Slashdot Mirror
What Happens To Society When Robots Replace Workers?
Paul Fernhout writes: An article in the Harvard Business Review by William H. Davidow and Michael S. Malone suggests: "The "Second Economy" (the term used by economist Brian Arthur to describe the portion of the economy where computers transact business only with other computers) is upon us. It is, quite simply, the virtual economy, and one of its main byproducts is the replacement of workers with intelligent machines powered by sophisticated code. ... This is why we will soon be looking at hordes of citizens of zero economic value. Figuring out how to deal with the impacts of this development will be the greatest challenge facing free market economies in this century. ... Ultimately, we need a new, individualized, cultural, approach to the meaning of work and the purpose of life. Otherwise, people will find a solution — human beings always do — but it may not be the one for which we began this technological revolution."
This follows the recent Slashdot discussion of "Economists Say Newest AI Technology Destroys More Jobs Than It Creates" citing a NY Times article and other previous discussions like Humans Need Not Apply. What is most interesting to me about this HBR article is not the article itself so much as the fact that concerns about the economic implications of robotics, AI, and automation are now making it into the Harvard Business Review. These issues have been otherwise discussed by alternative economists for decades, such as in the Triple Revolution Memorandum from 1964 — even as those projections have been slow to play out, with automation's initial effect being more to hold down wages and concentrate wealth rather than to displace most workers. However, they may be reaching the point where these effects have become hard to deny despite going against mainstream theory which assumes infinite demand and broad distribution of purchasing power via wages.
As to possible solutions, there is a mention in the HBR article of using government planning by creating public works like infrastructure investments to help address the issue. There is no mention in the article of expanding the "basic income" of Social Security currently only received by older people in the U.S., expanding the gift economy as represented by GNU/Linux, or improving local subsistence production using, say, 3D printing and gardening robots like Dewey of "Silent Running." So, it seems like the mainstream economics profession is starting to accept the emerging reality of this increasingly urgent issue, but is still struggling to think outside an exchange-oriented box for socioeconomic solutions. A few years ago, I collected dozens of possible good and bad solutions related to this issue. Like Davidow and Malone, I'd agree that the particular mix we end up will be a reflection of our culture. Personally, I feel that if we are heading for a technological "singularity" of some sort, we would be better off improving various aspects of our society first, since our trajectory going out of any singularity may have a lot to do with our trajectory going into it.
This follows the recent Slashdot discussion of "Economists Say Newest AI Technology Destroys More Jobs Than It Creates" citing a NY Times article and other previous discussions like Humans Need Not Apply. What is most interesting to me about this HBR article is not the article itself so much as the fact that concerns about the economic implications of robotics, AI, and automation are now making it into the Harvard Business Review. These issues have been otherwise discussed by alternative economists for decades, such as in the Triple Revolution Memorandum from 1964 — even as those projections have been slow to play out, with automation's initial effect being more to hold down wages and concentrate wealth rather than to displace most workers. However, they may be reaching the point where these effects have become hard to deny despite going against mainstream theory which assumes infinite demand and broad distribution of purchasing power via wages.
As to possible solutions, there is a mention in the HBR article of using government planning by creating public works like infrastructure investments to help address the issue. There is no mention in the article of expanding the "basic income" of Social Security currently only received by older people in the U.S., expanding the gift economy as represented by GNU/Linux, or improving local subsistence production using, say, 3D printing and gardening robots like Dewey of "Silent Running." So, it seems like the mainstream economics profession is starting to accept the emerging reality of this increasingly urgent issue, but is still struggling to think outside an exchange-oriented box for socioeconomic solutions. A few years ago, I collected dozens of possible good and bad solutions related to this issue. Like Davidow and Malone, I'd agree that the particular mix we end up will be a reflection of our culture. Personally, I feel that if we are heading for a technological "singularity" of some sort, we would be better off improving various aspects of our society first, since our trajectory going out of any singularity may have a lot to do with our trajectory going into it.
Robots are machines. Human being replaced by machines in the industry is hardly a new issue.
Until now, humans that were replaced by machines could find other jobs. Not any more. Increasingly, we're becoming like "Captain Dunsel" - a part that fulfills no useful purpose.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The primary problem we have today is not automation, it is over-concentration of wealth. Automation will destroy jobs to the extent that the people running the companies implementing the automation wish it to. If those companies are run by people who are happy to deliver worse service as long as they can pay fewer people, then, yes, we have a problem, but it is not with the technology.
There is no such thing a technological determinism. It's people all the way down.
Maybe we should re-examine every law, regulation, and employer mandate that makes it more expensive or more risky to hire people or conduct business that would employ people?
What a bullshit question! Everything should be free then. DUH! If there is no need for work, there is no need to ration goods and services to those who can 'pay'. Human effort is the only thing that requires compensation.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Socialism.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Free markets haven't even been tried.
It has not been "chased out" of any where. What you see is the people who own the companies looking for the cheapest means to produce their products.
Look closer and you will see that the people who own the companies are NOT moving their families to the countries where they've moved their companies.
They want cheap for the workers ... but they want all the benefits and luxuries of the 1st world available to themselves.
If it really was "chased out" then they'd also be moving their families to those less-regulated, less-restricted countries.
As can been seen when people leave countries/governments that they believe ARE oppressive. They take their families with them.
The problem is that median wages have been stagnating for decades.
Your solution to the problem is to lower them further.
I think what he means is more like what some call "socialism" in Europe. And it's not worker's necessarily controlling the means to production: it's about providing more of a "safety net" via social services. Communism as an economic theory and communism in practice are obviously two different things.
Do you have any evidence for this assertion? Because last I looked, most of the developed world continues to struggle with unemployment.
It sucks that the second and third world have problems. That doesn't mean the problems of the first world don't exist, or aren't potentially lethal.
Lowering or removing the minimum wage means that the poor will either starve or receive food stamps. Both jackbooted security forces and food assistance require money. And that, in turn, means the only difference between keeping - or preferably rising - the minimum wage or lowering it is that in the latter case my taxes ultimately go to subsidize McDonald's and Wal-Mart's profits and oppress people.
What valuable economic activity would that be? Surely you aren't referring to activities so unprofitable that paying minimum wage for them is a "punishment"?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
The last line of the article is the most important. " Otherwise, people will find a solution — human beings always do — but it may not be the one for which we began this technological revolution." The word "revolution" here is a double entendre. He is saying something you will not often read in the Harvard Business Review: that automation is going to destabilize society to an extreme extent.
mbone, you are exactly correct that this is about concentration of wealth. The concentration of wealth is self-limiting because nobody will have money to buy the goods being produced. But conditions of life at the limit will be unbearable. So a new mechanism to distribute the bounty of society will have to be developed. But the rich will not recognize that until the mobs with pitchforks are breaking into their gated communities.
"He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
It's ridiculous that in 2014 people are still working 40 hours per week just to afford food and a roof over their heads.
In a civilized society, the number of hours of work required for basic survival should be decreasing with each passing year.
Maybe people shouldn't have to work so much? Just pay people a living salary for doing 10 hours per week or something. Isn't that the dream? If we get more stuff for less work, let's kick back a little bit and let people do what they want most of the time. I think we'll be amazed at what will happen when most of the world's time is freed.
Play Command HQ online
Apart from "minimually regulated" being vague, it's in principle impossible to have "perfect knowledge". So claiming yours would be an awesome economic system is a bit like claiming that theocracy would be an awesome political system because it would have an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity at the helm. More than a bit, actually, since such ideologically pure economic systems always end up with deityfying their guiding principles, whether they be the Historical Inevitability of Communism or the Invisible Hand of the Marketplace.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
To a first approximation, everyone in the world has a mobile phone, and the percentage that have a smartphone is rapidly increasing. Everyone will be able to *access* an AI, just like we can access Google search. Your comment is like "the poor won't be able to afford a library", it is poorly formulated. You don't need your own full time AI, just enough access to do the things you need to do.
The fundamental flaw is that you imagine "high" minimum wages (I hope you aren't talking about the US national minimum), and "plush" benefits are the cause of underemployment/stagnation in employment. I disagree, but, I also think it's a red herring. You miss the bigger picture: you can't compete with a robot. That's what the recent harvard business review article was about, what happen's when your job is replaced by automation. You can't find work in the same field for obvious reasons, so you look in another field: it's been automated too, or it has zero vacancies because everyone else wants that job. Historically, when buggy whip manufacturing went away, we started making cars. People that is, built cars. But when you and all your coworkers are replaced by machines that just *keep getting cheaper* you will never be able to compete. The developed vs developing world comparison you make is also not really valid to the topic at hand. We know human manufacturing jobs aren't coming back here, but the ones in asia are being displaced by robots as well. What NEW jobs does that make? Over time this is very likely to cause societal tension at bare minimum, bloody revolution and quality of life going backwards at worst. Do you get it? You could take away minimum wage, people would still not work for you for less than $5/hr for very well or long in any part of the country. They couldn't afford their basic needs. A robot needs only electricity and perhaps occasional repairs (but not enough to even come close to make up for the net loss in jobs).
Take a look at documentaries from the 40s to 60s, at the peak of the making-humans-work-like-machines era, marvel at how much utterly monotonous work people used to be forced to do because we didn't have the technology to replace them with EVIL ROBOTS TAKING OUR JOBS! and then marvel again at how, despite replacing all those people with EVIL ROBOTS TAKING OUR JOBS!, most people who want to work can still find a job.
The situation over the next few decades will be much different than the last century. In the last century technology was only taking away manual labor jobs. Humans were able to cope because these jobs were replaced with knowledge based work. People aren't complaining that robots will take our jobs just because they are getting better at taking away manual labor jobs. They are worried that knowledge based work is the next to go.
There will still be a bastion of work in creative jobs (creative thinking, not the arts), but there is a real worry that there aren't enough of these creative jobs to go around. And there are worries that not everyone will be capable of these creative jobs. Office work worked great as a replacement for manual labor because most of the jobs did not creative much more intelligence than the jobs they were replacing. But not every factory worker or garbage man is capable of being a senior mechanical engineer, an actuary, or any number of other careers where critical thinking is very necessary.
If you are the type of person who struggled in algebra class in high school, the new economy will probably be a very scary place.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Did you miss the whole industrialization part and that thing with communism in school?
Did you miss the first 2 words of my post - "Until now"? Just as it was possible for many displaced workers to find new jobs in the past doesn't mean that will continue - and it's already looking like we've gotten to that point.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.