Automation Is Making Unions Irrelevant

dcblogs writes "Michigan lawmakers just approved a right-to-work law in an effort to dismantle union power, but unions are already becoming irrelevant. The problem with unions is they can't protect jobs. They can't stop a company from moving jobs overseas, closing offices, or replacing workers with machines. Indeed, improvements in automation is making the nation attractive again for manufacturing, according to U.S. intelligence Global Trends 2030 report. The trends are clear. Amazon spent $775 million this year to acquire a company, Kiva Systems that makes robots used in warehouses. Automation will replace warehouse workers, assembly-line and even retail workers. In time, Google's driverless cars will replace drivers in the trucking industry. Unions sometimes get blamed for creating uncompetitive environments and pushing jobs overseas. But the tech industry, which isn't unionized, is a counterpoint. Tech has been steadily moving jobs overseas to lower costs."

Comments

Title is misleading

[pkbarbiedoll]

Automation is making human labor irrelevant, regardless of union participation.

Re:Title is misleading

[flaming error]

Automation is shifting repetitive, uncreative, brutish work to repetitive, uncreative, brutish machines, thus freeing humans to pursue nobler interests.

No consolation to the workers who can't find new jobs, I know. But for the larger society, the benefits outweigh the costs.

In every change some prosper, some lose. But the same happens in every status quo. We may as well choose technological progress.

If we are compassionate, we can give the displaced workers opportunities to learn new skills.

Re:Title is misleading

[Opportunist]

Yeah, and as we all know Sweden is the country with the highest unemployment humanly possible and its economy is about to collapse. People are rioting in the streets and even camp outside ... no, wait, that wasn't Sweden...

Re:Title is misleading

[scamper_22]

The big problem is simply that people are used to living an advantageous life over other people.

You see this all the time with people complaining about being paid the minimum wage.

Well what is wrong with the minimum wage? Someone has to be paid the minimum wage. Those paid higher than the minimum wage simply take advantage of the labor of those paid less and get more 'stuff' in life.

The public school teacher only has a 'good job' because some waiter is being paid minimum wage so they can go out to eat on a weekend. Because some textile worker is earning minimum wage assembling clothes and the teacher can get a new pair of jeans every few months...

The position is privilege is what union workers are used to. Both in the public sector and the private sector.

Ultimately, technology is going to make us more egalitarian. There might be a few rich people in charge of the robots that provide us with cheap goods, but you know what will get to the average Joe... that they cannot complete with the average Joe's anymore.

In a more egalitarian society... who gets to live in Downtown Manhatten in the 'nice' neighborhood close to transit? Answer that question without saying one person earns more than another.

I too don't fear technology. But I do fear humanity.
Humans love to take advantage of each other.
The 'evil' banker, the teacher, the police officer, the businessman, the engineer... we all in general want to live a better life than someone else.

To truly take advantage of this technological progress, we must rid ourselves of this. That will be the hardest challenge.

We all *know* the solution to this.
Things like work sharing, decreased dependency on economy growth...
The question is how will societies transition their people to this model.
How will they convince public sector unions, doctors, lawyers... that their standard of living will be that of the average citizen?

Change of this sort is hard at the political level and social level. You're talking about changing the social situation of millions and millions of people who are used to a certain kind of living.

Forget about the displaced workers for a second.
Most of these displaced workers are in the private sector... and much of the created need is in the public sector or public related sector (healthcare, education, transit...)

At some point the lack of tax money paid by these displaced private sector workers is going to hit the pocket books of government wanted to spend on the public related sector. Wait a minute... I think this is where we pretty much are.

So no matter how many new skills you give these displaced workers, there isn't any money or perhaps even need to give them all jobs in the new field at the current going rate of those fields.

And you're back to tackling establishments in the banking sector, public sector... and taking away a life of privilege and jobs from millions upon millions of people.
Can't say that is going to be easy to transition to... and you can expect a lot of social unrest in the process.

Re:Title is misleading

[blue trane]

We should challenge the economics that says we can't create money and give it to people. In fact we created $16 trillion (enough to pay off the entire national debt) in two years to bail out financial unions (source: http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9e2a4ea8-6e73-4be2-a753-62060dcbb3c3 ).

The best option (that I can think of, at least) is to give everyone a basic income (an idea that goes back to Founding Father Thomas Paine in his 1795 Agrarian Justice), and stimulate innovation and technological progress with challenges from both biz and govt (X Prize, DARPA challenges, Google bug bounties, Netflix prize, etc.). The resulting increase in knowledge advancement will raise our survival fitness fastest because knowledge empowers us to better predict and adapt to sudden catastrophic changes.

We start by challenging the fundamental assumptions of popular economics, one of which is that government can only spend what it takes in. This assumption has been violated by the history of the United States, which has had a national debt since its very founding. Lincoln printed some $480 million greenbacks to raise money without increasing taxes or borrowing it. Japan runs a 230% debt-to-gdp ratio and has a currency they keep trying to devalue. Dick Cheney was right: Reagan proved that deficits don't matter.

Re:Title is misleading

[Sir_Eptishous]

I agree with much of your analysis.
However the speed of technological change, and the rate at which human labor becomes irrelevant, are quickly outpacing any kind of egalitarian drive in human society, any kind of evolution as a species regarding our interactions with one another.

The reality is, in the next 50 years much of the human race, especially in the developed world, will become irrelevant to the "machine world" that will replace human labor. The systems in place to support the lifestyles of those in control won't need the millions of permanently un-employed, and they won't foot the bill for some kind of social welfare system to keep them quiet.

More likely a permanent state of drugged obedience via constant virtual escapism while being constantly controlled and monitored by the omniscient security apparatus.

Re:Title is misleading

[ghostdoc]

If we are compassionate, we can give the displaced workers opportunities to learn new skills.

As we move towards a post scarcity society some questions are raised that can only be answered by something closely resembling central wealth redistribution. Not full blown communism but the guarantee of a reasonable standard of living for everyone, with the opportunity to get more if you want to. Much of Europe is basically operating on this principle at the moment, and as time passes I feel we'll see a higher standard emerge.

No, and I mean NO! because central wealth distribution has been shown time and again to disincentivise people from actually doing something useful with their lives. If you earn enough from benefits, and your benefits reduce if you work/produce value, then why do anything useful? And Benefit Dependency is a really nasty pernicious place to be in.

As such, it's pretty much essential that we focus on figuring out how best to help people learn and reach their potential.

Yes! Education has to change. We have to stop emphasising rote learning, obedience, testing, conformity, all that shit that creates good little worker drones, and reinvent true education. Luckily there are huge leaps being made in online education at the moment, so being able to provide everyone with a better education is going to be easier and cheaper. Hopefully we'll move away from the school system too, and integrate child education back into our work life and home life.

Re:Title is misleading

[crazyjj]

thus freeing humans to pursue nobler interests.

Yeah, we'll have plenty of time on our hands to pursue interests like huddling around trashcan fires, stealing food, and begging for change.

Re:Title is misleading

[bondsbw]

Giving everyone a basic income would provide them a safety net, encouraging risk-taking and innovation. Whoever does succeed contributes more back to the societal safety net.

But some people don't try. They don't want to try. If given a choice between a free shack and a nice home they can work to afford, they will choose the shack. How do we get them to contribute something positive to society, and to take the risks that the safety net is intended to promote?

Re:Title is misleading

[F'Nok]

Not everywhere has the incredible income disparity of the US, so you're making a lot of assumptions that while valid for the US, don't apply to the rest of the world as equally.

Probably the take away from that is that other nations are evidence that there are other ways and perhaps the US should start looking at them.

When I go out for dinner here in Australia, my waiter isn't on minimum wage, we don't have a culture of tipping because they actually get paid enough to live.

No, no one needs to be paid the minimum wage, and the minimum wage conditions of the US are frightening to me and evidence of serious social inequality and damage.

The unemployment benefits in Australia are larger than a full time job on minimum wage in most states of the US. That's how stark the difference is.

The problem is not that 'someone needs to be paid minimum wage'. Because there are nations where the US concept of minimum wage would be considered poverty.

Re:Title is misleading

[F'Nok]

No, and I mean NO! because central wealth distribution has been shown time and again to disincentivise people from actually doing something useful with their lives. If you earn enough from benefits, and your benefits reduce if you work/produce value, then why do anything useful? And Benefit Dependency is a really nasty pernicious place to be in.

There are a number of places in the world outside the US that show this to be untrue.

Australian benefits are greater than US minimum wage (in most states) at full time. Yet somehow the unemployment in Australia is lower and all those minimum wage jobs seem to be filled.

Perhaps it's a little more complicated than forcing people to work with the threat of poverty?

Re:Title is misleading

[F'Nok]

There are underemployment issues in most economies and there always has been, it's just that 20 years ago those people were completely invisible, and today some people will talk about them.

The situation in Japan is no worse due to automation, the issue Japan does have is an ageing population.

The relatively severe ageing problem Japan will have is certainly an issue, but it has nothing to do with automation, or the assertion that they have high unemployment.

They don't have high unemployment, they have a high number of people unable to work due to age and a low birth rate resulting in a negative population trend.

Re:Title is misleading

[hab136]

>No, and I mean NO! because central wealth distribution has been shown time and again to disincentivise people from actually doing something useful with their lives. If you earn enough from benefits, and your benefits reduce if you work/produce value, then why do anything useful? And Benefit Dependency is a really nasty pernicious place to be in.

The thinking is that there isn't enough useful work to be done. Machines will do most of the grunt work, and you only need x engineers/electricians/other useful jobs per 100,000 people, so what should everyone else do? There's only so much room for artists/writers/musicians. So, since there is no work to be done, yet the person still needs to live, they need to be supported somehow.

The alternative is: there's no work for you to do, please starve to death.

The ratio of employed people to the total population has been slowly shrinking in the US. Currently 58.7% of the US population is working; the rest are not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment-to-population_ratio

What happens when that ratio dwindles lower, to 40%, or 25%, or 10%?

Re:Title is misleading

[F'Nok]

Not in British English.

Re:Title is misleading

[WrongMonkey]

"More likely a permanent state of drugged obedience via constant virtual escapism while being constantly controlled and monitored by the omniscient security apparatus."

You make that sound like a bad thing. But for many people, getting high and playing video games all day would be a kind of utopia.

Re:Title is misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

there are nations where the US concept of minimum wage would be considered poverty.

The US itself is one of them.

Re:Title is misleading

[flaming error]

"More likely a permanent state of drugged obedience via constant virtual escapism while being constantly controlled and monitored by the omniscient security apparatus."

What's likely I don't know, but another possibility is that, just as with other species, where imbalance occurs nature will impose a new equilibrium that leaves us with a smaller population.

Our economic system is clearly unsustainable in ways environmental and mathematical. That means our current way of life won't last forever. Since we don't seem to be doing much to fundamentally change, we are leaving the coming transition entirely in the hands of nature.

Re:Title is misleading

[jd.schmidt]

You are trying to answer the profoundly wrong question. More or less no one now or ever has expected or demanded a totally egalitarian society. Some few have maybe dreamed of it, but no one has demanded it. Even in communist countries there was no real expectation that every member of society would get exactly the same thing, more of the case that there was an attempt (unsuccessful) to prevent anyone from falling too low.

The issue is if you don't stand up for yourself you will get walked over.

Consider "Right to Work" as a simple example, it is NOT the case that these laws repealed some requirement that all unions contract be exclusive by law. Those exclusivity terms were negotiated between two free groups. Instead these laws scratch out, by government fiat, parts of existing contracts and make it illegal for two parties to agree these terms. Why if you are free to join with another person and start a company, should you not be free to join with another person and start a Union

I have a great deal of faith in people to take care of themselves given the chance. The basic problem is there is a deliberate attempt to prevent people from being able to stand up for themselves. Let’s start by removing those barriers and see what happens.

Re:Title is misleading

[erice]

TIn a more egalitarian society... who gets to live in Downtown Manhatten in the 'nice' neighborhood close to transit? Answer that question without saying one person earns more than another.

In a perfectly egalitarian society, the most desirable populated areas would still cost more and you would still get less. The people who lived there would be those willing to spend the largest fraction of their income to live in the smallest practical housing. This is largely how it works today.

There would likely be areas that are populated today that would not be in this system. If no one can afford to live there, then the space will be used for other activities that can justify the cost. Or the rent reaches a plateau so getting in become a matter of chance, connections, and subterfuge. That happens today too.

Re:Title is misleading

[OneAhead]

I think you underestimate the impact of greed, strife and group-think. It's basically what consumerist/capitalist society is built on. You bombard people the whole day with advertisements that all carry the same message: If you buy this, you will be happy. [Take-home message: money creates happiness.] You will be superior to your neighbor who doesn't have it. Or go ahead and don't buy it, but you will be ridiculed and feel inferior and unhappy. These messages fall on fertile ground: they trigger people's instinctive tendencies to appear superior as to attract a better mate. Few people can resist these base tendencies, leave alone the tsunami of adverts enforcing them. If this wasn't true, rich people would retire to enjoy life once they hit the $10M mark.

Surely, there will be some freeloaders, but so what? All they're doing is sidetracking themselves from society (and who knows, maybe one or two of them will turn out to be great artists). As long as that free shack is not overly luxurious, the number of freeloaders won't be too big, and society can handle it. That's why all these socialist countries in Northern Europe with their elaborate social safety net and unemployment benefits show no signs of collapsing (no, Greece is not in Northern Europe and is not a good example; what really brought Greece down is corruption and uncontrolled spending and also corruption and a bit of corruption.) Working-class people will be complaining in the pubs about the freeloaders, but in truth, they're really not a threat as long as their numbers are kept low by motivating them to get a job.

Here's also the big distinction between Communism and modern-day western-European Socialism (or let's use the less ambiguous term Social democracy). Communism does not sufficiently allow/motivate people to "become more" than their neighbor, thus denying human nature; therefore, it is doomed to fail. On the other extreme end of the spectrum, you have the laissez-faire doctrine of economic liberalism, as embodied in the US by ultralibertarianism, neoliberalism and neoconservatism - yes, that's all the major present-day US political movements with the (largely irrelevant) exception of the greens. This is also doomed to fail: throughout history, wealth has always found a way to aggregate, and a society that is not set up to effectively counterbalance this aggregation will eventually destabilize itself (ie. the poor and powerless will riot against the rich and powerful). As a result of all US political movements going full throttle for laissez-faire economic liberalism, income inequality in the US is at its highest value since a long time (and so is money's political influence). In my opinion, this is the single biggest threat to the USA and everything it stands for. The stable point lies in-between communism and laissez-faire capitalism. Progressive taxes are a large part of this because they promote a large middle class layer - people who have spending power (as opposed to the poor) and are motivated to spend all their money (as opposed to the rich). The associated turnover of money is the water that flows trough the waterwheel of a healthy economy.

*gets off soapbox*

Re:Title is misleading

[Kjella]

Consider "Right to Work" as a simple example, it is NOT the case that these laws repealed some requirement that all unions contract be exclusive by law. Those exclusivity terms were negotiated between two free groups. Instead these laws scratch out, by government fiat, parts of existing contracts and make it illegal for two parties to agree these terms.

Because you are creating a monopoly that under very similar circumstances between companies would run afoul of antitrust legislation. Market collusion is also voluntary among all the companies engaged in price fixing, would you like to make that 100% legal? Competition is not a natural state, the natural state is that someone goes all-in and captures the market and it stays captive through lock-in and anti-competitive practices. It's like claiming a one-party state is democracy because you can always choose not to vote.

Re:Title is misleading

[MtHuurne]

The thinking is that there isn't enough useful work to be done.

There is plenty of useful work to be done: children would benefit from smaller classes, the elderly would like more attention, cities could be made prettier, there are lots of things that can be researched. The problem is that no-one is willing to pay for those things: we're always looking for lower costs, lower taxes, not higher quality of life.

Re:Title is misleading

[bondsbw]

Surely, there will be some freeloaders, but so what?

Your country must be more civilized. Where I live, the freeloaders are everywhere.

One major problem is that the "system" is beyond the ability to control. The government provides assistance in all forms, but somehow that is never enough. Our government provides food, shelter, clothing, and emergency health care to the freeloaders. That's never enough though... now they need cell phones and laundry service and food/care for their pets and transportation and better living conditions. (Did I mention that despite the government assistance, they don't take care of themselves or their kids, so now there are more health care costs, etc.?)

If you do work, you don't get much or any of that for free. You start at $0.00, and work for your money. Then you pay taxes, and buy those things I listed. By the time you pay for health insurance and everything else that puts you on the same level as a typical freeloader, you are left with little money to spend as you want. You work 40 hours per week, yet barely live any better than those who work 0 hours per week.

So why slave away at a thankless job, away from my family during the day? I could be spending more quality time with my family, being lazy or doing whatever I can do without paying money for it... all while having all my needs and many of my wants provided for by the government check.

Re:Title is misleading

[Trepidity]

Should all exclusivity agreements be banned, then?

If a company can sign an contract agreeing to use one specific supplier as their exclusive supplier of candlesticks, why can't it, instead, do the same in-house, and sign a contract agreeing to use people from one particular labor union as its exclusive supplier of candlestick-making employees?

Re:Title is misleading

[Trepidity]

Perhaps it's a little more complicated than forcing people to work with the threat of poverty?

This is one reason Scandinavia's taken the path it has: the societies have bet (correctly, imo) that in the modern world, the quality of labor you get solely from threatening people "work or die!" is relatively low, and that labor forms an increasingly irrelevant part of a country's total GDP. What actually drives the economy are people who have some additional reason and motivation to work, and skills to do so at a higher level than basic drudgery. So there is a high minimum wage (around $18/hr in Denmark), and the entire unemployment system is geared towards retraining people (with free education) to fill high-skill jobs where there's a shortage of labor.

Re:Title is misleading

[OneAhead]

Your country must be more civilized. Where I live, the freeloaders are everywhere.

Now you're sounding like the populist politicians and the bitter working-class people complaining in the pubs. What you need to do is show statistics indicating that your government's budget is being brought onto its knees by unemployment benefits. I'm not saying there exists no country for which this is the case, but I'm pretty sure it isn't the case for any of the Northern European countries I was talking about, contrary to pervasive public perception.

You start at $0.00, and work for your money.

In order for the system I was talking about to work, the unemployment benefits should be far enough below the minimum wage to motivate a large enough percentage of people to work (which means relatively high minimum wages). In practice, it is not that simple, and there will always be groups of exceptions. But this condition is largely fulfilled in most functioning welfare societies, again, despite pervasive public perception to the contrary. If you will argue that it isn't the case for your country, by all means, but please do provide a statistic. Keeping in mind that anecdotes are not a statistics; as I said, there will and should be groups of exceptions.

Your "you start at $0.00" brings us to a fascinating (if somewhat offtopic) aspect of the discussion. There is a political fringe group in the European Union that argues that everyone should receive the same basic unemployment package, whether they work or not. The package would allow people to have a healthy life, but not much luxury (small dwellings, no car, not all the latest newest gadgets,...) If you want to bring some luxury into your life, get a job. Labor would be very cheap for the employer because they don't need to pay you a full wage, only the difference between the baseline and a more wealthy lifestyle. The government would get all the money to pay everyone's baseline from very high VAT. This VAT would apply to imported goods, but not to goods that are exported and sold on other markets, which again would make manufacturing very competitive. Now I haven't performed or encountered a full economic analysis of this scheme, and I'm taking these people's claims that the scheme is vetted by economists with a huge grain of salt. So I don't know what to make out of it, but here are a couple of random thoughts:
- Very high VAT would spawn a flourishing black market. The economic force behind this black market may (or may not) be strong enough to make the whole scheme collapse.
- Possibly a more feasible way to get the money would be a combination of VAT and tax on production. I strongly suspect a working combination would be a VAT rate close to present-day welfare states, and the remaining tax on production would make your industries just as competitive as present-day welfare states (not very competitive but hanging in there, that is). You're just swapping labor costs and tax on labor for tax on production, and the outcome would not be all that different.
- The most interesting part of this cranky scheme comes in when one considers a future society with advanced AI and robotics, in which a lot of work can be done by robots. A large percentage of people would be unemployed; it seems logical to somehow pay them from the money made by factories that are largely human-free. Otherwise, what good is human-free production if nobody can buy the goods?
- Hypothetical counterpoint: people will always find a way to offer a service that other people will want to pay for, and no amount of technological advancement will change that. Think of the massive entertainment industry, which was largely nonexistent (or at least way smaller) in pre-industrial society.

Again I'm neither in favor or against this scheme, and I'm not sure of the truth value of all the above arguments. At this point, I just see it as a fascinating thought experiment. I guess I'll make up my mind once more information is available.</offtopic>

The rich, the robots, the rest of us

[Anonymous Coward]

Who will be left with any real income to buy all this stuff?

Re:The rich, the robots, the rest of us

[Anonymous Coward]

You've hit on the real heart of the matter here. We have way, way too many people on this little blue marble. Back in the days of manual labor and agriculture, we needed people - the more, the better. With everything mechanized and automated, there is no need for this many people. In fact, the extra people are nothing but unproductive dead weight, a net negative rather than a positive. The free market deals with this by diminishing their value, lowering their income, in an attempt to excise the cancer. Due to humanitarian reasons, we cannot just send them to death camps, but the market is doing the best it can. At some point, after peak automation, we will not need a population of the size we have. Some would argue that there need be no population at all - a Skynet scenario, I guess. I think that's taking things too far, but a much smaller global population of strictly scientist and engineers is a necessity and a logical conclusion to the technological curve. At that point, the idea of money can go away, and the idea of working for the continuation and betterment of lifestyle and the elevation of society and culture (the 'Star Trek' model) can take over.

Re:The rich, the robots, the rest of us

[Hatta]

"When the people shall have nothing more to eat, they will eat the rich."
--JJ Rousseau

Union perspective

[Livius]

The fact that unions think they are there to protect jobs, rather than do them, is the root of their problems.

Re:Union perspective

[Livius]

And it does not help that they focus all their attention on workplaces that are easy to unionize, and not on occupations that are genuinely underpaid or otherwise exploited.

Re:Union perspective

[Kenja]

That's frankly OK with me in the bigger picture. It is better to have two parties fighting over power (unions vs corporations) rather then having one party (corporations) running unchecked.

Unions protect jobs just fine

[Shivetya]

they just stopped worry about protecting workers. The real power of unions is all in government employee unions who hold an undue amount of influence over those who set their pay. Even FDR knew the pitfalls of that.

What is going to end unions is the unrepentant greed amongst the public employee unions who expect taxpayers to shut up and put up. Well a few states are well on their way that a few cities have gone, bankrupting or using financial crisis to void ridiculous promises and payouts.

Some of the worse retirement payouts and age at which they can retire is just silly to the point of sickening.

Re:Unions protect jobs just fine

[Frosty Piss]

The real power of unions is all in government employee unions who hold an undue amount of influence over those who set their pay.

You assume that most Fedeal workers are well paid and still have a great retirement plan. This is not the case.

Take a look at the GS wage charts, and what a government retirement is today (no more than a 401k).

It's not as "sweet" as you think.

Re:Unions protect jobs just fine

[operagost]

Let me ask you: do you really think that companies would get away with beating their workers if unions were to disappear? If not, why bring it up?

And the root cause is ....

[kenaaker]

What the discussion will come around to is "What is the purpose of human society".

The survivors will come to a different conclusion than the initial participants in the discussion.

Fortunately, my career is predicated upon...

[Anonymous Coward]

...human weakness and greed, so I will always have work.

isn't that *American* unions?

[Trepidity]

The U.S. is an odd place in many ways, on all sides: how the unions operate, how employers operate, and how labor law operates (which in turn influences those things).

In Germany's export-manufacturing sector, automation hasn't really made unions irrelevant. Nor has it in Denmark's. But unions there are a bit different, as is the overall political climate. In particular, large employer confederations and large union confederations negotiate more frequently, and on a more consensus-oriented basis.

Re:isn't that *American* unions?

[Trepidity]

There's a lot of horse-trading going on, yes, but they nonetheless succeed in maintaining relatively good worker protections and benefits. Consider how much better German car companies treat their unionized German workers vs. their nonunionized American workers.

What about non-factory jobs??

[digitalaudiorock]

The whole premise of the article seems to assume that unions are exclusively about 1950s-like factory jobs. How about all those low paying service jobs out there? I don't see too many robots stocking shelves at Walmart. In decades gone by, in a large part due to unions, a guy who was willing to get up every day and go sweep floors at a factory could actually survive. Today's equivalent, those low paying service jobs, pay so little you're almost better off not working at all.

That's why unions are under attach these days...because a large chunk of corporate America is still dependent on a few jobs that they can't automate or outsource and, if unionized, might actually pay a fair wage...and we can't have that now can we??

Re:Nirvana is when humanity does what we want to d

[datapharmer]

actually that is hardly correct. While it is hard to distinguish "work" from non-work activities in a hunter-gatherer society (thus your 24/7) if we use standard methods to delineate these activities you will find that most hunter-gatherers dedicated only 12-18 hours per peek to work-comparable activities. That is overly broad, but don't think you've got it so great. You work a lot more to watch tv than our ancestors (and some current cultures) do to watch the stars. It is all a matter of perception and values.

Don't over generalize

[Alomex]

Unions are still strong in Europe and they too have labor saving robots. The key difference is that both union and management philosophies seem to be different there. Managers have a social conscience and unions do not oppose every effort to increase productivity.

Re:Yep, the robots will eventually take all our jo

[Opportunist]

History tells us that you can only oppress a sizable amount of your population if you can either convince them that it's good the way it is (some sort of bullshit akin to a "god given place in your life") or if they still have something they could lose. Well, we can say with some certainty that nobody really gives a shit about the former (could that be the reason why the overzealous religious right wants to push the cult of zombie Jesus, in the vain hope that people return to actually believing it should be that way?). So you have to keep people fed and sheltered somehow.

Once this last straw isn't met, all it takes is a leader.

Tech jobs

[roc97007]

> Tech has been steadily moving jobs overseas to lower costs.

...with often less than satisfactory results.

US unions are bizarre

[stenvar]

Michigan lawmakers just approved a right-to-work law in an effort to dismantle union power,

Right-to-work is the law in many European nations with strong labor unions.

The widespread use of closed shop and union security agreements is a US aberration and has nothing to do with union power in general, it has to do with protecting the power of a few powerful and politically connected organizations.

Automation is good

[enriquevagu]

Repeat with me: Automation is good. It makes we, human kind, more productive. With the same human work, we can get more benefits for ourselves, so on average our wealth improves. The people that do not need to do manual and repetitive jobs can move to a more creative work which produces more benefit for mankind. Gutenberg's printing was good. e-mail was good, despite removing works in the Post office. Hydraulic excavators are good. And all of them reduce the number of jobs, and unions cannot and shouldn't try to prevent this. Fortunately, we are no longer relying on picks and shovels to dig tunnels.

The problem is not with automation, which is good for mankind as a whole; the problem is with the distribution of wealth. We are facing a serious problem, in which those who have the machines (capital) become much richer by producing the same as before, and those that lose their employments become poorer. I certainly believe that this problem will aggravate with time, as more jobs are out-dated by technology, and "the system" cannot provide an alternative way to earn a living.

One option might be to move to a system in which everyone has a basic "social earning", enough for a living, while those with a work would earn more money. However, this imposes serious trouble, such as obvious abuse and unfairness. I see the problem, but I don't foresee a clear solution.

Re:Nirvana is when humanity does what we want to d

[LordLucless]

You work a lot more to watch tv than our ancestors (and some current cultures) do to watch the stars. It is all a matter of perception and values.

And also to live longer, more free from pain, disease and hunger, and with greater physical security. It's not just a question of entertainment.

Sustainable Automation

[trout007]

There is a natural regulator on the pace of automation. It is the interest rate. If interest rates (prices) were set on a free market with a hard currency it would be based on how much money people had saved (supply) and how much people wanted to borrow (demand). This works out nicely because any automation involves a large expenditure of money to increase productivity. If there is low unemployment and people have high wages and money saved it will lead to low interest rates. This causes businesses to want to invest in capital equipment because labor is expensive and money is cheap. On the other hand if you have high unemployment, low wages, and low savings you will have a high interest rate. This leads businesses to hire people because it's more profitable. This is a natural balance of sustainable automation.

What we have now is the Federal Reserve setting artificially low interest rates. This causes businesses to invest in automation at a time in which we have high unemployment, low wages, and low savings. This is exactly the wrong approach. It causes lots of malinvestment by automating production to increase capacity but nobody has enough money to buy these goods.