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.
First the good news. We'll have more time to post on slashdot.
Now the bad news. We'll have more time to post to slashdot.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
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.
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."
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.
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)
The problem is that median wages have been stagnating for decades.
Your solution to the problem is to lower them further.
there's always new jobs.. even if its working in "customer support" or marketing.
The problem is that these jobs pay relatively less, leading to growing income inequality. They also tend to be outsourceable. My company has a lot of graphic design work, that requires artistic skill, and human judgement. A job like that is a long way from being automated. So we pay a woman in Karachi, Pakistan to do it for $3/hour.
I'm not going to deny the problems in Europe (especially in some countries) are worse, HOWEVER: our labor statistics are quite cherry picked and that has been getting worse. People have been re-classified as "not looking for work" that are in fact looking for work. You can't compare our "unemployment" rate now to the numbers we used during the great depression.
no self respecting robot will put up with the shit that the average worker does, they'll go straight into management instead. The're already running wall street, so the cocaine intake capability is there, all we need to do now is teach them golf.
Nullius in verba
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
Man, even in Star Trek, some people got to wear blue shirts, and some people had to wear red shirts. Apparently there was a shortage of blue thread or something, but red thread doesn't seem to protect very well.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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
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.
But the rich will not recognize that until the mobs with pitchforks are breaking into their gated communities.
That's what armoured battle robots are for.
Yeah, the modern statistical definition of "unemployed" is "having been actively searching for work in the last week before survey, and is willing to take the first job that they find". If you don't fill those criteria then you are not statistically speaking unemployed, but at the same time you are not employed either. From the point of view of the unemployment statistics, you basically don't exist.
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
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.
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.
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.
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.)
It was just that in James P. Hogan's post-scarcity society you generally acquired status through demonstrating competence in some way (could be anything, even being a good waiter or running some interesting attraction like a steam locomotive), not by acquiring material wealth. Skill in *producing* or repairing high quality goods would be respected, not generally the skill in *acquiring* such goods, especially since most material things were freely available for the taking as they could be mass produced by robots as copies as desired. Even for original works of art, it was the creator of the work who would get the status, not the ultimate possessor of the artwork (who in a way became indebted to the artwork's creator by acknowledging the competency of the creator). There is a section of the book where with some hand waving it is suggested that if you grow up in such a society you just know the rules almost instinctively and also can spot a pretender at competence the way a shopkeeper in today's society could spot a counterfeit hundred dollar bill. Projects there self-organized on the basis of individuals deferring to each other based on specific competences -- not sure what the would have made of the recent "systemd" controversy? :-)
So, projecting that idea into the Star Trek universe, it might be that overall most "red shirts" are just in some sense less competent than someone who had worked his way up, like Kirk or Picard? So, no wonder they are getting killed so easily, if they don't have the competencies the blue shirt characters have? :-) All that said, Worf demonstrated that "red shirt" security on the Enterprise could be highly competent and respected -- although, come to think of it, I'm not sure what color his uniform was? Gold? Anyway, it is all fiction of course. Just something to think about. Iain Banks had his own take on all that with the Culture series as well.
In general, US society has trouble with the idea that status could come from competence and gift giving as opposed to acquiring and hoarding wealth. For example: ... Typically the potlatch was practiced more in the winter seasons as historically the warmer months were for procuring wealth for the family, clan, or village, then coming home and sharing that with neighbors and friends. ... Potlatching was made illegal in Canada in 1884 in an amendment to the Indian Act[16] and the United States in the late 19th century, largely at the urging of missionaries and government agents who considered it "a worse than useless custom" that was seen as wasteful, unproductive, and contrary to 'civilized values' of accumulation.[17] The potlatch was seen as a key target in assimilation policies and agendas. Missionary William Duncan wrote in 1875 that the potlatch was "by far the most formidable of all obstacles in the way of Indians becoming Christians, or even civilized".[18] Thus in 1884, the Indian Act was revised to include clauses banning the Potlatch and making it illegal to practice."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
"A potlatch is a gift-giving feast practiced by indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast of Canada and the United States,[1] among whom it is traditionally the primary economic system.[2]
An example of a modern day laws banning gift giving:
"90-Year-Old Man Charged With Feeding Homeless Says He Won't 'Give Up' "
http://abcnews.go.com/US/90-ye...
"The Fort Lauderdale Police told ABC News that Abbott will get his court subpoena in the mail and a judge will decide whether he will spend up to 60 days in jail and a $500 fine. "Arnold thinks he can feed wherever he wants and the laws say differently. Despite the fact that he's a super nice guy and he's a gentleman and a kind soul we have to enforce the law," Seiler said. Although Abbott has been cited twice in less than a week,
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
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.
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
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.
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.
Oh come on, it's not that bad.
Up to 10% of those could be gainfully employed keeping the rest in order. By which I mean beating the shit out of them, mostly.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
"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.