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.
Maybe folks will make art for art's sake, program for the love of code, etc. I love the freedom of being able to write and publish anything I want without making compromises with money issues. Like Rush (the band) sang in Spirit of Radio,
Free Martian Whores!
Is of course to do away with money.
How will you divide resources? How will you deal with the fact that some people will value some resources, and other people will value others? How will you deal with the fact that not everyone can have exactly the same stuff, no matter how hard you try? (some people are going to live closer to the railroad station, others farther).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
This has been hashed out numerous times in both academic and casual literature. Science fiction talks about it a lot.
It's simple (hah):
1) Mandate very short work weeks, so everyone still works, just 15-20 hours/week
2) at the same annual wage.
If you have a 2:1 productivity increase, that would imply that you're deriving twice as much industrial output from each worker, so they only have to work half as long, and the "cost per unit sold" for that labor is exactly the same (less the capital investment in the automation)
That has the effect of transferring some of the wealth increase due to the productivity gain to the workers (all of the world, who should unite)
That is an article of faith, not fact.
Are you seriously claiming that humans won't be able to find anything useful to do that others will pay them for?
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.
It's the people who claim that EVIL ROBOTS ARE TAKING OUR JOBS! who are basing their position on faith, not facts. It's just another tiresome leftist ploy to steal money from the productive to give to the unprductive.
My suggestion for a transition policy, which I set forth in a 1992 paper titled "A Net Asset Tax Based On The Net Present Value Calculation and Market Democracy" was to cease taxing economic activity and, instead, tax net assets beyond bankruptcy protection of home and tools of the trade, and use the funds to pay out an unconditional basic income aka "citizen's dividend", thereby doing away with most of the present functions of government including not only the welfare state but also the need for burdensome regulatory agencies (that are subject to capture). Part of the problem here, of course, is the notion of "citizen" vs "non-citizen", but that is a far lesser problem than massive unemployment and hyper-centralization of net assets.
Quoting from that paper:
Seastead this.
It isn't a "counterexample". It is where the people who own the factories that are deploying robots live. 3rd world companies still use people because they're 3rd world and people are cheaper than machines for them.
*sigh*
So when the USofA becomes "no longer developed" then the rich will move to the countries that have been polluted by their factories.
No. That is not going to happen.
The Greeks looking for work are moving to other 1st world countries where the job opportunities in their fields are better. So they chase those opportunities ... in the 1st world.
The Greeks who own companies that were moving manufacturing to the 3rd world are not moving to the 3rd world.
Horseshit. The effects of this are in fact quite obvious and very measureable. That it doesn't fit in with your right wing "steal from the poor and give to the rich" type of economy is just too damned bad.
We could do with some more leftist policies around here. The right wing crap that's been foisted on us for the last 30+ years has worked out just SO freakin' well for everybody it's pathetic.
BTW, I work hard, make a far better than average income, and I manage to rise above the "I've got mine so screw you" right wing attitudes. I also know that people would absolutely jump at the chance to get rid of me and people like me, if for no other reason than wanting to be rid of employees has been the trend for quite some time now. If you think for one single minute that you're safe from this, think again. So you'd best figure out a way to deal with it and help others do so, because if you don't the inevitable unfortunate result will be a rather violent upheaval in society--which you do not want to be on the wrong end of.
Not only do we already have "zero economic value" citizens, we have negative-economic value citizens. Consider those who are mentally and/or physically incapable of working today; do we just toss them out on the street? Sadly, sometimes; but mostly they receive government benefits in an attempt to help them maintain some stable life despite being able to work. They can only take and never give, except perhaps as research subjects for scientists.
The only way we will survive the Autonomy Age (where robots do the vast majority of necessary work, with little or no human interaction) intact is by giving up this stupid idea that people are defined by their productivity, especially when the productivity of many well-off people is essentially zilch, such as marketers, HR, CxOs, and a plethora of middle-men (but they don't take food stamps so are ignored.)
This will probably approach something like socialism, if not socialism itself, but we (people the world over, but especially Americans) have a huge hurdle to get over in convincing people that socialism is a synonym for communism or evil, and that taxes on obscenely large amounts of income is not only a necessity, but not evil. I personally look forward to a future where people are guaranteed a Minimum Standard of Living (not necessarily income; there are likely more efficient methods than handing out cash) and those who want to and can do work are able to do so for a higher Standard while the rest are able to just enjoy the long-term fruits of humanity, namely the arts, literature, and random cat videos.
(I think this will require an efficient and reliable male contraceptive medication to help reduce the birth rate even further, but that's a different subject.)
> Automation will destroy jobs to the extent that the people running the companies implementing the automation wish it to.
I disagree with this statement, and the assumptions behind it. First is the assumption that only big companies can have automation. That like assuming only big companies can have computers. 50 years ago that was a reasonable assumption, because computers were expensive, like industrial robots are today. But it need not be true in the future. I'm working on "MakerNets" and "Seed Factories". A MakerNet is a network of people with skills and some machines. They help each other build stuff and upgrade. Eventually you reach a level where most of the member's needs are met by automation within the network. If your housing, food, and utilites are supplied that way, most of the need for conventional jobs goes away.
A "Seed Factory" is a starter kit of machines designed to make parts for more machines to expand the factory capacity. At first, the starter kit won't make anywhere close to 100% of the new parts. Stuff will still have to be bought. But as the collection of machines grows, you can make more of your own items, and need to buy less. The engineering question is what belongs in the starter kit, and what's the best path for expansion.
The problem with corporations is the separation of ownership and labor, giving them conflicting goals. Concepts like MakerNets and Seed Factories lets the workers "grow their own" production. Then they are owners as well as workers for whatever amount of labor is still needed. Their goals are now aligned - owner-operators are not going to lay themselves off. More automation just makes them more efficient.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
"Intrinsic motivation has been studied since the early 1970s. Intrinsic motivation is the self-desire to seek out new things and new challenges, to analyze one's capacity, to observe and to gain knowledge.[5] It is driven by an interest or enjoyment in the task itself, and exists within the individual rather than relying on external pressures or a desire for reward."
One of the biggest problems most financially successful artists have is that their buying public wants more of the same (say, another Harry Potter novel), whereas their artistic muse may want to move in new directions. That's a reason many commercially successful artists tend to stagnate artistically since doing more of the same is much less risky financially but is often unsatisfying artistically.
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Hmm, the USA considers "full employment" to be roughly equal to 6% unemployment (which we're pretty close to now).
Note that the "workforce" they're talking about is essentially everyone between the ages of 18 and 65.
Now, once upon a time, (immediately post-WW2, for example), the "workforce" did NOT include most of the women of the country. Which means that percentage employment has nearly doubled, using the 1950 definition of employment.
If we applied the modern definition of unemployment to that period, we'd say that during WW2 we were running probably 35-40% unemployment.
In other words, change the definitions, get different results.....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
A low minimum wage means the government is subsidising corporate profits - if the wages are insufficient to live on, those people end up on government benefits of some kind. Their subsistence becomes dependant on our taxes, rather than the ability of the corporation to pay them.
Which is fine by the corporations, because they worked so hard to transfer the burden of taxes away from themselves. Yup, it's really ironic - everyone in America is working for Wal-Mart, they just don't know it.
The vast majority of benefits in the UK are paid to people with jobs. Because their jobs are underpaid. Huge swathes of taxpayers money go into the pockets of landlords and shareholders, in order to keep a roof barely over the heads of those who do all the shit jobs. It's basically slavery.
You're right though. Raising the minimum wage won't help for the exact reason you point out. If you want people to work for you, you should have to be able to attract labour, which means you should be able to offer something better.
At the moment, you just have to be able to offer something better than scraping by in poverty while the government does it's level best to pull the rug out from under you.
Give the people a Universal Basic Income, and you'd have to offer something better than a mere three squares a day and a basic but acceptable accomodation. Then you'd actually see the market come into play - people making a choice about who they work for, and how much.
Right now, they work for less than a wage and a handful of food stamps, because there is literally no choice. No choice - no market.
"A person can be highly competent at something that people don't value. How would that situation be handled?"
It doesn't matter much in a wealthy post-scarcity society because there is already so much abundance to go around. If someone is good at, say, "drawing vultures", why should anyone really care if there is little "demand" for that skill -- assuming everyone can still get all the food they want from automated farms powered by fusion power plants and delivered by a local package delivery system? You also never know when a skill might prove useful in the future -- like making an entertaining smartphone app called "Angry Vultures? :-)
Frankly, what most PhD students produce in their dissertation is, by their own admission generally, of little interest to the general public, and even rarely of interest to more than a handful of other specialists. Assuming we can "afford" it, why should people not be able to get a PhD in what they want to study? When you look at the lives of the children of the wealthy, who often can afford to write books, or get PhDs, or work at non-profits, or be involved in the low-paying performing arts and so on, that is what we often see in practice.
In VFY, Hogan suggests that "competence" can be valued irrespective of what it is in. A character connects that to the early days of the post-scarcity society's founding, when the first children (produced from DNA by a space probe landing on a new planet, creating a cultural break from the past) were raised by robots who would provide them with whatever they wanted; the only way to compete for status among peers and to stand out by learning to do something well, whatever it was. As long as people aren't actively bothering other people, they would tend to be allowed by their peers to do what they want. If people are actively harming others, then there will be conflicts, which are resolved in a variety of ways (including, in the end, violence). Hogan goes into that in some detail in the book, and one does not have to agree with every aspect of what he envisioned to see that alternatives could be possible.
Hogan's idea is just a fictional example; no doubt reality would be more complex. People can legitimately disagree on assessments of risks and rewards and also on social forms and ways to resolve conflicts. And there are no doubt human qualities of "values" that transcend competence. One can easily find examples of people doing despicable things "competently", such as rounding up Japanese-Americans and putting them in internment camps in the USA during WWII. Or what would it mean to be a highly competent "waterboarder" (even when history shows torture pretty much never provides useful intelligence overall compared to humane treatment of captives)? So in practice, yes, one should consider both means and ends in evaluating behavior. As the Navaho, paraphrasing I hope correctly, if it is done in the right spirit, it is more important than if it is done well.
Competence might also be in picking the right problem to solve -- like where a fumbler doing something in a half-assed way might still have been working on the most important issue and create enough of a solution to help everyone? Being a parent is an important calling, but there are no "perfect" parents, just good ones usually muddling through as best they can (even when financially wealthy) -- and it is hard to put a value on parenting the next generation, which is in some ways both the most important task of a civilization while also usually having negative economic value for decades. There is also a lot to be said for diversity, as in: "The woods would be pretty quiet if no bird sang there but the best." It can in practice be hard to appreciate competence in some area you are not familiar with. And often the greatest artistry is in making things look simple, or even helping others to learn complex skills easily, or re-engineering things so they are easy to do or learn.
Hogan's "Chironian" civilization is the creation of an imaginative elect
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
In particular, humans have done the best in countries that have automated the most.
Which countries?
What is their tax rate?
How much socialism (aka social support) is mixed into their social structure?
The "cost of automation" has been declining for centuries, and humans have been doing better and better.
This is a bit of a red herring, in that for centuries, the declining cost of automation mostly served to free up huge amounts agricultural laborers to do other work.
The issue at hand is that now automation is taking over much of the "other work."
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!