didn't even notice you had it. It's not even the cars that are the big thing for jobs in particular, it's trucks, and there's already at least half a dozen different groups with working rigs. Most of them expect the first self driving trucks to be on the highways in around 5 years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
Google photos thinks I am like twelve different people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Yeah, but once you are living in the singularity to the point that 50% of all jobs are replaced by robots money as a concept is obsolete. So at what point does the wizard wave his magic wand and instantly change society? When 20% of jobs are automated? 30%? 40%? Hell, who's even been counting how many jobs have been automated away over the past five or ten years? Social change isn't something that just magically happens - it's something that has to be pushed for. We can't just sit back and say "well, if the problem gets REAL bad I'm sure someone will solve it". Hell, look at how well that's worked for climate change.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:We can't just sit back and say "well, if the problem gets REAL bad I'm sure someone will solve it". Hell, look at how well that's worked for climate change. I mean, if things get real bad and we don't have any plans in place, there will be a solution, but it's not going to be a good one. Once the riots and wars destroy all the technology along with half of the population, we'll no longer have the problem of joblessness to worry about! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
BobTheJanitor posted:I mean, if things get real bad and we don't have any plans in place, there will be a solution, but it's not going to be a good one. Once the riots and wars destroy all the technology along with half of the population, we'll no longer have the problem of joblessness to worry about! Just remember to not blow up the automated food factories.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:So at what point does the wizard wave his magic wand and instantly change society? When 20% of jobs are automated? 30%? 40%? Hell, who's even been counting how many jobs have been automated away over the past five or ten years? Social change isn't something that just magically happens - it's something that has to be pushed for. We can't just sit back and say "well, if the problem gets REAL bad I'm sure someone will solve it". Hell, look at how well that's worked for climate change. Do you understand the technological progress you are talking about to talk about a world where 40% of all the jobs in US can be done by computers? Hey man, at least it's progress that I went from the only guy saying the singularity was near five years ago to all of D&D thinking that too but just deciding "but literally the only thing it might change is the unemployment rate"
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 15:02
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Do you understand the technological progress you are talking about to talk about a world where 40% of all the jobs in US can be done by computers? That study is saying 40% of all jobs which exist right now are at risk of being automated, not that 40% of all jobs will be done by machines or software within two decades. Some of those jobs will be replaced as they're lost and some of the innovations that lead to jobs being lost will end up creating more work. These studies aren't saying anything about the number of people will be unemployed in the future. No one is seriously suggesting that half of all work will be automated in two decades, but there are still major issues to deal with: 1. How many jobs will be lost without being replaced? The WH report notes that the US economy can absorb about 6% annual job loss just as a result of normal business operations. It's possible automation will start causing an actual drain on total jobs at some point, but we'd still end up in an employment crisis if job growth just slows enough to no longer keep pace with population growth. Recession level (ie, 8% or more) unemployment over a long period would destroy the economy. 2. If automation has a constructive effect on the labor market, where will it create new jobs? If middle income jobs are lost to create high and low income jobs, that's going to be almost as bad as automation just destroying jobs outright. Arguably worse, because an unemployment crisis will force political action in a way that falling wages won't. The issues with automation are way the gently caress more boring than some ridiculous idea that we're approaching the singularity and a third of all human labor will be unnecessary. The biggest threat is that the labor that we're socially willing to provide a living wage for will be automated and replaced (at least in part) by work that we value less and that no one will care or even notice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:That study is saying 40% of all jobs which exist right now are at risk of being automated, not that 40% of all jobs will be done by machines or software within two decades. Some of those jobs will be replaced as they're lost and some of the innovations that lead to jobs being lost will end up creating more work. These studies aren't saying anything about the number of people will be unemployed in the future. No one is seriously suggesting that half of all work will be automated in two decades, but there are still major issues to deal with: You are talking about advancements in technology to the point most human endeavors can be done by machines for less than the price of minimum wage. Do you get the level of sci fi fantasy world that is?
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:You are talking about advancements in technology to the point most human endeavors can be done by machines for less than the price of minimum wage. Do you get the level of sci fi fantasy world that is? Yes, 2016 Like, this already happened
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:You are talking about advancements in technology to the point most human endeavors can be done by machines for less than the price of minimum wage. Do you get the level of sci fi fantasy world that is? I specifically said that one of the dangers of automation (a thing which is literally happening right now) is downward wage pressure. In other words, I was saying the exact opposite of what you're implying - that we'll probably see more jobs around the minimum wage level because it's a floor that automation is unlikely to breach for a while in most industries. This is a bad thing. Edit- I don't know how much clearer I can make this. Nobody is talking about all human jobs going away. That 47% figure is talking about jobs that exist right now. Even if that number is accurate, we have no idea how that will translate into future employment. Like, that isn't even an unprecedented number. Go back to a time when 90% of the population was engaged in agricultural labor and you would have been 100% correct to say that a huge portion of those jobs will be automated or simply no longer exist in the future. Paradoxish fucked around with this message at 22:25 on Dec 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:Having said that, i'm skeptical that automation is really happening. Technology is moving more slowly these days. Things aren't rapidly advancing. Do yourself a favor and get an annual subscription to New Scientist. It's weekly, and will assuage any concerns that technology isn't moving at breakneck speeds.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
i am harry posted:Do yourself a favor and get an annual subscription to New Scientist. It's weekly, and will assuage any concerns that technology isn't moving at breakneck speeds. Or just head over to phys.org or similar websites. Sure, computation isn't moving as fast as it did during the last 30 years, but look at stuff like bioengineering, metamaterials, stuff like practical applications of graphene and DNA nanomachinery. Also the amazing range of luminal manipulation of organics that has been achieved lately - such as discrete neuronal stimulation via focused light beams. If you're willing to dig a bit under the surface, it's frankly bloody amazing how much we're advancing on those fields lately.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I don't know how much clearer I can make this. Nobody is talking about all human jobs going away. That 47% figure is talking about jobs that exist right now. Even if that number is accurate, we have no idea how that will translate into future employment. Like, that isn't even an unprecedented number. Go back to a time when 90% of the population was engaged in agricultural labor and you would have been 100% correct to say that a huge portion of those jobs will be automated or simply no longer exist in the future. I don't know how simple I can make this: You don't get to circlejerk about the singularity but decide the only effect it has is changing the unemployment rate. Like this is the worst D&D trend. Apparently levels of technology that approach unimaginable magic are going to appear in the next few years, able to do nearly anything a person can do and more. But apparently the only effect of this is job loss? It makes no other changes? It's like those lovely fantasy books where magic and dragons exist and are common but everyone just lives in regular old medieval villages because the author didn't want to bother thinking about the effects magic would have on society beyond whatever stupid story they wanted.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
You're the only person in this thread talking about the singularity, unless you believe that computer spreadsheets and search engines are technology approaching unimaginable magic. Do you understand that you could go back and write a report for the White House in 1880 saying that 30-40% of current jobs would be automated within the next fifty years and be right? We've lost absolutely massive numbers of jobs to automation over the last several centuries, but it just so happens that technology and economic growth have created more work and opportunity. You seem to be under this really weird impression that 40% of all current jobs being automated would be some kind of unprecedented event in human history. It wouldn't be. Job loss due to automation has been a continuous process throughout modern history.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:You're the only person in this thread talking about the singularity, unless you believe that computer spreadsheets and search engines are technology approaching unimaginable magic. Yeah, everyone else is talking about magical computers that can do literally anything a person can but also are just boring old spreadsheets that don't do anything. It's a weird sci-fi story we are supposed to fret about!
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Yeah, everyone else is talking about magical computers that can do literally anything a person can but also are just boring old spreadsheets that don't do anything. It's a weird sci-fi story we are supposed to fret about! I've been doing data entry for years and I'm definitely doing the work of ten people at all times. The thing you just said is literally my job and I only make 12/hr lmfao
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 04:04
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Yeah, everyone else is talking about magical computers that can do literally anything a person can but also are just boring old spreadsheets that don't do anything. It's a weird sci-fi story we are supposed to fret about! No, no one is talking about magical computers that can do literally anything a person can do, which is why it's so loving weird to respond to your posts. Automation has never meant replacing human workers with machines on a 1:1 basis and none of the articles or studies being talked about in this thread are coming at the issue from that angle. I have personally helped build and deploy software that was specifically intended to make an entire department redundant so that retiring workers didn't have to be replaced. There was nothing even remotely magical or special about it. Automation almost always comes in the form of labor saving machines (or software) that eliminate jobs over the long term. I have no idea why you're so focused on this weird sci-fi bullshit instead of automation as it actually exists in the real world right now. Like, the whole point is that we don't need machines that can do anything a person can do, we just need machines that can do some of what a person does in highly specific contexts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
Increasing automation does not equal the singularity. Singularity is just the rapture/kingdom for the irreligious.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 06:16
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Yeah, everyone else is talking about magical computers that can do literally anything a person can but also are just boring old spreadsheets that don't do anything. It's a weird sci-fi story we are supposed to fret about!
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 08:40
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Increasing automation does not equal the singularity. Singularity is just the rapture/kingdom for the irreligious. And this thread is just the millennials version of the fear of the "robot apocalypse' but mashed into a weird place where instead of robots rising up to kill everyone as a civil rights metaphor or using nuclear bombs on us in a MAD metaphor now the robots are going to raise unemployment in a housing crash metaphor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 13:10
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Automation almost always comes in the form of labor saving machines (or software) that eliminate jobs over the long term. I have no idea why you're so focused on this weird sci-fi bullshit instead of automation as it actually exists in the real world right now. Like, the whole point is that we don't need machines that can do anything a person can do, we just need machines that can do some of what a person does in highly specific contexts. Because the software exists right now? And we have like 5% unemployment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 13:12
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Because the software exists right now? And we have like 5% unemployment. Come on man, don't pretend you don't know how unreflective of long term unemployment and discouraged job seekers are.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 14:07
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Because the software exists right now? And we have like 5% unemployment. Yes, but that 5% is anheavily manipulated number. Pretty much every job created during obama's presidency is low-paid and part time. Millions upon millions of people are stuck in poo poo jobs and are pretty much one accident, like losing their job, away from being homeless.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 14:17
|
|
|
9-Volt Assault posted:Yes, but that 5% is anheavily manipulated number. Pretty much every job created during obama's presidency is low-paid and part time. Millions upon millions of people are stuck in poo poo jobs and are pretty much one accident, like losing their job, away from being homeless. And what does this have to do with robots? If the technology already exists to replace 40% of jobs with machines why hasn't it happened? Seems like the country is at full employment right now actually. Best it's been in a decade.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 20:31 |
|
|
You do realize the labor participation rate is lower right now than at any time since (white) women entered the workforce https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART 62.8% down from the peak of 67% right before the tech bubble popped the first time. The interesting thing to notice is that since the 2000 peak, the rate has been steady at best, with economic recessions shedding workers from the labor pool who are not replaced. The difference between the new "normal" of the post GFC recovery and bush's second term is about 3% or something like 4.5 million workers. There are other reasons for the decline like the exit of baby boomers from the job market en masse but that only explains some of the decline. There are millions of people right now, in your environment of "full employment" who can not find a job. rscott fucked around with this message at 15:57 on Dec 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 15:36
|
|
