Slashdot Mirror


Bank of England's Andy Haldane Warns Smart Machines Could Take 15M UK Jobs (robotenomics.com)

New submitter Colin Robotenomics writes In an important new paper based on a speech at the trade union congress in London, Andy Haldane Chief Economist at the Bank of England and Executive Director of Monetary Analysis and Statistics has examined the history of technological unemployment and has given a thorough review of the literature and implications for public policy. The media will likely focus on the number of jobs that can be displaced and not necessarily Haldane's points on new jobs being created – both of which are highly important as is 'skilling-up'. His report reads in part: "...Taking the probabilities of automation, and multiplying them by the numbers employed, gives a broad brush estimate of the number of jobs potentially automatable. For the UK, that would suggest up to 15 million jobs could be at risk of automation. In the US, the corresponding figure would be 80 million jobs."

291 comments

  1. In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    15M UK people could do something else. The world fails to end.

    1. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where are these 15M jobs you speak of? I guess some of them may end up working in social services to support the rest of them. (paid by the remaining working public) I forsee at some point automation itself will need to be taxed to support those doing something else with their time.

    2. Re:In other news by 91degrees · · Score: 2

      Unless the change happens overnight, society will adapt to take advantage of the huge surplus workforce for jobs that machines can't do.

    3. Re:In other news by EmeraldBot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      15M UK people could do something else. The world fails to end.

      If this bank doesn't help them find some work, there's going to be hell to raise, especially when 15 million people is about a quarter of the entire UK's population. If a fourth of the US was layed off, do you think that would end peacefully?

      Automation makes sense when the job is dangerous or risky to humans, or requires extreme precision. Replacing everything with automated machines for profit gains makes it hard for low end jobs to exist, and thus for low end workers to be employed. We have here a very large mass of people who feel hopeless and have nothing to lose. We also have a very large resentment towards the upper class and a weak middle class. History has presented us this situation before, and I encourage you to research what happened then.

      --
      "Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
    4. Re:In other news by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The example I keep seeing used is self-driving vehicles, particularly trucks.

      They've already proved themselves in mining contexts - they use less fuel, wear their tyres less, less maintenance, downtime, and of course, no wages to be paid.

      People are falling over themselves to get them approved for road use. Truck driver is 3.5M jobs in the USA. There are about 285,000 HGV drivers in the UK.

      The trend is already that middle class jobs are being eroded and replaced with low waged work. Truck driver is unglamorous but they probably count as middle class guys with the wages they get.

      What jobs are we going to find for truck drivers? They're not all going to train up to be robot-truck mechanics (as above, robot trucks are pretty much existing trucks with a few extra sensors and something wired to the power steering etc - and require less maintenance). You'll have all those middle-class people with a lower disposable income, so the market for services and consumer goods will shrink, so what industry will expand or arise to employ them?

      Tech changes that increase production, expand wealth and (eventually) the job market. Spinning Jenny and her ilk turned cotton shirts from a luxury into a mass-market commodity.

      Tech changes that just do existing work with less human labour do not expand wealth. The automated trucks drivers, administrative assistants, warehouse pickers, burger flippers, etc, etc, that are coming down the pipe do not increase demand - if anything, they decrease it, by reducing the amount of wages entering the economy.

    5. Re: In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other worse 15M air breathers are about to be made irrelevant. Dig some mile-wide firepits and bulldoze them in.

    6. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I assume you were around 200 years ago saying the sky was falling because of mechanisation of agriculture, too?

      Now we have about 2% of the population who work on farms. It's a shame about our 98% unemployment rate.

    7. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless the change happens overnight, society will adapt to take advantage of the huge surplus workforce for jobs that machines can't do.

      And what are we doing about it right now? We watch the unemployment rate go up, while those that have jobs complain about those that had or have been looking using social services and try to cut those services off so that starving and being homeless will motivate them enough to get the job they have been trying to find the entire time. Crime rates go up as less people work, property values go down.

      I will admit, the idea of taxing robotic labor is something I don't think I've seen before. If people don't want an increase in their federal taxes, just add extra taxes to what is replacing the workforce (robots, out sourcing, and H-1B). Makes sense. If they don't want to pay from their check book, tax the companies profit margin to keep them about the same. Little reason to trim local fat to help the short term profit margin.

    8. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think the machines will require 15 million repairmen. What, exactly, do you suggest they do?

    9. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No but I was around when SkyLab was falling, does that count?

    10. Re: In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I assume you're going to be first in the line, voluntarily, since you can't even spell "words"?

    11. Re:In other news by sjames · · Score: 1

      Surplus workers. What do you suppose generally happens when there is a surplus on the supply side?

      Typically, production drops and prices fall. Bad news for the supply side. Of course, it's not terribly ethical to destroy inventory or ship it off to a secondary market when that supply is human beings in need of a job. At the same time, the production process is fairly long (18 to 22 years). That's a lot of people making less than it costs to support oneself.

      So no, throwing up our hands and claiming "the market will take care of it" doesn't suffice when the "product" is human beings. The market (and the economy it lives in) is a construct of man that should serve our needs, not the other way around. If the economy does not serve our needs, it must be changed.

      Simple analogy, if the hammer doesn't fit the human hand, you need a different hammer, not hand surgery.

    12. Re:In other news by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Unless the change happens overnight, society will adapt to take advantage of the huge surplus workforce for jobs that machines can't do.

      The largest mistake right now is assuming change cannot happen "overnight".

      It can. It likely will. And we as a society are not prepared. At all.

    13. Re:In other news by sjames · · Score: 2

      That's the elephant in the room. Economists (especially those who occupy armchairs or political office) have miossed that the industrialization that improved everyone's life in a free(-ish) market did so because there was a severe labor shortage and even then, it only worked out after a great deal of civil unrest including a number of fatal confrontations.

      The current industrial revolution is taking place during a labor surplus. Freeing humans from the need to labor is a laudible and achievable goal but the labor market and it's imaginary magical invisible hand isn't up to the task.

    14. Re:In other news by Bengie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      All labor can be automated given enough time. The solution is not to require labor to survive. Star Trek economy is the eventual end-state of where we're going.

    15. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Automation will happen. Standing in its way will just mean one is trying to advocate for the buggy whip makers. Businesses want automation because robots don't decide to go sue for sexual harassment or have a "sick out" when Facebook demands it.

      Oh, times are different. Revolution is impossible now. It just takes an artillery shell of Sarin gas and the government can just stand by with soldiers with zip ties to collect the people surrendering en masse. Syria is a perfect example of what happened when revolution is tried... it just means tighter chains for everyone involved.

    16. Re:In other news by knightghost · · Score: 1

      The long term unemployment rate is 10%, short 5%, underemployed over 20%, wages down 20%. Bleak picture. The only beneficial shift that I can see is free continuous education (MOOC, etc).

      If you look at corporate structure, many companies exceed 50% of their operating budget in Marketing (whether they show it on their 10k or not). That's where the jobs went. If you want value in a product then buy from the few companies that focus on operations (Costco, etc).

    17. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Tech changes that just do existing work with less human labour do not expand wealth.

      Of course they do. If you can automate something and reduce costs, then you can sell your product more cheaply. Cheaper products mean your money is worth more; therefore wealth has been created.

    18. Re:In other news by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      society will adapt to take advantage of the huge surplus workforce for jobs that machines can't do.

      And by "adapt", you mean "either learn to live with much higher poverty levels or come to terms with a much larger welfare state."

      Because there really aren't any other choices. The world has reached peak jobs.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    19. Re: In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not an anglo ape, so I don't spell proper ape-... Sorry, "english".

    20. Re:In other news by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      The wages to be paid are in the manufacture (not to mention design) and maintenance of the automatic drivers. If you have a fleet of 100 trucks, sure, you might eliminate "unskilled" drivers jobs, but the maintenance of the machines will actually increase o.k. - driver error induced maintenance will fall, but, basic wear and tear will be the same, and the automatic driver itself will be an important maintenance item.

      Somebody has to keep the lenses clean, or at least fill up the tanks for the automatic lens cleaners, or design, build and maintain the systems that do it automatically.

      I'd like to think that out of those 100 truck drivers who are working 60 hours a week, we might retrain 10 of them to work 30 hours a week at the skilled jobs related to automatic trucking, another 40 to work manufacture and maintenance 30 hours a week - so that the current crew that's working 60 hours a week can also work 30, and the other 50 can do something to benefit society besides piloting a big chunk of metal around in circles.

      The place where capitalism is failing (in America) is keeping high levels of unemployment, simultaneous with long hours for those who are working.

    21. Re:In other news by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Or Manna: http://marshallbrain.com/manna...

      Likely somewhere inbetween.

    22. Re:In other news by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      If 50% of the workforce becomes unemployed, wouldn't it be nice if we could all work 7 hours a day, 3 days a week?

    23. Re:In other news by jaseuk · · Score: 1

      The Bank of England is I guess the equivilent of the federal reserve in the US. It's more of an arms-length somewhat independent institution that keeps an eye on the economy and sets interest rates etc. They are not big employers, this is just an observation.

      Jason

    24. Re:In other news by lgw · · Score: 1

      Almost everyone used to work on the farm. Now almost no one does. Amazingly, we don't have a 98% unemployment rate. With the automation of agriculture, everyone moved to manufacturing jobs. Food fell from almost all the family budget to about half the family budget, and people could buy manufactured goods, so there were lots of jobs.

      With the automation of manufacturing (which, if you weren't paying attention, is almost finished at this point), everyone moved to service jobs and paper-shuffling jobs. Food fell from half the family budget to far less, and people started eating out regularly, and having food delivered. Manufactured goods became WalMart-cheap, and people spent money on many things they could never afford before.

      Now the automation of those jobs is well underway (the paper-shuffling jobs have already been mostly automated). The cost of traditional services, especially logistics, is falling. You can order everything online these days, and everything gets cheaper as transportation costs fall. The cost of manufactured goods will keep falling. In-home manufacturing is a new industry, but it looks promising.

      There has always been a new wave of jobs as the cost of what we're used to buying fell, and we found something new to buy. There will be this time too.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    25. Re:In other news by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Why will poverty level go up? Much more will be automated, so it will be cheaper. The net production levels will remain the same.

      How many millions had their jobs replaced by mechanised production lines, and then by robots?

    26. Re:In other news by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      As they say in the Market:

      "Past performance is no guarantee of future results."

    27. Re:In other news by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      Unless the change happens overnight, society will adapt to take advantage of the huge surplus workforce for jobs that machines can't do.

      That's kind of the point. Since the beginning of the 20th Century, innovation and change have been happening at an increasingly rapid pace.

      If we get to the point where disruption happens faster than people can adapt, then everything gets thrown into a cocked hat. Something fundamental will have to change or chaos will result. The kind that brings down empires.

      Some think we've already passed that point, based on the fact that real earnings power in the USA has been declining since the 1980s.

      In any event, I wouldn't take it on blind faith that everything will sort itself out neatly and painlessly. Considering the fact that the 1980s were also about when it was no longer good enough to be "active" on something and that now everything's got to be "pro-active", the least we could do is be proactive on ensuring that whatever comes up to replace the structures that we have known for the last century give a positive result.

    28. Re:In other news by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The question isn't what we do when we get to the Star Trek post scarcity economy. The question is more what we do in the between period, because what we're approaching now isn't post scarcity, but rather, an economy where the marginal value of low skill human labor is so low that it's practically worthless for most purposes, and certainly is far below what it would take to maintain a single person at poverty level subsistence.

      What we'll need to do is move to a guaranteed basic income. If robots do most of the industrial labor, then we tax that productivity instead of human wages. Give money to people who will spend it on food/clothing/etc, thus maintaining a demand for the goods the robots make (since in a market, you need both supply and demand, otherwise things start going bad quickly on a macro level). Eliminate the minimum wage, since everyone earns enough to live on, and let market forces freely set the value of human labor. $2 an hour is pocket change, but that's really all I'd need it for at that point. You wouldn't need welfare or such, since the minimum income covers it - and it's fair, because everyone gets it. If you make more money, you just add it on top of that - so instead of making $100k, you might earn $80k salary, but get your $20k basic too.

    29. Re:In other news by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      Tech changes that just do existing work with less human labour do not expand wealth.

      Of course they do. If you can automate something and reduce costs, then you can sell your product more cheaply. Cheaper products mean your money is worth more; therefore wealth has been created.

      If you lay off all your workers then they will not be able afford your products at any price - not matter how cheap. Therefore you cannot gain wealth and neither can they and nothing has been created.

    30. Re:In other news by sjames · · Score: 1

      This, exactly.

    31. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless the change happens overnight, society will adapt to take advantage of the huge surplus workforce for jobs that machines can't do.

      The largest mistake right now is assuming change cannot happen "overnight".

      It can. It likely will. And we as a society are not prepared. At all.

      And when Skynet comes online, it will be too late.

    32. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The world has reached peak jobs.

      In other news, scientists are finished with rats: http://www.theonion.com/articl...

    33. Re:In other news by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Back in the mid 18th century there were plenty of alternative employment opportunities for displaced agricultural & industrial workers.

      Now they did mostly involve going to other countries and shooting people (and occasionally being shot by them) and being flogged and catching horrible diseases. But you can't have everything, can you?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    34. Re:In other news by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      Vehicle manufacture is already highly automated. We've had window-cleaning robots and similar ways to avoid paying expensive humans to do rote work for a long time. Roombas can seek their charging stations without human guidance and so, I'm sure can Teslas.

      The ancient and honorable trade of diagnosis and repair mostly went away years ago. These days, it's cheaper to swap out major assemblies and scrap the old ones than it is to track down a broken capacitor. Even back circa 1985 I had bought a pocket calculator whose replacement batteries cost more than the calculator itself. We're now at the point where units can self-diagnose. Before long it will be routine that they can roll up (or be transported by robot "ambulances") to repair stations where Arduino-driven mechanisms remove and replace faulty subsystem modules. When we don't just scrap the whole thing.

      And now we're adding even more ways to automate and reduce - 3D printing on demand. We have microprocessors that can automate processes for less than a dollar a chip.

      Much of the focus of late-20th Century business was on creating products that, once designed, could be built cheaply by automatic equipment in million-lot runs. Much more cheaply than the old millions of workers producing one unit at a time or even one unit after another on an assembly line. In some cases, with a precision and quality that were essentially impossible for manual workers to produce.

      I'm not optimistic unless someone comes up with an alternative model of living. Not just business, but living, because in the end, most of us work to live, not the other way around and if we cannot live, then bad things can be expected and many of them will be to the detriment of business.

      Yes, it's absurd that we have people expected to work 70-100 hours a week while laying off thousands, but that's because the current regulatory climate means that it's cheaper to keep one person working longer than 2 or 3 working less hours. Each new employee comes with a fixed overhead cost in addition to ongoing salary. That's probably one of the first things that should be addressed, but before that can happen you'll have to convince a lot of powerful people that they have to adjust the way they do things. Which, since unions are so despised, means government is the only obvious alternative way to apply pressure to the less altruistic, and in turn, that means ending the current anti-regulatory mindset. The one that brought us the Great Recession and other wonderful things.

    35. Re:In other news by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      Thank you for putting it so succinctly. Too many think that The Market is a benevolent God.

      The Market is more like a rain or sun god. A little rain is refreshing. A lot of rain can break a drought. Too much rain in too short a period and you get destructive floods. Over the total surface of the Earth, the Rain God is doing all of the above all the time. Some places get too little, some, too much and some just right. And where those places are shift over time.

      Blind faith isn't enough. Sometimes you have to give the gods a good swift kick.

    36. Re:In other news by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      Much more will be automated, so it will be cheaper.

      If you don't have any money, "cheaper" doesn't help.

      How many millions had their jobs replaced by mechanised production lines, and then by robots?

      As someone has already pointed out, the first industrial revolutions occurred during a labor shortage. Now that there is a labor surplus the end result will be more people with no jobs and no money.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    37. Re:In other news by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      OK. They've surrendered.

      Now what? You can't send them back to work. The whole point is that there's no work for them to do. Not even ditch digging or pyramid building. These days we have heavy equipment that does that.

      So you incarcerate them in camps? They're hungry. They're bored. They're upset. You're either going to have to provide ways to feed, shelter, and amuse them or they're just going to rise up again and again until you either remedy the situation or commit genocide.

      But when you are the government and they're getting stuff for free (after all they cannot work for it) that's supposed to be Socialism isn't it?

    38. Re:In other news by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      Where are these 15M jobs you speak of?

      Last time around when automation "eliminated" a lot of jobs, people became game designers, software developers, UX engineers, software testers, data miners, social media managers, sustainability experts, E-commerce consultants, genetic counselors, SEO specialists, drone pilots, and wind turbine maintenance crew. Both they and everybody else benefited.

      We don't know yet what these 15M people will do when their current jobs get automated, but one way or another, it's going to translate into 15M new and better jobs.

    39. Re:In other news by khallow · · Score: 2

      The example I keep seeing used is self-driving vehicles, particularly trucks.

      And the example that keeps getting ignored is farming. If out of work farmers and their descendants couldn't get new work, then we'd be around 80-90% unemployment.

      Tech changes that just do existing work with less human labour do not expand wealth. The automated trucks drivers, administrative assistants, warehouse pickers, burger flippers, etc, etc, that are coming down the pipe do not increase demand - if anything, they decrease it, by reducing the amount of wages entering the economy.

      Nonsense. The ex-truck drivers just do something else. Now, you have the wealth generated by the automated truck drivers and by the labor of the ex truck drivers. This is not only an expansion of wealth, it is an expansion of the rate of increase of wealth.

    40. Re:In other news by monkeyxpress · · Score: 1

      If this bank doesn't help them find some work, there's going to be hell to raise, especially when 15 million people is about a quarter of the entire UK's population. If a fourth of the US was layed off, do you think that would end peacefully?

      Yes, and this is where I get so annoyed at idealistic neo-liberals. They harp on about how they should be free to do whatever they want while ignoring the massive benefit of social stability that things like paying taxes and having a centralised government gives them. I would love to live in some enlightened society where we can do away with the apparatus of central government and things like taxes, but that is not going to happen if it involves humans.

      The real danger we have from the 1% is that they become so disconnected from society that they do a Marie Antoinette, and take all us middle class folk to the chopping block with them.

    41. Re:In other news by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      People have made the same Luddite arguments that you're making for a couple of centuries. Even the notion that you can talk about labor as something that there is a "shortage" or a "surplus" of is idiotic. There are far more things that people want to get done than there are people to do them; always. When people don't have to do tedious and repetitive tasks that get automated, they can do more useful and productive things.

    42. Re:In other news by khallow · · Score: 1

      That's the elephant in the room. Economists (especially those who occupy armchairs or political office) have miossed that the industrialization that improved everyone's life in a free(-ish) market did so because there was a severe labor shortage and even then, it only worked out after a great deal of civil unrest including a number of fatal confrontations.

      My belief is that there will be such a labor shortage again. The real elephant in this room is the fact that we are still seeing increasing demand for labor along with that increasing automation and increasing wages. This is the same trend that has been going on for centuries. It's just happening on a global scale rather than a developed world scale of the past.

      The current industrial revolution is taking place during a labor surplus. Freeing humans from the need to labor is a laudible and achievable goal but the labor market and it's imaginary magical invisible hand isn't up to the task.

      It's sad that people are so eager to discount the power of markets even when there's strong evidence the markets are working as advertised.

    43. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or Mad Max. Here in the US, there is an attitude of "if you don't work, you should starve". Couple that with automation and the feeling that businesses should be given absolute free reign (which was a part of US history from the Civil War until the Great Depression), then one notices people are caught in a vise.

      You can't halt progress. If robots are banned in the US, China will allow them. If import duties are levied, politicians will be replaced to have them repealed, since Citizens United has made bribery effectively 100% legal.

      What is going to happen? Well, nothing good, especially with the push to remove Social Security, welfare, SNAP, and other programs. People will just have to deal with starving, since revolution is impossible.

    44. Re: In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So incredibly wrong. All you do is raise the poverty bar. Resources are still scarce. By putting more money in pockets you haven't changed the equation. You've just made the buying power of $20,000 less powerful because everyone has it. You didn't make the resources less scarce.

    45. Re:In other news by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      If you don't have any money, "cheaper" doesn't help.

      Why would people "not have any money"?

      As someone has already pointed out, the first industrial revolutions occurred during a labor shortage. Now that there is a labor surplus

      What evidence is there for a "labor surplus"? By historical standards, the US unemployment rate is fairly low. Furthermore, it would be even lower if government regulations didn't make some people unemployable.

    46. Re: In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They aren't crippled or permanently unemployed, you stupid motherfucker.

    47. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the current workers are not going to want to give up any of their work hours, because it will likely also come with a pay cut.

    48. Re:In other news by unimacs · · Score: 1

      The example I keep seeing used is self-driving vehicles, particularly trucks.

      And the example that keeps getting ignored is farming. If out of work farmers and their descendants couldn't get new work, then we'd be around 80-90% unemployment.

      I don't know. I don't think the job market for oxen and horses has ever really recovered.

      The crux of your argument seems to be that automation has not lead to mass unemployment in the past, so why would it in the future? Why worry about it now?

      I'd argue that while it hasn't lead to mass unemployment yet, it's more recently lead to under-employment and a decline in wealth for everyone except for an increasingly small number of people.

      Former farmhands took jobs that required little in the way of skills they didn't already have, skills that industry was willing to teach them. But lets be clear, there were lots of worker abuses in the industrial revolution. Over time unionization and government regulation made for better working conditions and pay, but unions are almost to the point of irrelevance in this country.

      Now to get a decent job, most people have got to spend a small fortune on a college education. Most skilled workers start their careers in serious debt. And of course as soon as they start working, they need to start saving for retirement because almost nobody has pensions anymore. Then somewhere down the line they will find that their skills are no longer relevant so they get spend a small fortune on college again, - while trying to save for the kids' college education and their retirement. That's even if a 50 year recent college grad can find work.

      We are almost getting to the point of being share croppers.

    49. Re:In other news by khallow · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's absurd that we have people expected to work 70-100 hours a week while laying off thousands, but that's because the current regulatory climate means that it's cheaper to keep one person working longer than 2 or 3 working less hours. Each new employee comes with a fixed overhead cost in addition to ongoing salary. That's probably one of the first things that should be addressed, but before that can happen you'll have to convince a lot of powerful people that they have to adjust the way they do things.

      Because a lot of powerful people like paying lots of overhead per employee? Sure.

      Which, since unions are so despised, means government is the only obvious alternative way to apply pressure to the less altruistic, and in turn, that means ending the current anti-regulatory mindset. The one that brought us the Great Recession and other wonderful things.

      You claimed that regulation is the primary cause of the problem of overwork not the usual lack of altruism among employers. So why again are you advocating even more regulation and even more introduction of problems? This creates a perpetual cycle of failure where new poorly thought out regulation is created to patch over the failures in the previous generation of poorly thought out regulation.

      It's also worth noting here that a lot of people do want to work long hours to the degree that when they can't find full time work, they work multiple part time jobs.

    50. Re: In other news by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      They aren't crippled or permanently unemployed, you stupid motherfucker.

      Most people are not capable of generating their own jobs.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    51. Re:In other news by khallow · · Score: 1

      I don't know. I don't think the job market for oxen and horses has ever really recovered.

      They're still employed though. And you ignore that humans are a bit more flexible than oxen and horses.

      The crux of your argument seems to be that automation has not lead to mass unemployment in the past, so why would it in the future? Why worry about it now?

      I'd argue that while it hasn't lead to mass unemployment yet, it's more recently lead to under-employment and a decline in wealth for everyone except for an increasingly small number of people.

      You could argue that, but that's not happening. Sure, there are a small wealthy portion of the world which does well no matter what. But most of the world's population has been getting wealthier and this trend has continued to the present.

      Life's too short to trust in falsehoods.

      Now to get a decent job, most people have got to spend a small fortune on a college education. Most skilled workers start their careers in serious debt. And of course as soon as they start working, they need to start saving for retirement because almost nobody has pensions anymore. Then somewhere down the line they will find that their skills are no longer relevant so they get spend a small fortune on college again, - while trying to save for the kids' college education and their retirement. That's even if a 50 year recent college grad can find work.

      It's not my fault some college students made very poor life choices.

    52. Re:In other news by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      We don't know yet what these 15M people will do when their current jobs get automated, but one way or another, it's going to translate into 15M new and better jobs.

      Yes, there will be almost exactly the same number of jobs created as are lost, almost all of them in as yet unknown areas. Let me guess, it's the Invisible Hand sorting everything out?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    53. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure there is an alternative: shorter working hours and/or earlier retirement.

      If it takes less work to maintain current production levels, and hence current prosperity levels, will mean the average worker will work less. All we have to do is make sure this lighter workload benefits everyone more-or-less equally. Of course in a "hard work" obsessed society like the U.S. this is going to be anathema for a long time to come, and even Europe is moving ever farther to the right, which is the wrong direction for policies that are about fairness and sharing, so I'm not holding my breath. But the math is straightforward as anything.

    54. Re:In other news by khallow · · Score: 1

      So no, throwing up our hands and claiming "the market will take care of it" doesn't suffice when the "product" is human beings. The market (and the economy it lives in) is a construct of man that should serve our needs, not the other way around. If the economy does not serve our needs, it must be changed.

      Except markets are more than adequate at employing people as long as you don't grossly obstruct them. Let us recall here that all these complaints about how the markets aren't working come from parts of the world where regulators force huge costs and liabilities on employers. The market is not so all-powerful that it can thwart your attempts to break it.

    55. Re:In other news by khallow · · Score: 1

      Some think we've already passed that point, based on the fact that real earnings power in the USA has been declining since the 1980s.

      That's because some people ignore labor competition from the developing world. Supply of labor increased, price of labor dropped. It's basic economics.

    56. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I want plenty of things done. Plenty of constructions built, farms grown.

      You're a fucking idiot if you think I'm paying a human wages to get it done, when I can "hire" a robot. s/I'm/everyone

      They'll miss the repetitive tasks, since those were the only access proles had to get at the pocket change of Their Betters. We're going to have five billion people fighting to be Their musician, Their artist, Their prostitute. The money won't go back down (even now it isn't) when Prolekistan has no exports and negligible tourism.

    57. Re: In other news by Falos · · Score: 1

      > They aren't crippled
      implying work will be worth anything anymore lolololol

      I'm tired of laughing at you now, so I'm going to hire a prole for five cents an hour to laugh for me, because I'm currently using my usual one as an ottoman.

      Or maybe I'll use a robot. Costs four.

    58. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > It's not my fault
      ...it's like they don't even realize a problem exists.

    59. Re:In other news by unimacs · · Score: 1

      I don't know. I don't think the job market for oxen and horses has ever really recovered.

      They're still employed though. And you ignore that humans are a bit more flexible than oxen and horses.

      I think you will find that there are just fewer horses and oxen.

      The crux of your argument seems to be that automation has not lead to mass unemployment in the past, so why would it in the future? Why worry about it now? I'd argue that while it hasn't lead to mass unemployment yet, it's more recently lead to under-employment and a decline in wealth for everyone except for an increasingly small number of people.

      You could argue that, but that's not happening. Sure, there are a small wealthy portion of the world which does well no matter what. But most of the world's population has been getting wealthier and this trend has continued to the present. Life's too short to trust in falsehoods.

      I was talking about the US in particular, but yes if you want to go there, wealth has been increasing world-wide. The reason it has is because there is a never ending search for ways to produce goods for less money. So far that has been achieved through both automation and finding sources of cheaper labor. That has elevated the level of wealth for people in those regions with cheap labor. But what is starting to happen is that even dirt cheap labor is becoming more expensive than automation. China's growth economic growth is slowing down for that reason.

      Now to get a decent job, most people have got to spend a small fortune on a college education. Most skilled workers start their careers in serious debt. And of course as soon as they start working, they need to start saving for retirement because almost nobody has pensions anymore. Then somewhere down the line they will find that their skills are no longer relevant so they get spend a small fortune on college again, - while trying to save for the kids' college education and their retirement. That's even if a 50 year recent college grad can find work.

      It's not my fault some college students made very poor life choices.

      The choice to go to college? Not knowing which jobs will be automated 25 years from now? I'm not saying it's anyone individual's fault. I'm saying that we are fast approaching a time where AI and robotics will replace humans at a faster rate than humans can retrained to do the work that's not already being done by machines. There is just less and less that people can do that machines can't do cheaper.

    60. Re:In other news by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      Yes, there will be almost exactly the same number of jobs created as are lost, almost all of them in as yet unknown areas.

      Correct.

      Let me guess, it's the Invisible Hand sorting everything out?

      It doesn't matter what you call it, it works, as two centuries of automation, massive changes in job titles, and steadily increasing labor participation rates show.

    61. Re:In other news by Falos · · Score: 1

      It can. If the robo-frycook is $9/h and minimum wage is $8/h, everything is fine.

      Robo at $8.01/h, everything is fine.

      Robo at $7.99/h, everyone is fired. Overnight. And I realize that's just reasonable behavior for a rational business.

      Millions of "frycooks" (did you think I was only talking about ONE job?) suddenly applying elsewhere, except there is no elsewhere left.

    62. Re:In other news by khallow · · Score: 1

      ...it's like they don't even realize a problem exists.

      You might want to think about why that happens when there is so much evidence of the problem online and in the news.

    63. Re:In other news by khallow · · Score: 1

      I was talking about the US in particular,

      Exactly my point. Your outlook was provincial.

      but yes if you want to go there, wealth has been increasing world-wide. The reason it has is because there is a never ending search for ways to produce goods for less money. So far that has been achieved through both automation and finding sources of cheaper labor. That has elevated the level of wealth for people in those regions with cheap labor. But what is starting to happen is that even dirt cheap labor is becoming more expensive than automation. China's growth economic growth is slowing down for that reason.

      That's been going on for centuries. You aren't describing anything new.

      The choice to go to college? Not knowing which jobs will be automated 25 years from now?

      No, making stupid choices.

      I'm not saying it's anyone individual's fault. I'm saying that we are fast approaching a time where AI and robotics will replace humans at a faster rate than humans can retrained to do the work that's not already being done by machines. There is just less and less that people can do that machines can't do cheaper.

      And I'm saying you have absolutely no supporting evidence for your opinion. The developing world doesn't have this problem you claim is a problem. It's only developed world countries which are trying really hard to keep people from being employed which supposedly have this problem.

      Well, guess what. When you discourage a thing with higher cost and regulation, you get less of that thing. It's not magic.

    64. Re:In other news by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      >It's also worth noting here that a lot of people do want to work long hours to the degree that when they can't find full time work, they work multiple part time jobs.

      I think you mean that a lot of people want more money than they can earn in their first job, so they find multiple part time jobs to make the money they think they want or need.

      If you offer some people $60K/yr + benefits for working 40 hours a week, some of them will opt to instead work for $30/hr with no benefits at 2 jobs where they can work 60 hours a week in total. Lack of benefits means more immediate cash in pocket, and they'll think that they are making "more money overall" with the extra 20 hours a week. When they end up with $5K in extra expenses travelling to both jobs, $10K in medical bills and $20K in lost income while they can't work due to health problems, and then having their home foreclosed because they can't pay the mortgage they got based on all this extra income that unexpectedly disappeared, it's not really a good deal after all.

      Only an idiot would turn down $100K/yr + benefits @ 40 hours a week vs $30/hr part time - through tax incentives (positive and negative) the government could make it more attractive for employers to offer jobs with benefits and good salaries (corporate tax credit for each employee earning more than a threshold amount, etc. etc.) but the way it is structured now, that's not happening.

    65. Re:In other news by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Why would people "not have any money"?

      Because they won't have jobs.

      What evidence is there for a "labor surplus"? By historical standards, the US unemployment rate is fairly low.

      Right now, we're dealing with the labor surplus through mass incarceration, disability, and people just leaving the labor market. Not that "full employment" is a worthy goal, but with real incomes declining, a smaller percentage of people in the workforce means more poverty.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    66. Re:In other news by khallow · · Score: 1

      When they end up with $5K in extra expenses travelling to both jobs, $10K in medical bills and $20K in lost income while they can't work due to health problems, and then having their home foreclosed because they can't pay the mortgage they got based on all this extra income that unexpectedly disappeared, it's not really a good deal after all.

      Then they buy health insurance and resolve that problem. They end up with more money and the health care they want. It is amazing how people fail to understand the financial side of this or the perverse incentives that have been created over the years.

      Only an idiot would turn down $100K/yr + benefits @ 40 hours a week vs $30/hr part time - through tax incentives (positive and negative) the government could make it more attractive for employers to offer jobs with benefits and good salaries (corporate tax credit for each employee earning more than a threshold amount, etc. etc.) but the way it is structured now, that's not happening.

      So what? I'm not going to pay you more either.

    67. Re:In other news by psycho12345 · · Score: 1

      Why would people "not have any money"?

      Because they just got laid off? What people are trying to get across is that if you layoff 50% of your workforce, and reduce your price by 50%, you are creating a net loss, because the remaining 50% pay 50% less, and the other 50% you laid off pay NOTHING, because they now have 0 income, so the cost reduction does not benefit them what so ever. So yeah, you get some extra profit from reducing your cost by half, and yoru price by something less then half, but then you lose a ton in the volume side, when people stop buying your stuff entirely, being unable to afford it. This is most reflected in the F2P games, where it is EXPECTED that 60% or so of the playerbase will pay nothing, the 10% at the top will provide 50% of the revenue.

      Fundamentally, with technology, we keep raising the bar on what is required to even participate in the market. There was a time a child could work and get a wage of some kind, and required almost no training. Now, many jobs require a ton of training and learning on the go just to become productive. All the main professions (Engineering, Law, Medicine, Accounting) take anywhere from 5-10 years to get fully up to speed to be productive. Trade based stuff takes almost as long, just getting the experience. Programming is nearly as bad, just masked by the fact that you can start it relatively early, but doing actual good software design is like a trade, it takes experience and some people have a talent for it.

    68. Re: In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not even sure there are 15 million full time jobs for people working in the UK. So does that mean everyone will be out of work

    69. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is foolish. There's no reason to automate if you need just as many employees running the automation as the equipment replaced. You're seeing the lucky few and thinking it's the rule. As automation becomes more cookie-cutter, the needs for specialized workers maintaining it will go down.

      And the lateral, simply tech-based jobs you mention are not going to increase at nearly the speed of the birth rate. Worse, SEO specialists and genetic counsellors are prime candidates for replacing with automation.

      You keep moving forward with making things make things (be those tangible things or services or components (data) for services) and at some point you have more success in production than the new needs/opportunities you're making compensate for. That's the intentional target. That's why we do it. We make boxes which are better at the work than humans. And at first, they're not much better, then they're much better.

      Some new jobs will always come. But they will be at the top of a pyramid which used to be populated entirely with bodies. The bottom of the pyramid will be machines. At some point, so will the top.

      Get ready for the end of employment.

    70. Re:In other news by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      What people are trying to get across is that if you layoff 50% of your workforce, and reduce your price by 50%, you are creating a net loss, because the remaining 50% pay 50% less, and the other 50% you laid off pay NOTHING, because they now have 0 income, so the cost reduction does not benefit them what so ever.

      No, sorry, prices, labor, and production don't behave at all like you imagine them to behave.

      Fundamentally, with technology, we keep raising the bar on what is required to even participate in the market. There was a time a child could work and get a wage of some kind, and required almost no training. Now, many jobs require a ton of training and learning on the go just to become productive.

      Oh, you're absolutely right. But that's not the fault of automation, that's the fault of progressive workplace regulations, minimum wage, etc. If the cheapest you can hire a worker for is $25000/year, then people won't hire any workers with skills that make them worth less than that.

    71. Re:In other news by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      Right now, we're dealing with the labor surplus through mass incarceration, disability, and people just leaving the labor market.

      That would mean that we would have a historically low labor participation rate, but we don't. Labor force participation rate was climbing for 55 years after WWII, in parallel with massive automation. Since 2008, the labor force participation rate (in the US) has been falling somewhat, but that's due to Baby Boomers retiring.

      Because they won't have jobs.

      Why wouldn't they have any jobs? Median unemployment is about 10 weeks, and has been since the 1970's.

    72. Re:In other news by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Why wouldn't they have any jobs? Median unemployment is about 10 weeks, and has been since the 1970's.

      I'm curious. If you believe that unemployment is historically low, does that mean you're a big supporter of the Obama Administration's handling of the economy?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    73. Re:In other news by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      So no, throwing up our hands and claiming "the market will take care of it" doesn't suffice when the "product" is human beings. The market (and the economy it lives in) is a construct of man that should serve our needs, not the other way around. If the economy does not serve our needs, it must be changed.

      Except markets are more than adequate at employing people as long as you don't grossly obstruct them. Let us recall here that all these complaints about how the markets aren't working come from parts of the world where regulators force huge costs and liabilities on employers. The market is not so all-powerful that it can thwart your attempts to break it.

      Some of use want to breathe clean air and drink clean water and eat safe food and not drink and bathe in a river that is basically a chemical dump. Companies, even regulated, will try to cheat (VW emissions, anyone?). Imagine what a race to the bottom an unregulated market would be ...

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    74. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The world has reached peak jobs.

      This is good in the long run. People will start thinking about reproduction and hopefully the we will get back to the point where the planet can sustain its population. The fact that we have reached peak jobs tells us that the we do not need more people to propel humanity forward.

    75. Re:In other news by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      I'm curious. If you believe that unemployment is historically low,

      I don't believe that. And I didn't say that. I said that the US unemployment rate is "fairly low", not "historically low".

      You made the statement that there is a "labor surplus"; explain what you mean by that and provide evidence!

      does that mean you're a big supporter of the Obama Administration's handling of the economy?

      Not at all. Obama engaged in massive crony capitalism and promised economic outcomes that haven't come true; the man is either a fraud or incompetent. And the economy is far worse than it could be. However, what it doesn't have is a labor surplus.

    76. Re: In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is what greedy CEOs will do. All profit should be limited by government forces to 20% of sale price.

    77. Re:In other news by twotacocombo · · Score: 1

      Much more will be automated, so it will be cheaper.

      Call me a cynic, but the end result will probably be things will be cheaper to produce, but the prices will continue to increase. It's all about maximum profitability, right?

    78. Re:In other news by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Not at all. Obama engaged in massive crony capitalism and promised economic outcomes that haven't come true; the man is either a fraud or incompetent. And the economy is far worse than it could be.

      And yet, you completely believe in his Department of Labor's employment numbers.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    79. Re:In other news by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      "The world has reached peak jobs."

      Really?

      There's nothing else to be done anywhere?

      You look around you and you can say "There's nothing else that could be done that isn't getting done"?

      Really?

    80. Re:In other news by khallow · · Score: 1

      Some of use want to breathe clean air and drink clean water and eat safe food and not drink and bathe in a river that is basically a chemical dump. Companies, even regulated, will try to cheat (VW emissions, anyone?). Imagine what a race to the bottom an unregulated market would be ...

      Want != get. There are multiple conflicting wants here and most have one or more non-market regulatory kluges to realize that want in some way. The consequences are that everyone tries to route economic activity away from the zone of conflict.

      This isn't a case of an unregulated market running untrammeled over the environment and workers of the US. It's a heavily regulated (in many ways) market which has a bunch of haphazard junk jammed into the gears.

      I think we could have a better market for jobs that still maintains current levels of environmental, safety, and labor policy quality just by rethinking regulations so as to reduce the cost of them. It probably would still be a slowly sinking ship just due to the self-defeating and conflicting nature of the overall policies and programs that are funded, but IMHO things are so bad, that we're not even looking for low lying fruit to pick.

    81. Re:In other news by TarPitt · · Score: 1

      Labor will be automated and people driven out of work until the price of labor (wages, salaries and benefits) is less than the price of additional automation.
      Automation only causes unemployment in the short run.

      Once people get used to working for less and adopt a lower standard of living, employment will go back up.

      The minimum compensation necessary to maintain existence is an absolute floor. This minimum represents a life so miserable most first world citizens would find it unacceptable. Between that floor and current wage levels is a lot of room

      --
      If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
    82. Re:In other news by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      Some people who are professional economists think that much of the downward pressure on labor prices has to do with the fact that over the last 30 years we've made significant gains in productivity. Cheap labor contributes as well, but eventually labor markets would reach parity. Indian programming costs have been on a steady rise since the early 2000's, for example.

      Technological influences, on the other hand, mean that fewer workers of any price are required forevermore. We've seen this already in cases where manufacturing once thought lost to the USA has returned, but automated. Because a machine, unlike a worker, tends to cost about the same no matter where in the world it is, and when people are no longer required as part of the process, the extra expenses of dealing with languages, cultures, time zones and cost/time of material goods shipping tilt the balance back to home manufacture.

    83. Re:In other news by sjames · · Score: 1

      If so, why do we have unemployment? Why do we have people who have been unemployed long enough that they've given up on getting a job? It seems that reality disagrees with your convenient theory.

    84. Re:In other news by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      A lot of the low-lying fruit has been picked. Closing coal plants. Increasing fuel economy. Making cars that last longer, so we don't use up as many resources replacing them as often. Insulation. Heat pumps. Zone lighting (both home and commercial/industrial). Swapping out incandescent light bulbs. Microwaves. More efficient refrigerators and air conditioners.

      Taking it to the next level is going to be a lot harder.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    85. Re:In other news by sjames · · Score: 1

      My belief is that there will be such a labor shortage again. The real elephant in this room is the fact that we are still seeing increasing demand for labor along with that increasing automation and increasing wages. This is the same trend that has been going on for centuries. It's just happening on a global scale rather than a developed world scale of the past.

      That must be why unemployment is a negative number and workforce participation is at an all time high while wages are rising faster than inflation across the board.

      OH, wait!, none of those things are happening.

      If you really believe in markets, then you believe that demand for labor is down since any reasonable market theory would predict that given the figures.

      If you believe demand for labor is up and yet we have unemployment and a depressed workforce participation and stagnant wages, then you clearly don't actually believe market theory.

    86. Re:In other news by sjames · · Score: 1

      So your position is that we must surely die out as a race, either by abject poverty or poisoning ourselves to death?

    87. Re: In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, effectively, you don't know English, you can't spell and you're too lazy to read through what you just wrote, even if it's just one short post? I'm sorry, even leaving out the fact that you are a major arsehole - in fact, a nazi, you know the whole kill the untermenschen and put them in a landfill spiel - it seems you're a better fit for that landfill than most of the people you saying should go into it. But that's hardly a surprise.

    88. Re:In other news by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      You look around you and you can say "There's nothing else that could be done that isn't getting done"?

      I'm glad you challenged my statement.

      I should have said, "The world has reached peak private sector jobs."

      Of course, there is plenty to be done, and jobs can be had doing those things. But not from the private sector. We're going to have to accept large-scale pubic works projects, infrastructure building and fixing, and other public-sector jobs if we want to keep people working. And that means tax money.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    89. Re:In other news by mattventura · · Score: 1

      Think about how many businesses out there directly or indirectly are affected by the costs of transporting freight via trucks. If your business ships things to customers, you bear the cost of trucking. If your business receives supplies from vendors, you bear the cost. Reducing the cost of transportation benefits pretty much everyone to the point where I have no doubt that at least as many jobs would be created as lost. Reducing efficiency for the sake of jobs is really no different than the broken glass fallacy.

    90. Re:In other news by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      There has always been a new wave of jobs as the cost of what we're used to buying fell, and we found something new to buy. There will be this time too.

      You state that as if it's a natural law, when it's anything but.

      First wave automation was happening in an economy where most people were less well off than ancient Romans. Centuries of Dark Ages exacted a massive toll, and it wasn't hard to find things to sell to people who were starting from literally dirt floors and no running water. There are people still living today who remember not having running water in the structure they lived in, and using a hole in the ground to defecate. A population with that as the starting point can absorb enormous amounts of productivity, and did, for two centuries.

      There are places where those conditions still prevail, but they're not relevant to this discussion. This discussion is about what to do in the economies of the world that have more than 3 billion people in them who already have all of the necessities of life and are to the point of replacing luxuries for the hell of it. What more can you make for them? 3 billion people already have more clothes than they can wear and more food than they can eat. 3 billion people either own personal transportation or have access to public transportation that can get them across their respective countries for a few hours' wages. 3 billion people have climate controlled dwellings with electricity and running water and sanitation. 3 billion people have TVs and smartphones and multiple other computers and heaps of children's toys and the ability to indulge any hobby they like. What are you going to sell them?

      The necessities are done. The luxuries are done. What new thing is going to absorb the labor of hundreds of millions? It won't be a necessity. That's what the automation is doing. What luxury are you going to invent next? VR? Consumer electronics that will be in the hands of those 3 billion inside of 5 years, if they actually want it? (The smartphone being the bellwether for all future luxury consumer electronics.) So what is it going to be? Flying cars? Linux on the desktop?

    91. Re:In other news by KGIII · · Score: 1

      The real oddity is that I seem to recall the poster, in a recent thread, saying that corporations didn't pay enough taxes. Now he wants to give them tax breaks.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    92. Re:In other news by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      It used to be that one worker could make one widget each hour. Now, there's a machine such that one worker can make two widgets each hour. If we keep the same number of workers, we have more widgets, and assuming they're worth anything we've got more wealth. If instead we lay off half our workers, in a healthy economy they can find other jobs and produce stuff there, and we've got more wealth. The only situation where we don't get more wealth is if we lay off half our workers and they can't get jobs elsewhere.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    93. Re:In other news by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that they just advocated strip mining, clear-cutting, and whaling with dynamite.

      *sighs* I'm a 40 year, or so, member of the Libertarian Party. Not even *I* think like this. Regulating businesses is something the government should do, responsibly and reasonably. The rights belong to the individual and we, the individuals, allow those businesses to exist. The commons are essential to preserve, as much as possible, to ensure we've the ability to make use of our freedoms and better preserve our rights.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    94. Re:In other news by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Stupid choices will always be a problem. Another problem that will always be with us is choices that are intelligent based on information known at the time, but which turn out bad. If we want to encourage intelligent choices, we have to have them turning out better than stupid choices for most people.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    95. Re:In other news by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      What jobs are we going to find for truck drivers?

      While we might get self driving trucks, I doubt if that will mean getting rid of "truck drivers" any time soon. I suspect it will be a long time before self driving vehicles will be allowed to go off on their own without a person to be responsible. Many trucks need a person to move stuff from truck to destination with the equipment on the truck. Somebody will need to make sure the manifest gets filled out, the truck doesn't get robbed, unload the truck, etc.

    96. Re:In other news by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Would you care to point out some of those obstructions? A *lot* of laws and regulations exist to facilitate the market, by reducing information asymmetry and incorporating externalities into market decisions. Were it not for those, our air would be worse than China's, our water pretty much undrinkable, and we'd have no idea how much of that steak is cow and how much is roach.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    97. Re:In other news by KGIII · · Score: 1

      There you go, picking on the kids again. At least it's Friday. There's even a whole thread full of people saying, "SJW." You should be comfortably blitzed by now.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    98. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Measured unemployment might be low, but it is not measuring all of those out of work - it has been rigged to make the numbers look good.

      The problem though is that the new jobs aren't skilled, but rather highly skilled, and a significant part of the population will never be able to learn what is required to do those jobs. And if you automate away the jobs that 40% or so of the population are able to do, and they do not have the ability to improve themselves, you have a problem.

    99. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US workers. European students get a college education at no cost, because it isn't smart to not buy planting seed, then wonder why nothing grows come harvest time.

    100. Re:In other news by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      What evidence is there for a "labor surplus"?

      In the US, the big evidence is that typical worker wages are going up slower than inflation. When there's a shortage of something, prices go up. When there's a surplus, prices go down. There's a limiting factor here in that actually reducing the dollar amount of people's pay has complications, but keeping the dollar amount steady as the value of dollars goes down works.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    101. Re:In other news by lgw · · Score: 1

      What new thing is going to absorb the labor of hundreds of millions? It won't be a necessity. That's what the automation is doing. What luxury are you going to invent next?

      Humans are quite inventive. And greedy. We'll think of something. Personally, I expect it will be the sort of services that need a personal touch: decorating, customized home theater installation (customized anything installation), personal shoppers, all the personal services only the rich pay for today.

      Think about this: if we have acceptable home manufacture in most homes (good enough to get by with), then what possessions are fashionable? What are the "fashion status symbols"? There will be a huge new market there.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    102. Re:In other news by khallow · · Score: 1

      That must be why unemployment is a negative number and workforce participation is at an all time high while wages are rising faster than inflation across the board.

      Workforce participation is increasing and I imagine it is at or near an all time high, though mostly due to increased participation by women. Wages are rising faster than inflation for at least two thirds of humanity, just not for the developed world.

      OH, wait!, none of those things are happening.

      I have to roll my eyes at such pronouncements. Have you never bothered to look? Have you never wondered how the rest of the world can slowly acquire the trappings of the developed world without accumulating wealth in the process?

      If you really believe in markets, then you believe that demand for labor is down since any reasonable market theory would predict that given the figures.

      Let's see these "figures" at the scale of the entire world.

      If you believe demand for labor is up and yet we have unemployment and a depressed workforce participation and stagnant wages, then you clearly don't actually believe market theory.

      Who is "we"? The developed world is not the world. You are looking at the wrong scale. The traditional model of supply and demand adequately explains the problem that the developed world has right now. Because of improving and liberalizing global trade, we now have a pool of labor effective much larger than we had in say, 1970, even including population growth. Any market theory would have told you that the price of labor would decline which in our complex world with all sorts of non-market tricks for shoring up wages, translates into declining labor power for any sector which is exposed to competition with the developing world.

      Developed world capital has indeed increased with respect to developed world wages. Public sector labor unions have more power than private sector labor unions. The developed world has all sorts of problems with transfer of work to the developing world, automation, and mere closure of business, which the developing world doesn't have.

    103. Re:In other news by khallow · · Score: 1
      Here's some US examples: minimum wage, labor hour policy, H1-B, and a variety of low value benefits like Social Security and overpriced health insurance. The first rule of being trapped in a hole: don't dig it deeper.

      Were it not for those, our air would be worse than China's, our water pretty much undrinkable, and we'd have no idea how much of that steak is cow and how much is roach.

      Obviously, we only have the choices of complete anarchy or the current ridiculous morass of regulation (with new regulation applied faster than a human can read it). There can't possibly be any other choice here.

    104. Re:In other news by khallow · · Score: 1

      but eventually labor markets would reach parity

      I should just be stating the obvious here, but parity between US and India hasn't been reached yet. Thus, any predictions which depend on parity being reached aren't yet valid. Cheap labor is not only going to contribute for decades to come, it will remain the most important dynamic over that time period.

      Technological influences, on the other hand, mean that fewer workers of any price are required forevermore. We've seen this already in cases where manufacturing once thought lost to the USA has returned, but automated.

      No, we haven't. I tend to agree that there is considerable mostly automated manufacture in the US, but I don't agree with the interpretation (which completely ignores what is going on in the rest of the world) that automation is destroying jobs permanently. Instead, if we look at the global scale, we continue to see job creation in concurrence with automation and continued movement of jobs between countries and whatnot.

      We still see the centuries long progression of increasing value and wages of labor combined with increasing automation.

    105. Re:In other news by khallow · · Score: 1

      No, my position that the elites, that would be me, need to feed the ignorant masses, that would be you, to the hungry maws of our machine gods. /sarc

    106. Re:In other news by sjames · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but the topic here is clearly the developed world at the moment. The first time I saw you re-defining terms and moving the goalposts when you were painted in a corner, it was mildly (very mildly) amusing, but now it is merely a waste of everyone's time, so shoo! Come back when you are ready to meaningfully contribute to the conversation.

    107. Re:In other news by khallow · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but the topic here is clearly the developed world at the moment. The first time I saw you re-defining terms and moving the goalposts when you were painted in a corner, it was mildly (very mildly) amusing, but now it is merely a waste of everyone's time, so shoo! Come back when you are ready to meaningfully contribute to the conversation.

      When you speak in universal terms, there's only one set of goalposts that matter. And while it is nice that you suddenly care about rhetoric and rational debate. I only hope that concern lasts past your next post.

    108. Re:In other news by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      If so, why do we have unemployment?

      There are many reasons for why people are unemployed There are some reasons that are "natural", that is, you expect them to occur in any functioning economy, and they are mostly related to people switching jobs. The natural rate of unemployment for the US is about 5%, pretty close to the actual rate of unemployment that we actually have.

      Why do we have people who have been unemployed long enough that they've given up on getting a job?

      That's measured by the labor force participation rate. There are many reasons. A lot of Baby Boomers are retiring. A lot of couples decide that one partner earns enough money that the other can stay at home, raise kids or pursue hobbies. More people stay at university and in grad school longer. At the low end of the income scale, single mothers may prefer to spend a while outside the labor force to raise their kids. Many people may also simply receive unemployment benefits while working on the side.

      Progressives keep talking about a bunch of things as being desirable: more education, less materialism, ability to spend time with kids, support for single parents, more focus on what really matters in life, time to pursue interests and entrepreneurship, etc. All of those necessarily decrease labor force participation rates and cause family incomes to stagnate. So, if you agree with the progressive vision of society, you shouldn't complain about the logically unavoidable outcomes.

    109. Re:In other news by sjames · · Score: 1

      Perhaps on your side of the community gate people can voluntarily quit their jobs to be with the kids, but most cannot really afford that.

      The progressive vision would have incomes rising so that families could afford to go back to single income or 2 part time incomes.

    110. Re:In other news by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      And yet, you completely believe in his Department of Labor's employment numbers.

      What reason do I have to doubt them? It's not like those numbers are particularly flattering to the administration. And faking them or manipulating them would be pretty hard. Besides, we're mostly concerned with comparison (relative to the natural unemployment rate and over time), and in those comparisons, any biases cancel out anyway.

    111. Re:In other news by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      The progressive vision would have incomes rising so that families could afford to go back to single income or 2 part time incomes.

      When families go back to single income or 2 part time incomes, their family income obviously drops, and that drags down the middle class family income statistics. You seem to live under the delusion that family incomes should continue to rise even though people work part time or one partner drops out of the workforce, and that, of course, is ridiculous.

      Perhaps on your side of the community gate people can voluntarily quit their jobs to be with the kids, but most cannot really afford that.

      You're right: I live in a gated community, which, coincidentally, is the cheapest form of housing around here. Of course, for "let them eat cake" snobs like you, such economic realities are difficult to understand.

    112. Re:In other news by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      You can give tax breaks in one area, and increase them in another, and remain revenue neutral.

      Taxes aren't all about collecting money, they're mostly about modifying behavior - behavior is more tangible, and important, than money.

    113. Re:In other news by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Should taxes be about modifying behavior?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    114. Re: In other news by monkeyxpress · · Score: 1

      Replying to AC because this is a good point to explain. The reason you can do this is two fold (a) automation will be producing a more elastic supply. If robots are cheap enough then expanding supply does not put pressure on labour (no need to hire more workers). This means there is no pressure on the labour market to increase wages, so you don't get an inflation cycle from the extra demand. You are essentially just triggering consumption of latent supply capacity, which in a competitive market cannot easily produce price increases. (b) if robots really do displace large numbers of workers (i.e. we don't find other stuff for them to do) then we will need something like this to prevent a situation where you have under-utilised robot factories and displaced workers out on the street, simply because they cannot compete with the robots to get bank notes that they can use to create demand from the idle robot factories.

      However, you are correct that we are still fundamentally resource limited in terms of energy and raw materials. This is where I think there needs to be more thought on how the Basic Income works. I suspect you could make something work on the basis that while all humans want to be 'rich', most lack the drive to do anything about it once they get to a middle class level. Further, it is possible to expand resource availability through technology. If we continue to develop more abundant energy sources without destroying the biosphere, we could easily produce more food, building materials, fresh water using the pretty incredible technology arsenal we have available now.

      The Basic Income has issues, but it is a starting point for a discussion we need to have. Technology is changing the economy rapidly, and in my experience with projects, if you don't bother thinking about where you are going, you will eventually end up in a bad place.

    115. Re:In other news by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Is government about anything else?

      So, then, the question becomes: should we have government? Well, I actually like having roads, sufficient police protection that I can sleep in a house with breakable glass windows with no iron bars, a financial structure that allows me to purchase food and shelter without having to grow / construct it myself. Yeah, overall, I think we're better off with government that meddles in the affairs of society and shapes behavior.

    116. Re:In other news by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Not that it's right, but the current reality of buying health insurance "on your own" is really crappy, we've been there, done that. Rates are astronomical, significantly higher than what the employee+employer pay in a large company situation, and that's when you have good health and no claims. Then we had a baby, and the birth went sideways and we ended up with $25K in ICU bills. The insurance (Blue Cross Florida) paid, and then raised mom's rates over $1000 per month - seems that they wanted to recoup their payout from in 2 years or less, not sure what they did with the near $100K in premiums we had paid into the system during the decades before that with essentially no claims. Other companies simply refused to insure. At that point, we went self-insured and just banked the $1000 per month instead. And the reality of being self-pay is that you pay a large multiple of the "negotiated rates" - if you push for self-pay discount, everyone is very understanding, they knock 10% off just for asking, when you point out that this same service last year was 80% less when paid by insurance they just shrug and tell you when the bills will be sent to collection.

      There's more to the compensation picture than hourly rate - you can manage and buy your own benefits, but not for anything near the value that larger groups can.

    117. Re:In other news by KGIII · · Score: 1

      No, that's an attempt to reduce it to the absurd but you know that. How about protecting the borders, preventing monopolistic business abuses, and allowing the citizens a modicum or rights? No, I don't think we need to be trying to use tax money to control behaviors - not even with businesses. We've got courts and fines for that. Taxes are a whole different thing - they're something you're obligated to, regardless of your behavior.

      We're not going to agree. I, for one, don't really want the government telling you how you should behave so long as you're not harming anyone and I sure as hell don't want them taxing you to control your behavior. That's not what taxes are for but, frankly, you knew that too.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    118. Re:In other news by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Agreed that we won't agree, but disagree that courts and fines aren't part of government. I've always viewed fines as a "behavior tax," so I suppose that's a fundamental difference - sure, you always have to pay a tax, unless you choose not to engage in the taxed activity - there's considerably grey area between fines and taxes.

      Rolling back up several posts, how is paying less than a living wage not monopolistic, or at least collusive behavior? True free markets will degenerate to monopoly situations, including labor markets.

      So, don't call it a tax break, call it a fine, and for every employee who gives you X hours a week, if you're not paying them enough to keep them off of government support, let's fine the employer for the difference, to cover the cost of government support required to keep that person working for them. Call 40 hours a full week, if you employ someone for 20 hours a week, pay them $6/hr, and expect the government to kick in another $360/week so this person can have food, shelter, healthcare, and transportation to work, let's say $75 of that becomes the responsibility of the company which is consuming this person's working hours.

      Subsistence existence: $480/week (before taxes, in some cities), employer pays $120 for 1/2 of the employee's working hours, that's a $120 shortfall - fine 'em so the money can go toward the public assistance programs that are necessary to keep these people employable.

      Or, tax them and give them a refund for good citizen behavior - it's all the same in the end.

    119. Re:In other news by khallow · · Score: 1

      Taxes aren't all about collecting money, they're mostly about modifying behavior

      Always a good anti-tax argument. I suggest a $50 per instance tax on people who suggest any taxes for the purpose of behavior modification.

    120. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't we call that one a fine? Personally, I don't see any difference between taxes, fines, tax with rebates and forgiveness, it all boils down to a bottom line: do something -> pay the man (more, or less in the case of a rebate) because you did it.

    121. Re:In other news by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      The only situation where we don't get more wealth is if we lay off half our workers and they can't get jobs elsewhere.

      Which is exactly what we're worried about.

      If you can amp up your production of rolls of toilet paper from 1 roll per hour to 2 rolls per hour per worker, then you have now twice as many rolls of toilet paper in the warehouse at the end of the day. That means that you have to get twice as many rolls of toilet paper OUT of the warehouse each day.

      OK, supply-side efficiencies means that you can now afford to lower the prices on toilet paper so that more people will want to buy them. Except that in this case, you're talking something people pretty much have to buy all the time, but only in fixed amounts. Absent a plague of diarrhea, those new lower prices are going to make precious little difference.

      Well, what about something that's less of a pure commodity, like TV sets? A household can now put a TV in every room. But again, houses have only a finite number of rooms, so eventually, again, the market saturates. Obsolescence can ensure a turnover in TV sets, but unlike toilet paper, it's more of a case where you make the choice to trash-and-replace only if you have disposable income to be able to afford not continuing to use last year's model.

      Now consider what we've been doing. One person can make a TV not merely twice as fast, but, perhaps 20 times as fast, thanks to a century's improvements in productivity (and while I cannot quote actual numbers, we have gotten really, really productive in that period of time).

      Instead of taking that productivity and give people 3-hour workdays, a lat Jetsons, we've laid off lots of people and actually amped UP the hours that the survivors must work - lest they be considered "unproductive" and laid off in turn. And the increased profitability in terms of labor costs doesn't trickle down to everyone - it just makes bigger and bigger salaries and bonuses at the top. thereby causing a steady erosion of the Middle Class.

      We already know that an economy based on "push" works about as well as pushing on a rope. And really talented entrepreneurs are about as rare as really talented machinists. But we're laying off the talented machinists and expecting them to become entrepreneurs. That's not a very realistic thing to do.

    122. Re:In other news by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Gee, minimum wage and labor hour policies? Those are screwing up the market? You're saying that we'd all be happy working ridiculous hours for a pittance? Ideally, a full-time job at minimum wage wouldn't leave a family collecting government benefits. The only way removing those regulations would help employment is to allow businesses to screw their employees over more than they do now, and it's not worth it. Social Security is not a low-value benefit, and neither is health insurance.

      Given a market without externalities applied, pollution would be as bad as I said. When the government starts reining in externalities, business people start moaning about the high costs and liabilities. (They also look for ways to get rid of the liabilities, such as establishing a mining operation as a separate corporation, sucking out all the money, and letting it go bankrupt with its pollution not cleaned up.)

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    123. Re:In other news by khallow · · Score: 1

      Gee, minimum wage and labor hour policies? Those are screwing up the market?

      Of course they are. Young adults, the poorer minorities, ex-criminals, and the less educated get badly screwed by minimum wage. Nobody wants to work hard for a pittance. But they don't want to just not work at all and starve either.

      Ideally, a full-time job at minimum wage wouldn't leave a family collecting government benefits.

      Ideally, you'd be able to afford a mansion, a huge robot staff, and whatnot on your basic income and not ever have to work a day in your life, but we don't live in that ideal world.

      Social Security is not a low-value benefit, and neither is health insurance.

      And the Moon is made of green cheese. Social Security, for example, raises the cost of almost every employee by roughly 15%. In return, you get a paltry stipend (which grows ever more paltry with the decades) when you retire which isn't much good for anything, including keeping granny from eating cat food.

      And as I recall, most of the complaints about US health care are about how expensive it is for no additional benefit compared to other countries's systems.

      Given a market without externalities applied, pollution would be as bad as I said.

      You don't need any of the things I've spoken of to this point to curb pollution. And there are sensible regulatory changes that would lower the cost for the employer without negatively affecting pollution controls. For example, in a number of industries, it is practically impossible not to violate some regulation (eg, oil drilling and nuclear power plants). But rather than pass impossible regulations and then ignore minor violations after the fact (in order to keep society functioning), how about creating regulations that make it possible to comply with those regulations in the first place?

      When the government starts reining in externalities, business people start moaning about the high costs and liabilities.

      Their moaning has teeth. There's been 50 years of decline in US living standards and 50 years of employers moving their operations overseas, but as here, a lot of people refuse to do anything about it. There's all this empty noise about how workers want to work for a bunch of money, want to retire on a plush government pension, or get cheap access to a ton of overpriced health care, but not a lot of thought about how that's going to happen.

      My thinking on the matter is that if you aren't willing to sacrifice to preserve your country's future, then I'm not willing to care because that indicates to me that you don't really think it is important. For example, the US is going down. All the wants of labor are increasingly difficult to deliver with really dumb and irrelevant crap like Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid sucking up an increasing share of the budget (it's getting towards 50% these days) without contributing anything to the future of the country.

      But there's a lot of people who don't care as long as their Social Security payouts aren't touched and their medical conditions are treated.

    124. Re:In other news by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Nobody gets badly screwed by minimum wage laws, because if you're making less than that you are already screwed.

      I find it odd that you think government benefits should continue until I have a mansion and a robotic staff. The government sets certain lower bounds on standards of living, and any employer who pays employees less than that is benefiting from government-sponsored welfare.

      Social Security is not a retirement plan. It's a lower bound and supplement, and is quite useful on that score. We could have an actual national pension plan, but we don't.

      The US health care system really sucks. However, for the individual who has to live with it, employer-provided insurance is very valuable. Ideally, we'd move to a European-style system which would remove a considerable burden from employers, but there's large business interests who don't want that. A European-type system would also remove that "overpriced health care" you complain about.

      The problem is not a national one. The US is doing great, as a whole. Productivity per worker is up, lots of industrial production, etc. The fact that the median household income in constant dollars has been flat has nothing to do with how well the country is doing, or how offshoring is going. US workers are sacrificing what they're worth in productivity gains.

      As far as Social Security goes, there are a lot of people, including me, who included Social Security into our retirement plans. I'd be happy to renounce it, provided all the money sent into the system with my SSAN number on it would be refunded to me, adjusted for inflation and with a modest interest rate. I'm over 60, and I don't have time to rearrange my savings to replace Social Security. Darn few of us have defined-benefit pensions any more, and you never know how long savings will last.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    125. Re:In other news by khallow · · Score: 1

      Nobody gets badly screwed by minimum wage laws, because if you're making less than that you are already screwed.

      I already stated how they get screwed. By not having a job. One of the things the minimum wage people don't get is that work experience is crucial to being anything other than a minimum wage drone or unemployed deadbeat.

      We are creating a long term disaster of people who never will have a job and people who enter the job world late.

      For example, I first started working when I was 15 and had about the equivalent of two years of full time work by the time I graduated from college at 22. Fortunately, it's not common, but I occasionally run into people who are at least 25 years old and working their first job ever. It's hard to adapt to something you've never done before and meet expectations you never understood before.

      The US health care system really sucks. However, for the individual who has to live with it, employer-provided insurance is very valuable. Ideally, we'd move to a European-style system which would remove a considerable burden from employers, but there's large business interests who don't want that. A European-type system would also remove that "overpriced health care" you complain about.

      And why wouldn't the US screw that up? In the beginning before the epic runup in health care costs, the US was comparable with Europe.

      They screwed up health insurance that worked. You have completely unrealistic expectations here. The US just had to fix oh, ten or so major problems with health care in the first place and that didn't happen. Thus, I think any transition to European-style plans will fail on similar grounds.

      The problem is not a national one. The US is doing great, as a whole. Productivity per worker is up, lots of industrial production, etc. The fact that the median household income in constant dollars has been flat has nothing to do with how well the country is doing, or how offshoring is going. US workers are sacrificing what they're worth in productivity gains.

      You just described a national level problem. And it has everything to do with competition with labor that is several times cheaper.

      As far as Social Security goes, there are a lot of people, including me, who included Social Security into our retirement plans. I'd be happy to renounce it, provided all the money sent into the system with my SSAN number on it would be refunded to me, adjusted for inflation and with a modest interest rate. I'm over 60, and I don't have time to rearrange my savings to replace Social Security. Darn few of us have defined-benefit pensions any more, and you never know how long savings will last.

      Of course, you're over 60. I don't expect this sort of support for terrible programs from people who can do the math and realize they will lose out. You're the last generation (early stage Baby Boomers) who will get more out of Social Security or Medicare than they put in. We similarly don't know how long the US will be able to continuing giving out other peoples' money, but it'll definitely be scaled back by the time I get to retirement age in twenty years.

    126. Re:In other news by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Why do you hate America? You think that we're incapable of having a decent national health system, and I'm completely unrealistic in thinking my country can do what every other developed country has done. What is it about the US that makes it completely inept? I think the US is capable of doing anything positive other countries can do, such as slash health care costs and get good public health. Since you consider employer-provided health insurance a bad idea, and you're poo-pooing the idea of a national health care system, and apparently are against regulations that would let sick people get insurance, you're in effect proposing that sick people die.

      As far as the economy goes, the US as a whole is doing fine. Almost all of the people of the US aren't. You can call that a national problem if you like, but when the country as a whole is doing better than almost all of its citizens I'd say there are problems.

      As far as Social Security goes, ending it has major problems. It's been a pay-as-you-go operation, with Social Security taxes used to pay benefits. People rely on it, including people who have paid into it all of their working lives. There have already been changes; my full retirement age is 66, and my wife's is 67. (Frankly, I don't think I can hold this job for five more years. I'm not as good as I was five years ago.) It's also politically impossible, since people my age and up generally vote in elections.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    127. Re:In other news by khallow · · Score: 1

      Why do you hate America? You think that we're incapable of having a decent national health system, and I'm completely unrealistic in thinking my country can do what every other developed country has done.

      Why didn't you fix this problem 40-50 years ago? These problems didn't magically appear overnight, but have been well known since the beginning. Why should I share your optimism when we have a demonstration that the US didn't fix a number of huge problems over a very long period of time.

      I think the US is capable of doing anything positive other countries can do, such as slash health care costs and get good public health.

      Why should I agree? What evidence is there that the US can solve such problems any more?

      As far as Social Security goes, ending it has major problems. It's been a pay-as-you-go operation, with Social Security taxes used to pay benefits. People rely on it, including people who have paid into it all of their working lives. There have already been changes; my full retirement age is 66, and my wife's is 67. (Frankly, I don't think I can hold this job for five more years. I'm not as good as I was five years ago.) It's also politically impossible, since people my age and up generally vote in elections.

      So? I didn't say it would collapse tomorrow or the eventual collapse of the program would be pretty. I didn't say people weren't reliant on it now. And why is doing something about Social Security, "politically impossible", but ignoring the same political resistance to medical care restructuring is "why do you hate America?"

  2. 15M by Alioth · · Score: 3, Informative

    They've been saying this since the 1970s, with all sorts of forecasts of 15 hour weeks. Yet there are many millions now in work compared to the 1970s and everyone's working longer hours than ever.

    1. Re:15M by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Informative

      They've been saying this since the 1970s, with all sorts of forecasts of 15 hour weeks. Yet there are many millions now in work compared to the 1970s and everyone's working longer hours than ever.

      In the 1970s they assumed that everyone would work less. What happened is that some work more than ever and others don't work at all.

    2. Re:15M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They've been saying this since the Industrial Revolution. Millions of jobs WERE lost, but many millions more were created.

    3. Re:15M by Random_Goblin · · Score: 4, Informative
      This is not a new problem, and is well covered in Bertrand Russell's In Praise of Idleness written in 1932.

      Suppose that, at a given moment, a certain number of people are engaged in the manufacture of pins. They make as many pins as the world needs, working (say) eight hours a day.

      Someone makes an invention by which the same number of men can make twice as many pins: pins are already so cheap that hardly any more will be bought at a lower price.

      In a sensible world, everybody concerned in the manufacturing of pins would take to working four hours instead of eight, and everything else would go on as before.

      But in the actual world this would be thought demoralizing. The men still work eight hours, there are too many pins, some employers go bankrupt, and half the men previously concerned in making pins are thrown out of work.

      There is, in the end, just as much leisure as on the other plan, but half the men are totally idle while half are still overworked. In this way, it is insured that the unavoidable leisure shall cause misery all round instead of being a universal source of happiness.

      Can anything more insane be imagined?

      The whole essay is well worth reading, and remains just as true as ever it was..

    4. Re: 15M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And we are still poorer than ever no matter how long our hours

    5. Re:15M by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Informative

      They've been saying this since the Industrial Revolution. Millions of jobs WERE lost, but many millions more were created.

      Yes, but it's still a race to the bottom, because of the jobs which were created, more of them were unskilled — read "not paying a living wage" there to see the problem. We're seeing the same thing here in the USA right now; although the total number of jobs grew this last year, the number of people seeking employment has not changed at all. That's both because job growth is only just keeping up with population growth, and because the majority of the new jobs don't pay a living wage. The best we're able to do at the moment is fight a holding action, only we're doing nothing to improve the situation in the future, so that's the same as losing the war.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:15M by gtall · · Score: 1

      I guess being a world renown logician don't mean you can reason. For how long are the now half idled pinmakers to be kept on the company payroll? Is the total number of pinmakers static over time neglecting that economies shift over time? Suppose a new company is formed to make pins and starts producing pins with half the workforce, so their pins are cheaper and the first company goes out of business.

      This reminds me of the philosophers and Deep Thought when Deep Thought tells them they could have the lifestyle of their dreams by becoming more or less sales-droids for Deep Thought during the run up to his solution to the question of life, the universe, and everything. One turns to the other and says, how come we don't reason like that.

    7. Re:15M by gnupun · · Score: 1

      It's infinite greed. The capitalists are pocketing all the profits from technological innovations. The workers get the same cost-of-living wages + bonus based on skill scarcity/education.

      A simple example: Amazon uses cheap, massive warehouses instead of small, expensive bookstores in downtown. Amazon replaces tens of thousands of salespeople with a website that costs millions of times less. Yet your BN brick-n-mortar bookstore sells a book at the same price as amazon.com. Don't you think Amazon is making a huge profit from automation (website) and cheap real estate here? And the profit disappears ... amazon hasn't even paid taxes since they've been operating at a loss for 15 years.

    8. Re:15M by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      The new jobs aren't paying a living wage because they're not required to, whether by law or market.

      Without employment laws, minimum wage in the US would resemble minimum wage in the far East.

    9. Re:15M by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      This is because you can't just hand off knowledge from one person to another in zero time. If you're assembling widgets according to a set of instructions, then you can work 3 hours day, then the next person can take over basically instantly where you left off. Or you can work 2 days a week and you don't lose any productivity by having other people working the other days of the week.

      If you're doing something that requires more high level thinking, like computer programming, designing a skyscraper, or trying to develop a new chemical compound, you can't just have somebody take over on the days you are off. Working 2 days a week instead of 5 days a week just means that it will take 2.5 times as long to get stuff done. Possibly more because the it will take longer to recall what your were doing when the last time you worked on it was a few days ago vs 16 hours ago. Also trying to coordinate and work with other people would be quite difficult as many people would have preference for different days.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    10. Re:15M by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Yet your BN brick-n-mortar bookstore sells a book at the same price as amazon.com.

      Not to take away from the rest of your post, but have you been to a Barnes and Noble in the last few years? They do not sell books at the same price as Amazon. They do not even sell books at the same price as their own website! If you go to bn.com, you will find that they match amazon.com or get close. But if you go into a store, you will find a much higher price.

      I actually go to Barnes and Noble a lot (magazines, cafe, kids section with my toddler) and check on this sort of thing once in a while since I ran into 10+ years ago. It hasn't changed.

    11. Re:15M by khallow · · Score: 1

      Sounds like Russell never heard of Jevons paradox. When you increase the efficiency of using or consuming a resource like labor, you increase the demand for that resource.

      And Russell never thought about the overhead of employing people (for example, training costs). It is not sensible to employ two people to do the work of one person.

      Finally, what happens to the unemployed half? They find new work that exists merely because there were people available to do it.

    12. Re:15M by quietwalker · · Score: 1

      They've been saying this since the origin of the Luddites in the early 1800's!

      Technology is a force multiplier. It allows one person to perform the work of many. Historically, instead of increasing unemployment, it's done the opposite - creating larger numbers of jobs, especially in positions that can't exist without a large-scale economy technology provides. The ability to make a shirt via a machine, thousands of times faster than by hand necessitates buildings for the machines, a distributed sales force, logistical concerns like transport and storage, advertising, etc. Each technological advance may reduce the number of employees in that explicit role, but increases the total number of jobs, the total hours of work required by an order of magnitude or better.

      However, there's a limit. We haven't reached it yet, but it's there, looming in the distant future. At some point, we will reach peak technological assistance. Everything that can reasonably be automated will be. We'll literally have no need for all the people in the world to be working, much less the ability to employ them all.

      Automated tellers at fast food joints is not the limit, by the by. I'm guessing we're still hundreds of years away.

      The hard part isn't getting there though. The trick is going to be how we handle the runup to this post-scarcity world. At some point in the interim, we'll still consider money to have a direct relationship to work done via services and goods, and thus be necessary for comfortable living, but a significant minority will be unemployed and poor.

      That 15 hour day you're referencing, that's going to be like the end times. It means either we have a revolution and start all over, or we jump the hurdle and enter into some sort of Star Trek-like world where we just accept that not everyone should work as a condition of having a comfortable life.

      Personally, I don't see it happening in a positive way. The average human just isn't wired to be altruistic, and it's about the furthest from what our governments are set up to give us.

    13. Re: 15M by MarkH · · Score: 1

      Brilliant essay thanks for link and summary

    14. Re:15M by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      only we're doing nothing to improve the situation in the future, so that's the same as losing the war.

      This "war" can never be won because people who reason like you keep shifting the goalposts. What you're asking for is not that people are better off year after year (which they are), but that magically everybody ends up with an above average income and standard of living, and that is mathematically impossible.

      Yes, but it's still a race to the bottom, because of the jobs which were created, more of them were unskilled

      Quite the opposite: automation increases the demand for skilled jobs.

      We're seeing the same thing here in the USA right now; although the total number of jobs grew this last year, the number of people seeking employment has not changed at all.

      Well, yes. And what policies did the US government pursue during that time? Increases in mandatory benefits, increases in minimum wage, massive stimulus and job creation programs, and massive increases in regulation. And instead of admitting that those don't work, you demand even more of the same.

    15. Re:15M by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      Finally, what happens to the unemployed half? They find new work that exists merely because there were people available to do it.

      If you're suddenly made redundant, a new job does not magically pop up elsewhere to accomodate you. The vast majority of people can not create jobs for themselves.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    16. Re:15M by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      The average human just isn't wired to be altruistic

      Speak for yourself.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    17. Re:15M by khallow · · Score: 1

      If you're suddenly made redundant, a new job does not magically pop up elsewhere to accomodate you. The vast majority of people can not create jobs for themselves.

      The mechanics may be slightly different than you say, but the outcome is the same.

    18. Re:15M by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Except that people are no longer "better off year after year." Even for those who work, many are already over-qualified, so sending them back to school for more education (and more debt) is not the solution.

      The research found the country's overqualification rate among university grads aged 25 to 34 climbed to 40 per cent last year, up from about 32 per cent in 1991. In 2014, there were 582,000 people in the overqualified category, 795,000 identified as "rightfully qualified" and 77,000 unemployed, the study said.

      Over the same period, the analysis showed the proportion of grads employed in positions that matched their credentials decreased to 55 per cent from 62 per cent.

      The numbers also reveal something else interesting. While recent grads are doing better, as they age they fall into the over-qualified bracket. This is what happens when you have year after year of increasing "grade inflation." The younger you are, the more your education has been inflated, so older people who had the same education with less grade inflation are now over-qualified, in part because many jobs are being dumbed down through the years.

      So why should an employer hire someone who is, in fact, more educated because they are older (even though they have the same degree) when they can get by with paying less for someone younger?

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    19. Re:15M by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      Even for those who work, many are already over-qualified [...] So why should an employer hire someone who is, in fact, more educated because they are older (even though they have the same degree) when they can get by with paying less for someone younger?

      If you have a university degree and work as a plumber or secretary, not only do you have a worthless degree and wasted four years of your life, you are also underqualified for your job because you actually know next to nothing about the job you're actually doing. In fact, other than university teaching, there are few jobs that a university degree qualifies you for.

      The irony is that first Canadian (and to a lesser degree, US politicians) spend billions supporting worthless degrees that nobody in their right mind would or could pay for themselves, and then whine and complain when people with these useless degrees can't find jobs.

    20. Re:15M by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      "Get a PhD, drive for Uber." People stay in university to get a master's because they can't find a job with a bachelor's. Then they take advanced studies because they can't find a job with a master's. Their debt load keeps rising, and all the while there's more of a risk that circumstances will make their degree worth less (offshoring, automation, industrial collapse in their chosen field, etc).

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    21. Re:15M by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Children entering the work force as adults is only a small part of why the unemployment rate hasnt changed much while we've seen a good amount of job growth (our country's population growth is at less then 1% after all and job growth has been big enough to accommodate more than that). The primary reason is because of how we measure unemployment in this country. Here's the deffinition that we use,

      "Unemployment is defined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) as people who do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the past four weeks, and are currently available for work."

      All of the hundreds of thousands of people who got discouraged and stopped looking for work during the recession are entering back into the job market now. It's something quite a few pundits have been talking about for a while with them suggesting that the "real unemployment rate" was really much higher then figures suggested during the recession.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    22. Re:15M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Without employment laws, minimum wage in the US would resemble minimum wage in the far East.

      Growing about 14% a year? Gosh, that sounds awful.

    23. Re:15M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The quality and efficiency of the machines grows faster than the creation of new kinds of employments and of people ability to get retrained
      eventually the lines between the growth of even more capable automatics and the amount of employment available will cross and we wont be able to catch up
      It may take 30 years or one hundred but... Vicky the logic is undeniable
      All in the name of efficiency and competition

    24. Re:15M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The average human just isn't wired to be altruistic

      Speak for yourself.

      Not if you don't pay me.

    25. Re:15M by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Traditionally, a bachelor's degree was a ticket to a good job. It wasn't considered worthless by any means. Why do you claim it's worthless now?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    26. Re:15M by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Unemployment isn't well measured. It's easy to count people on unemployment insurance, but as people get to the end of their unemployment they tend to fall off the statistics. During a period of high employment, the posted unemployment rate is probably fairly accurate, and the same is true for maybe six months after a downturn starts. After a period of unemployment and underemployment, it can become pretty bogus.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    27. Re:15M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Without employment laws, minimum wage in the US would resemble minimum wage in the far East.

      Yea, but to be fair; the amount of food, clothing and basic necessities a minimum wage workers could buy would be the same as it is now. Actually they would be cheaper, as there would be less production shortages.

      Have you been to SE Asia? These people aren't exactly struggling; they are striving on what seems like dirt poor wages in the US.

      Remember the labour that supplies all the basic necessities in the west is the same minimum wage labor pool that depends on those necessities. Raise or lower the minimum wage and (assuming they don't just earn the same and their purchasing power goes up) and the costs of those basic goods goes up and down by the same amount.

    28. Re:15M by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      People stay in university to get a master's because they can't find a job with a bachelor's

      Actually, unemployment rates still decrease on average with length of education, so if you can't get a job with your bachelor's degree, you really just made a lousy choice when it comes to your major. Engineering majors have significantly below average unemployment, while social sciences, philosophy, and art majors have far above average unemployment. For people who aren't smart enough to get a good university degree, there are plenty of good and in-demand blue collar jobs: electricians, pipe fitters, petroleum workers, carpenters, etc. They provide good career paths and solid earnings.

      Their debt load keeps rising, and all the while there's more of a risk that circumstances will make their degree worth less (offshoring, automation, industrial collapse in their chosen field, etc).

      Well, they have chosen the wrong field, and on top of that they are making bad financial choices by getting even more useless education. How is that anybody's problem but their own? Did anybody put a gun to their head and force them to get a useless degree in journalism or social studies?

    29. Re:15M by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      I don't disagree. I just think that the education system needs some sort of "truth in advertising" and "full disclosure" regulations, so people can be helped to avoid going into debt for decades because "it sounded good."

      These bad choices affect society in several ways. Higher debt levels mean less discretionary consumer spending. Demand for useless courses keeps their prices higher than they would be otherwise, resulting in more debt that doesn't generate a return.

      Also, petroleum workers isn't that much of an in demand job right now. Lots of layoffs in the oilpatch.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    30. Re:15M by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      I don't disagree. I just think that the education system needs some sort of "truth in advertising" and "full disclosure" regulations, so people can be helped to avoid going into debt for decades because "it sounded good."

      There is tons of information available and has been for decades. I changed my college major out of economic considerations. I think nobody can complain that they can't get the information they need in order to pick a college major that lets them make a good living afterwards.

      These bad choices affect society in several ways. Higher debt levels mean less discretionary consumer spending

      There really is no student loan crisis (at least in the US, I can't speak for Canada). Two thirds of US graduates have no student loan debt at all. Only 4% of graduates have student loan debts above $36000 (about the average price of a new car), and those are mostly doctors, lawyers, and MBAs. Most students spend only a few percent of their income on student loan debt repayments.

      The only people who are in trouble are those who went to an expensive private school on a student loan and then picked a bad major, like journalism. Of course, those people are also the kind who have the shrillest voice and are driving this insane talk of a "crisis".

      Also, petroleum workers isn't that much of an in demand job right now. Lots of layoffs in the oilpatch.

      I think their unemployment rate is still fairly low, and they can take jobs internationally as well. Given the political uncertainty surrounding AGW, though, it's probably not a good career choice.

    31. Re:15M by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      What you're asking for is not that people are better off year after year (which they are),

      No. Which the median person hasn't been since the 1950s. Worker compensation has been on a downward trend since, in real dollars.

      Quite the opposite: automation increases the demand for skilled jobs.

      Automation eliminates many skilled jobs, and replaces them either with cud-chewing assembly line jobs, or with nothing because the jobs are simply no longer required, or perhaps one or two skilled jobs maintaining the machines. And those aren't necessarily highly skilled jobs, either. More and more it's just a monkey swapping modules when something goes wrong.

      And what policies did the US government pursue during that time? Increases in mandatory benefits, increases in minimum wage,

      The minimum wage has not kept up with inflation in over twenty years. Don't talk shit about increases in minimum wage, you'll only look like a massive idiot.

      massive stimulus and job creation programs

      Where? All I've seen is bailouts and handouts. Where are these job creation programs?

      and massive increases in regulation.

      A problem everywhere in the world.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    32. Re:15M by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      No. Which the median person hasn't been since the 1950s. Worker compensation has been on a downward trend since, in real dollars.

      Not only is that the wrong number to look at, it's not even true. Hourly wages rose significantly between 1947 and 1972 and then largely stagnated (they are slightly higher now than in 1972). They haven't been on a "downward trend". But that is the wrong number to look at anyway, since being "better off" doesn't just mean that your wages go up, it means what kinds of goods and services people can afford. Car ownership has steadily increased, average home sizes have been increasing, people have much better medical care, life expectancy has increased, the percentage of college graduates in the population has gone from 10% to 30%, etc.

      Automation eliminates many skilled jobs, and replaces them either with cud-chewing assembly line jobs, or with nothing because the jobs are simply no longer required, or perhaps one or two skilled jobs maintaining the machines. And those aren't necessarily highly skilled jobs, either.

      Probably 80-90% of jobs that existed 50 years ago have been replaced with automation by now, yet labor force participation rate has increased, not decreased, as your Luddite reasoning suggests. At the same time, automation has increased worker productivity greatly while not increasing wages, which is one reason why we are better off today: people can buy more and better stuff for less.

      The minimum wage has not kept up with inflation in over twenty years. Don't talk shit about increases in minimum wage, you'll only look like a massive idiot.

      You need to read more carefully: I said the administration pursued increases in minimum wage (he actually raised it for federal contractors). It shows how economically incompetent the administration is.

      Where? All I've seen is bailouts and handouts. Where are these job creation programs?

      Well, the Obama administration claims that its bailouts and handouts are job creation programs. Again, it's a sign of either duplicity or economic incompetence on the part of the administration. In fact, the government cannot "create jobs" at all, and any "job creation" program is automatically a fraud.

  3. This is a good thing. by Avarist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's what a lot of people don't understand. 15 million people not having to do tedious mindnumbing work that can be replaced by a machine is a GOOD thing. The fact that this is seen as bad news is proof of our disfunctional society and economical model. The day basic income comes in together with a reform of our economy, is the day automation will truely be embraced as it should.

    --
    In Capitalist US, the commerce controls the Government.
    1. Re:This is a good thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you like fries with that?
      'Checkout number 3 please!'

      Since most of the populous doesn't have any useful skill, these dead end types of jobs may be mindnumbing, but at least it's paying them wages.

      All those people on 4h or 0h contracts will need something to do. Tell us, what?

    2. Re:This is a good thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people need tedious mindnumbing work. My sister-in-law has a partial disability caused by a brain tumour, her work (though tedious and mindnumbing) means everything to her. Having a wage keeps her independant. It is quite possible that her work could be automated in the near future. It will be devasting for her and will put pressure on our family. Despite many low income jobs can be automated, these people do not have and will never have the skills to move on.

      Tedious mindnumbing work that can be replaced by a machine is NOT a GOOD thing.
      To think otherwise is an arrogant perspective of healthy, educated, flexible and self-absorbed individuals.

    3. Re:This is a good thing. by wierd_w · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I doubt basic income will ever be instituted, except via close range threat of shotgun blast. (and then only a maybe.)

      What most ideologues of the basic income seem unable (or unwilling) to grasp, is that service and goods providers do not service or provide from the goodness of their hearts. They do it for profit. In order for a basic income to work, then a very large tax must be levied against these agencies, as they are going to be the ones with all the capital. (It makes precisely zero sense to bill the general public, since a good portion will be getting said basic income-- That would just be absurd. At best, the money just moves around, and in the real world, money will be lost from the system over time. To make this workable, the bill has to come from outside the pool being subsidized. That just leaves banks (who create money at will using the fractional reserve system) and for profit businesses who engage in for profit enterprise; especially those that conduct business internationally.) This means that the tax system has to be seriously overhauled for anything like this to work, and the people who would need to be on board to make it happen would be openly opposed to it (because they would be voting against their own profiteering.)

      The only way I see this ever gaining traction, is when there is simply no alternative-- The economy is so unhealthy from the loss of liquidity in the general public's financial engine, that there is simply no hope for future business growth without it. That wont happen unless the entire planet suffers such a financial crisis, since as-is, large actors can leverage different local economies and give a big fat "fuck you" to others, and thus continue being profitable. (See for instance, the H1B fiasco, or just outsourcing IT to India in general.)

      If you think the word "Wellfare" is tainted now in conservative political circles, just wait until something like THAT comes to bear. I would expect tax dodging to take on epic new extremes, even greater than the infamous "Double Irish" trick, as these actors all scramble to avoid being the ones having to finance the growth of all other actors. (Since the one that finances the least, gains all the benefits of the revitalized economy, without as much of the cost, and thus is most poised for market dominance. As such, NONE of them will be willing benefactors.)

      Given the degree that big business already controls world government (Shit, just look at how fucked up the MPAA and RIAA make things, just by themselves.), I think a functional basic income is about as realistic a prospect as expecting Jesus/God to suddenly appear tomorrow.

      It would definitely be nice; the problem is, when you are dealing with greedy fuckholes, you cant have nice things.

    4. Re:This is a good thing. by pacman+on+prozac · · Score: 0

      Go and get themselves a useful skill.

      The same thing they should have done in the first place rather than dropping out of school and expecting life to owe them a living.

      It is a bit harsh and probably not workable in absolute, but I agree with Avarist this is a real sign of how disfunctional society has become.

    5. Re:This is a good thing. by EmeraldBot · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That's what a lot of people don't understand. 15 million people not having to do tedious mindnumbing work that can be replaced by a machine is a GOOD thing. The fact that this is seen as bad news is proof of our disfunctional society and economical model. The day basic income comes in together with a reform of our economy, is the day automation will truely be embraced as it should.

      Here's the problem though; to pay for basic income, everyon e has to earn less. Are you willing to settle with getting nothing but a 4th of your salary? Are you willing to forfeit all profits you could ever make in a business so that you could feed someone else? That's exactly what it would take to maintain basic income, to redistribute wealth evenly. I like the idea of everyone earning a set amount and then working for more, but then the system breaks down, because nobody wants to contribute back. The truth is that the majority of people want to keep their own success, and if anyone who's ever lived a life in poverty were offered a life as a millionaire, there is absolutely no way they would give that life up for their previous one.

      Everyone wants to be a millionaire, but society can't support that. In destroying any opening for the poor people, you ruin million's of other people's lives so that the ones at the top earn a little bit more, yet paradoxically state that a functional society is one where everybody earns the same. You can't have both; you either employ the poor, or you have 99% in poverty.

      --
      "Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
    6. Re:This is a good thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Piss off with that rhetoric. There simply aren't enough jobs for graduates as it is now. Intelligent people with firsts in physics, maths and engineering are apply for the same shitty jobs as those that struggled to get 3 low grade GCSEs. The population is exploding, the older people are not retiring, so where are all these fucking jobs then Mr Dail Mail reader? Fucking twat.

    7. Re:This is a good thing. by gsslay · · Score: 1

      15 million people are free to do the more interesting, or entirely new, jobs that don't get done currently! This is no different from any change through history. For example, because we don't need an army of agricultural workers harvesting the crops, people can earn a living doing things undreamed of 150 years ago.

      Undoubtedly, as with all change, there will be a period while things readjust. It's just up to us to ensure the adjustment is for the better. If we go into this fixed on the negatives, with no idea where to find the positives, then of course it's not going to go well.

    8. Re:This is a good thing. by wierd_w · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It takes more than just free time to obtain (and retain!) a profitable job skill, especially when the eligible pool is being continually eroded.

      It takes money, and aggressive ambition.

      Ultimately, only the most ruthless of the wealthy will be able to afford the training and education to claim a profitable job skill, under this kind of pressure.

      Your suggestion is not workable. The option for people to simply consume HAS to remain on the table, simply because it will ultimately become the ONLY choice, especially as automation further encroaches, and completely eclipses all human labor roles. The alternative is a non-economy, where nobody has money.

      To circumvent this problem, you need to pick one of the following 3 solutions.

      1) forbid automation preemptively, citing that it erodes human employ-ability, and thus total human economic activity. (Enjoy your 19th century standard of living!)

      2) Embrace automation fully, and give up profit-motive as the driving goal of human endeavor. (Yay, startrek)

      3) Accept that automation will ultimately result in a market that cannot stand on its own, and introduce a basic income, supported through currency inflation from the government coupled with taxation of agencies and individuals exceeding the basic income per anum. (OMG, the commies won!)

      Those are literally the only three viable solutions.

    9. Re:This is a good thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While it is true that upskilling is a good thing that comes with automation, what about all those who can't upskill? The benefits of automation would go to the capitalist and you'd have to tax them to redistribute that income downwards and that is not very likely to happen to any useful degree (for those out of work due to automation, that is).

    10. Re:This is a good thing. by wierd_w · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The thing is-- Machines are getting to be better at *ALL* human endeavors, including theoretical future ones.

      Already, machines are getting to be quite good at "creative" tasks, for instance.

      This opinion bases itself on the (faulty) notion that there will always be a valid career path in the future for humans to grab on too. Eventually, in the face of perfect automation, there will simply be no task where employing humans is either efficient or profitable.

    11. Re:This is a good thing. by Zuriel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Go and get skills" is decent advice to give to an individual, but it doesn't work society-wide.

      Where are we going to get 80 million new skilled jobs for all those newly skilled unemployed people?

    12. Re:This is a good thing. by swb · · Score: 2

      Milton Friedman advocated for a form of basic income, the negative income tax.

      I think such a systems sounds interesting. One argument in favor of it is that it would replace the complex bureaucracies collectively called "welfare" and the inefficiencies surrounding them (complex means tests, restrictive, inefficient markets in which benefits can be used, such as "low income" housing, food stamps, etc).

      Most seem to posit a progressive tax on income that doesn't negate all earned income below the basic income level. Ie, if the basic income is $30k a year, and you had a job that paid $15k a year, you'd pay $7500k in income tax, in the form a of a reduction of the basic income subsidy. This forms an incentive to work -- even low paid work -- since even that work accounts for an increase in total income.

      I think it's doubtful it could be accomplished without raising taxes on high earners and corporations, but there's plenty of people who would advocate that rates are too low now.

    13. Re:This is a good thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, unless surviving depends on that mind-numbing work. Now, I'll grant you that by itself is a sign of a sick society run by sociopaths, but it's those same sociopaths who are going to buy the smart machines in the first place.

      If we can deal with the problem of sociopaths running our economy and our society, then smart machines will be just fine. Actually, if we can deal with that problem, we don't really need the smart machines anyway.

    14. Re:This is a good thing. by DigiShaman · · Score: 2

      It's also a good thing that billions of people aren't needed in the work-force, but you can't deny them an opportunity for a high standard of living if the majority of people are outclassed by machines. So I see a few scenarios that will play out. 1; Those that aren't needed will be deemed no longer relevant and thus perpetually live in poverty. 2; War erupts and the "undesirables" are directed to kill each other off. 3;purposeful genocide of the "undesirable" (aka Nazi like movement). 4; Everyone enjoys a livable wage, but with strings attached via the government. And my personal optimistic favorite 5; We don't work for those that control the machines, rathe they become so commoditized that every family and community has access to machines that work for them. Everyone can live in the country and be self-sufficient with a high quality of life and luxury.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    15. Re:This is a good thing. by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      to pay for basic income, everyone has to earn less

      I don't think that's accurate. Productivity since the 70s has doubled, but real-terms wages have been stagnant. In the last 3 decades, the top 0.1% of Americans have doubled their wealth. It's obvious that improved technology can maintain the same lifestyle for the same number of people but with the labour of fewer people - the maintenance of employment levels has mostly been due to the improvement of that basic lifestyle (smartphones, better medical technology, etc) providing jobs for displaced farm workers etc. The system we have encourages spending the extra productivity of technology and economic growth on an expanded lifestyle, but it could be diverted instead to providing a basic lifestyle without requiring extra labour.

      I like the idea of everyone earning a set amount and then working for more, but then the system breaks down, because nobody wants to contribute back.

      In the trials of Basic Income that have been done so far, the total amount of work drops about 4%, mostly accounted for by teenage students studying instead of working to support their family, and mothers looking after their kids. The local economy grows.

      The truth is that the majority of people want to keep their own success

      Is it entirely their own?

      "forget all that rhetoric about how America is great because of people like you and me and Steve Jobs. You know the truth even if you won’t admit it: If any of us had been born in Somalia or the Congo, all we’d be is some guy standing barefoot next to a dirt road selling fruit"

      - Nick Hanauer (self-described billionaire plutocrat)

      The wealth that a few accumulate is based on the labour, and custom, of the many. It depends on a working society. If your society collapses because people can't afford to eat, then you're just a guy with a nice house fending off the starving hordes with a shotgun. And your delivery of fresh organic produce isn't coming this week.

      Basic Income isn't about redistributing wealth evenly ; it's about making sure that no-one starves, and yes, it's also about making sure that the businesses of today have customers tomorrow. The Citigroup Plutonomy Report aside, not everyone can make a living making gold-plated iPhones and giant yachts.

    16. Re:This is a good thing. by notequinoxe · · Score: 2

      Piss off with that rhetoric. There simply aren't enough jobs for graduates as it is now. Intelligent people with firsts in physics, maths and engineering are apply for the same shitty jobs as those that struggled to get 3 low grade GCSEs. The population is exploding, the older people are not retiring, so where are all these fucking jobs then Mr Dail Mail reader? Fucking twat.

      Don't bother. He's either living in a bubble and has no idea how the real world works (he'll get mugged by a few of those unemployed 15 million), or just ill-willed.

    17. Re:This is a good thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Already, machines are getting to be quite good at "creative" tasks, for instance."

      True, but that's because most modern creative tasks are formulaic and very weak creatively. Top 40 songs, advertising artwork and graphic design, is all very cyclical and repetitive, despite what the fuckwad in the turtleneck is telling you.

    18. Re:This is a good thing. by Ozoner · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > Here's the problem though; to pay for basic income, everyone has to earn less.

      Actually, no.

      Up to now the increase profits from automation have gone to the Super Rich. There has been massive transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class.

      To fund "basic income", taxation has to be made fairer so that more profits stay with the people.

      Probably won't happen in America though. Not till after the mass riots.

    19. Re: This is a good thing. by f.l.nessuno · · Score: 1

      The negative income tax is an interesting idea, but I argue that ultimately that tax structure is unnecessary since people will *always* want to consume more, so the incentive to be productive in whatever endeavor is most profitable for the individual will always exist. The difference is, with a basic income, individuals will actually be free to find their most productive endeavor, since the threat of grinding poverty is gone. That's sort of the case in Norway, where they have a markedly higher number of individuals starting businesses than other industrialized nations. I also am not convinced that income or corporate taxes would have to be increased. As controversial as the idea is, levying steep taxes on the wealth of the dead actually makes a lot of sense. It's the least intrusive and disruptive to the working economy at large, far less than income or sales taxes. And despite what critics contend, I doubt that older wealth holders will simply burn through their cash because they don't know when they will die, so there is always incentive for them to keep wealth. But even more fundamentally, I think the result is a purer form of capitalism, because in a capitalistic economy wealth should flow along vectors of productivity, not lineage.

    20. Re:This is a good thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > That's what a lot of people don't understand. 15 million people not having to do tedious mindnumbing work [...] is a GOOD thing.

      Taken face value, yes. But in a society which values a "productive" job above all, this is deadly. We need a new framework for a post-work society and we are going in the wrong direction.

    21. Re:This is a good thing. by david_bonn · · Score: 1

      It isn't always necessarily tedious and mind-numbing work that can be easily automated.

      I can think of two obvious examples of high-skill jobs that are being automated as we speak. One is document discovery in the law profession, formerly done by lawyers and paralegals and now much more often done by software. Another is interpretation of X-rays and other medical images done by doctors.

      On the other side, it will be a very long time before we have a robot who can clean an occupied hotel room.

      The challenge is that the increasing automation is likely to happen so damned fast that it is unlikely new jobs and new classes of jobs are going to appear quickly enough to make sure people can still pay their mortgages.

    22. Re:This is a good thing. by coastwalker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the US had the same income distribution it had in 1979, each family in the bottom 80% of the income distribution would have $11,000 more per year in income on average, or $916 per month. Half of the U.S. population lives in poverty or is low-income, according to U.S. Census data.

      Sadly the 0.1% have taken all the wealth generated by economic growth since 1970 and fooled the rest of the population into believing that this is what they deserve. Remember all that relentless Fox News propaganda is paid for by those who think that this is justified.

      If 80 million US jobs are destroyed by automation then they will all starve according to the current socioeconomic model of the U.S. You may want to remember that the next time you engage in a political debate.

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
    23. Re:This is a good thing. by sjames · · Score: 1

      Agreed. We must stop snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. If our economic model doesn't server our entire society, it must be changed. If instead we void the social contract and toss "surplus" workers out of our society, they have no choice but to form their own and take over (by force if necessary). The latter seems like a bad choice.

    24. Re:This is a good thing. by orasio · · Score: 2

      3 is just an implementation of 2, maybe flawed.

      In any case, it's easy to understand that there _will_ come a time where money stops being the center of our lives, and we produce enough stuff for everyone without having everyone work 40+ hours a week.

      The question is _when_, and _how_ that change happens. Marx thought it would happen soon. The commies thought it was possible a century ago. Looks like they were wrong in that, also in their methods. They also thought they knew what people wanted, looks like they were mostly wrong. We still need to see what happens with China's version.

      The lukewarm socialist think that the welfare state is going to grow until everything is taken care of by the state. Has it problems, but might work. Basic income is one of the big steps in that direction, and one of the easiest measures to implement.

      Right wing people seem to just think that economy, both physical and virtual, is going to keep growing forever, and that scarcity will fuel its growth forever. If there comes a time that that no longer happens, there's no plan, and they probably hope to be already dead by then.

    25. Re:This is a good thing. by sjames · · Score: 1

      And what said greedy fuckholes don't understand is that they are outnumbered and out gunned. Once they force enough people into a shadow society (we have them now, they're called "gangs"), they will be invaded from the inside.

      The people advocating for the Basic Income or other potential solutions are just trying to head off what could be a very ugly period in our future history.

    26. Re: This is a good thing. by swb · · Score: 1

      levying steep taxes on the wealth of the dead actually makes a lot of sense. It's the least intrusive and disruptive to the working economy at large, far less than income or sales taxes.

      I think this gets tricky. I would bet that a significant chunk of inheritable wealth is tied up in working investments now, whether they're small business assets, family farms or blue chip securities. Taxing them essentially liquidates those investments, negating the capital productivity (although arguably it could be thought of as just shifting the capital to public good investments instead of private investments).

      But even more fundamentally, I think the result is a purer form of capitalism, because in a capitalistic economy wealth should flow along vectors of productivity, not lineage.

      I agree with this, but mostly because there's a non-financial goal achieved -- limiting the growth of an aristocracy, which has important implications for democracy.

      But if the goal is achieving capital productivity, I would argue for something like steep taxes on excess cash holdings by corporations. According to the Fed, non-financial corporations hold something in excess of 2 trillion in cash and cash-like liquid investments, which is probably closer to 3 trillion if you take into account financial corporation cash holdings used to guarantee liquidity for short-term cash-alternative investments. A high marginal tax rate on cash hoarding would force companies to find useful work for this cash, such as R&D investment.

    27. Re:This is a good thing. by delt0r · · Score: 1

      Yea why just the other day i was laid off because well they have this new machine that programs itself to do what ever you want it to do. Err but you do have to lern a formal problem specification language to use it.

      Sheesh, its the god dam luddites all over again.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    28. Re:This is a good thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You appear to omit the most painful and the most probable option: the surplus workforce is disposed of in some manner, be it mild - propaganda of drugs and child-free culture - or harsh, like conflict, constructed plagues or starvation.

    29. Re:This is a good thing. by r0kk3rz · · Score: 1

      I like the idea of everyone earning a set amount and then working for more, but then the system breaks down, because nobody wants to contribute back.

      There are more rewards than money.

      Those who don't contribute will be considered leeches just like they are today. Normal societal pressures will still remain, being part of the group, being a good citizen, and contributing to society are part of that. Many people already donate their time and effort to running community groups and clubs for free to improve their social standing, rather than monetary gain.

      People already change the way they act in response to societal pressures to conform, and so long as the rewards for working are good enough then people will want to contribute. Mincome isn't about everyone living like kings, its about removing the bottom end off poverty, and allowing people to enter into working arrangements that benefit them, rather than being forced to take a bad job that exploits them because without it they cant afford to live.

      Everyone wants to be a millionaire, but society can't support that.

      Some people want that, some others seem reasonably content to live a comfortable life with their family, or just want to pursue their passions whatever they may be.

    30. Re:This is a good thing. by stdarg · · Score: 1

      If your society collapses because people can't afford to eat, then you're just a guy with a nice house fending off the starving hordes with a shotgun. And your delivery of fresh organic produce isn't coming this week.

      Well now that depends. Fresh organic produce can be delivered by drone. Can the starving hordes take out a drone? Not at altitude, and especially not if there have been a few more decades of encroaching gun/weapon control. As for the lonely homeowner with a shotgun, keep in mind guns can and will be automated (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...)

      That said, I think that dystopian vision is pretty unlikely. The reality is that people are social creatures and therefore other people have innate value to us. I mean look at how much money our society already spends on professional and college sports.

    31. Re:This is a good thing. by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 2

      On some level, basic income is an attempt to maintain the current market driven setup of the economy beyond the point where general human labor has any appreciable value. Right now, your income (ability to consume) is dependent on the value of the work you do (or the property/etc you own, if you are so privileged). As that breaks down, so do the markets that your demand drives. Could Walmart/etc survive losing 20% of its current customers? At best, it would be a massive economic contraction, of that sort that risks feeding on itself (businesses fail/stores close due to lack of demand, meaning more people out of work, meaning less people buying, meaning more businesses fail, etc). And that's ignoring the fact that starving people don't tend to go quietly.

    32. Re:This is a good thing. by afidel · · Score: 1

      Well, we still have to figure out a good way to get rid of coal fired power plants, that task alone is probably going to take a good chunk of those 80M people. If you had 80M people building windmills and solar-thermal plants you could get rid of coal worldwide in less than a generation, maybe even produce enough excess power to have everyone use a BEV. That would be a significant good to everyone on the planet and the primary reason we don't do it today is cost, but cost is just a way of measuring labor so if you have a bunch of available labor the cost should be reduced.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    33. Re:This is a good thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With more and more people winding up being unemployed for long periods of time, governments are going to have to do one of two things:

      1: Hire foreign soldiers (since domestic ones would tend not to do it), and keep constantly cracking down on insurgency when the populace is starving and has absolutely nothing to lose. Spend lots of money on a police state.

      2: Pass a basic income bill.

      There is a part of the US who would think that #1 is the solution... but it was tried before. Eastern Europe comes to mind. There are some countries that can maintain a divide with people starving... but they tend to be small nations that make their wealth internationally and can maintain control with relatively few troops. Eventually, it just couldn't sustain itself. Option #2 is anathema to a lot of people... but it is a LOT cheaper than fighting constant attempts at coups and internal instability.

      Option #2 isn't as bad as it sounds. It will get the economy circulating, which means businesses will thrive, and some costs can be obtained back via sales taxes or corporate profit taxes. It also will save money spent on jails and prisons, so even though it may not seem like it, it might be the best in the long run... and far cheaper in terms of human life and suffering than always having to crush groups of starving people with nothing to lose.

    34. Re:This is a good thing. by SomePoorSchmuck · · Score: 1

      to pay for basic income, everyone has to earn less

      I don't think that's accurate. Productivity since the 70s has doubled, but real-terms wages have been stagnant. In the last 3 decades, the top 0.1% of Americans have doubled their wealth. It's obvious that improved technology can maintain the same lifestyle for the same number of people but with the labour of fewer people - the maintenance of employment levels has mostly been due to the improvement of that basic lifestyle (smartphones, better medical technology, etc) providing jobs for displaced farm workers etc. The system we have encourages spending the extra productivity of technology and economic growth on an expanded lifestyle, but it could be diverted instead to providing a basic lifestyle without requiring extra labour.

      But as I understand it the critique of your position is that "the extra productivity of technology" came from the inventor/entrepreneur class specifically because of the profit motive -- that is, the motive to earn more profit than the other guy. And therefore when you say "it could be diverted instead to providing a basic lifestyle", you are falsifying the equation by doing an operation on one side that you're not doing to the other. You are assuming that you wipe the profit motive out of existence while still keeping the innovation and economic activity which arose from the profit motive. That innovation and economic activity doesn't exist on its own absolute terms.

      So the critique of your position is that sure, you could take the results of increased capital/production/capacity and divert it to people who didn't invent or bring to market the innovation which made it possible... one time, and maybe for a full generation if there was a previous extraordinary growth to draw from. But rather quickly human nature adapts to the new reality. Once you have removed that more-profit-than-the-other-guy motive, there is zero incentive for the remaining inventors/producers/entrepreneurs to continue to invent and produce and bring new things to market. So what happens over time is that the previous increase in productivity is spent by the redistributionists, and then the rate of increase slows dramatically without motive to drive it drives it, and then the market re-normalizes at a new level where yes everyone is closer to equal but at a lower equilibrium point.

      --

      Hollywood, Television, has become the dream machine. We need to take that back; each of us is a Dream Machine
    35. Re:This is a good thing. by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      If 80 million US jobs are destroyed by automation then they will all starve

      Now you're catching on.
      There is an advantage in how this will play out towards the 1%. This erosion of employment and the gradual thinning of the middle class is really to their benefit. If it happened all at once then there would be more of an outcry.

      As long as there are even a few crumbs falling off the table, the millions will fight over them while those sitting at the table get fatter by the day.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    36. Re:This is a good thing. by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      As much as I like the idea of a basic income, you're analysis is spot on.
      With the caustic political situation in the US especially, it will never happen, unless something(as you point out) catastrophic happens to the financial system.
      Even then though I still doubt it.

      I really think where we are going as a civilization is a sort of "culling the herd" as it were. Those that control the vast majority of wealth see the writing on the wall regarding human population, the environment, climate change and technology.
      This combination of factors is a Perfect Storm. And one that will be taken advantage of thoroughly by those that control the wealth.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    37. Re:This is a good thing. by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      Eventually an automated Solar-Thermal energy system(and PV) system will be implemented.
      Perhaps there will be a small bump in the initial build up of this infrastructure, but eventually, like everything else, the system to upgrade, monitor and maintain it(which will replace coal fired power plants) will all be automated.

      Automated as in a lessening of the number of new jobs as the technology gets more advanced.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    38. Re:This is a good thing. by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      Where are we going to get 80 million new skilled jobs for all those newly skilled unemployed people?

      Same place we got SEO optimization consultants, genetic counselors, and UX designers from: entirely new industries and technologies.

      Some of the jobs we might have in a decade are VR fashion designers, 3D food printing designers, online education coordinators, commercial drone delivery operators, nanotech cleanup, virtual prostitute. Use your imagination.

    39. Re:This is a good thing. by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      It isn't always necessarily tedious and mind-numbing work that can be easily automated.

      I can think of two obvious examples of high-skill jobs that are being automated as we speak. One is document discovery in the law profession, formerly done by lawyers and paralegals and now much more often done by software. Another is interpretation of X-rays and other medical images done by doctors.

      Everything I've heard from lawyers and paralegals about document discovery is that it is tedious and mind-numbing: the mistake you are making here is thinking that 'tedious and mind-numbing' and 'high-skill jobs' are somehow mutually exclusive. It also doesn't necessarily mean that those who are having parts of their tasks taken over by machines will not welcome it as it provides more complete results than a human is capable of doing on their own and frees up time for other activities even if it does cut into total billable hours.

    40. Re:This is a good thing. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Go and get themselves a useful skill

      If there is a serious amount of unemployment, that just means that you end up with PhDs serving burgers, and the average person has no chance of a job at all.

      And, no, they can't all be entrepreneurs and drag themselves up by their bootstraps to become billionaires.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    41. Re:This is a good thing. by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      I don't think that's accurate. Productivity since the 70s has doubled [pinimg.com], but real-terms wages have been stagnant. In the last 3 decades, the top 0.1% of Americans have ...

      The implication of this juxtaposition is that somehow real-term wages have stagnated because the money has gone to top income earners. That is patently false. To the degree that real-term wages have grown slower than they should, it's because of massive redistribution and regulation within the bottom 80% of income earners. Take a simple example: if you were to mandate that employers provide health insurance, employers would take that money out of the salaries and incomes would appear to stagnate; but the employees would still receive that money in benefits.

      Basic Income isn't about redistributing wealth evenly ; it's about making sure that no-one starves,

      We already have plenty of welfare programs insuring that.

      it's also about making sure that the businesses of today have customers tomorrow.

      And how exactly does that work?

    42. Re:This is a good thing. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I like the idea of everyone earning a set amount and then working for more, but then the system breaks down, because nobody wants to contribute back.

      They contribute back by paying tax on the money they earn above the basic income. Seems fairly obvious to me. If you want to be the next Bill Gates, go ahead. Even if you're taxed at 99% you're still going to be much richer than someone who chooses to stay at home watching TV all day.

      But at least the TV guy can feed and clothe and shelter himself.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    43. Re:This is a good thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing is-- Machines are getting to be better at *ALL* human endeavors, including theoretical future ones.

      It will be quite a while before machines will be better than humans at designing machines that are better humans. At that point, we probably don't need need to worry about being unemployed anymore, either those machines will make us do some work or just get rid of us.

    44. Re:This is a good thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They won't starve. They will eat worse but cheap food. Their housing situation will be worse. Their (if any) net worth will erode. They will be unhealthy. They will be a greater burden on Medicare and Medicaid. They will try to go onto Social Security disabilities.

    45. Re:This is a good thing. by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      I admire your utopian idea that there can be some magical transformation of our economy and/or systems of government.

      Consider however all of the productivity gains in the 19th and 20th centuries. Many similarly utopian thinkers have dreamed of a world where workers were so productive that the bulk of humanity could be relieved of grueling labor-intensive work. The naive idea being that there would be such abundance that people could work short hours to meet their needs and have ample leisure time. Thousands can now do the work that formerly required millions, so why are people working longer and harder than ever while still seeing their standard of living declining? With all of that productivity gain, why do we still have huge numbers of hungry and homeless people?

    46. Re:This is a good thing. by gsslay · · Score: 1

      At which point we don't have to worry about employment at all. Machines will do everything and I'll be spending my time doing fun stuff that no-one would ever pay me to do.

    47. Re:This is a good thing. by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

      service and goods providers do not service or provide from the goodness of their hearts. They do it for profit.

      Or in the spirit of this article, option 2 is service and goods providers are robots, top to bottom. If that's the case its possible to not program them to care about profit. Once a certain threshold of automation is passed we won't need a basic income because everything will be free anyway.

    48. Re:This is a good thing. by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      Reforming the monetary system would be the greatest economic blessing you could bestow on the wage laborer. The current monetary system is the method by which labor's share of productivity gains is stolen. People complain about the fact that wages don't keep up with price inflation. What they should be asking themselves is what causes price inflation to begin with and then complaining about that!

      In an economy that bears some semblance to a free market, innovation and competition would naturally increase the purchasing power of a given wage (or at the very least hold it constant) over time. That does not happen under the Federal Reserve system and fractional reserve banking. This steady march of constantly higher prices can be traced directly back to the inception of The Fed. They will even confess publicly that their goal is price inflation and few people seem to care. Since 1913, The Federal Reserve has transferred trillions of dollars in wealth from the poor and middle class to the ultra rich. The banking cartel is not going to give up such a profitable business without a bitter fight.

    49. Re:This is a good thing. by sjames · · Score: 1

      If we go into this fixed on the negatives, with no idea where to find the positives, then of course it's not going to go well.

      At the same time, if we don't proactively figure out how people will make a living or get this elusive new skills when they have no money (due to unemployment), we WON'T find the positives. Let them eat cake is not a solution, nor is just figuring (without evidence) that they'll find something else to make a living.

    50. Re:This is a good thing. by sjames · · Score: 1

      Don't forget: The undesirables are cast out in place to live in poverty, but since they (understandably) don't enjoy that, they kill the rich sociopaths in a bloody revolution and force society to reboot.

    51. Re:This is a good thing. by sjames · · Score: 1

      Reforming fractional reserve banking would stop the slide downwards for people who remain employed, but wouldn't grant workers the benefits of improving productivity. You'd just see people laid off (because less are needed for the same output) and then only being able to find work for less pay than they had before (because of the surplus of workers).

    52. Re:This is a good thing. by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      The only way I see this ever gaining traction, is...that there is simply no hope for future business growth without it.

      We are already seeing a lot of this. Companies are building up piles of cash and investing in real-estate, screwy dot-coms, and overseas factories instead of the normal things at home. They are NOT investing in local company growth or hiring.

      This is because consumers are not spending much because they either don't have jobs or have stagnant wages. In short, trickle down is failing. The right's "solution" is either more trickle down or deregulation. Unless we want to be a polluted 3rd-world-like sh8thole, deregulation as a solution is not an option.

      Many Asian countries will to sacrifice just about everything else to keep their population employed because unemployed masses overthrow governments. This means those governments will rig the system to steal our jobs away at almost any cost to keep their seat.

      We'll probably have to eventually experiment with taxing the rich and/or tariffs. Otherwise, we'll be overthrowing our "elites" also.

    53. Re:This is a good thing. by sjames · · Score: 1

      Exactly why we need the Basic Income unless/until we come up with a better plan.

    54. Re:This is a good thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The United States of America already has a form of basic income: EIC.

      Seriously. If you are in the right income bracket and have children, the IRS will PAY you to file taxes. Seriously. All you have to do is earn about $20k in a two-child household, you can walk away with ~$4-5k in EIC credits, child tax credits, and other . . . stuff. Now take into account that your personal deductions probably eliminate your income tax liability, and you get back everything you paid to the IRS as income tax over the course of the year.

      $20k + $5k is still pretty miserable in some parts of the US, but in lower-cost-of-living areas, that ain't too terribly bad. It's livable. Been there, done that.

      The downside is that EIC requires you to have qualifying dependent children. Those children will cost you more than the money provided to you by EIC. Also, EIC follows a bell curve when determining how much you can make off it. If you have no taxable income, it pays out a good bit less. Those earning more than $20k can make more, though their other tax liabilities may be higher, so the total earnings will decrease on that basis.

    55. Re:This is a good thing. by TheSync · · Score: 1

      People complain about the fact that wages don't keep up with price inflation.

      Except that Real Compensation Per Hour has been rising (although it had a bit of a plateau during the recession recovery years).

      In an economy that bears some semblance to a free market, innovation and competition would naturally increase the purchasing power of a given wage (or at the very least hold it constant) over time. That does not happen under the Federal Reserve system and fractional reserve banking.

      Price of 1975 Cray-1 (80 MFLOPS), $8 million.
      Price of 2015 iPhone 5s (76.8 GFLOPS), $450.

      Looking in terms of hours worked, 100.5 hours of work was required to purchase a washing machine in 1959 compared to just 23.3 hours of work (for the average worker) in 2013. Purchasing a TV demanded an astounding 127.8 hours of work in 1959, whereas a worker in 2013 could purchase one with only 20.7 hours of work (see other examples above). More examples here.
       

    56. Re:This is a good thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're almost, but not quite, correct. It hasn't been a massive transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class per se.

      The problem is that the majority of wealth that is created, goes to the "Super Rich". The poor and middle class can't or won't compete as effectively now on the open market as they did in 1970, hence the apparent disparity of income and net worth. The Super Rich didn't need to "steal" from the poor or middle class; all they had to do was shift value away from the labor of those who can not or will not spend as many hours of every day trying to find ways to make more money. All markets are more competitive now than ever, and people who can't compete are being slowly pushed out of the market entirely.

      People can argue all they like about whether or not the poor/middle class can or should be expected to improve their lot or "keep up" in the current circumstances. The recent pass tells us that they are not doing so, regardless of whether they have the capability. The wealth they are creating per individual isn't worth as much on the open market as compared to several decades ago. We should expect a continuation of that trend. Human labor suffers from declining market value.

    57. Re:This is a good thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Luddites destroyed machines. Most of what you see today are people who want to fully embrace technology. They just don't want to see all the benefits of technology fall into the hands of the few people who have equity in the companies that can actually deploy such technology. You can't wipe out everyone's jobs with superior technology and logistics and then turn around and expect the now-jobless to support themselves, especially when they're demonstrated that their best skill is doing what somebody else told them to do . . . and that's how we've been training working-class factory populations to behave for over a century!

    58. Re:This is a good thing. by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Let's take 'em one at a time.

      Some of the jobs we might have in a decade are VR fashion designers,

      Got those, in Second Life. Worldwide demand: irrelevant. Not even a blip. The new VR? Existing game artists will shift to that role without even slowing down. Prospects of expansion, not great.

      3D food printing designers,

      Not happening, since 3D printed food that qualifies for the name is largely inedible.

      online education coordinators,

      Got those. Khan Academy, et al. A half dozen people can service a hundred million, and they're contracting, not expanding.

      commercial drone delivery operators,

      Will get automated even faster than driving trucks.

      nanotech cleanup,

      Nothing to clean up, and zero ways forward on that front. Eric Drexler's vision got us as far as MEMS and has stalled out.

      virtual prostitute.

      Got those. They're called cam girls. There's already a vast oversupply.

      Use your imagination.

      I've always been told my imagination is pretty good, and I've put quite a bit of thought into this, because anybody who succeeds gets rich, and being rich looks kinda nice. And here's the thing: whatever an imaginative person thinks of at this point, starts out automated. A handful of designers and engineers create something, and the production line required to bring it to the masses does not involve mass labor. It involves machines. Similarly for new services. For anything that isn't effectively prostitution, mass communications means a handful of people can fill worldwide demand. Your examples of SEO optimization consultants and online education consultants have already demonstrated this.

      Leaving aside the question of what to do with the tens of millions who will never be qualified to be VR fashion designers and similarly creative jobs, because they have the design sensibilities of a brick, how do you employ the tens of millions who can learn, but have nothing to work on?

    59. Re:This is a good thing. by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Intelligent people with firsts in physics, maths and engineering are apply for the same shitty jobs as those that struggled to get 3 low grade GCSEs.

      Yep, we end up in IT.

    60. Re:This is a good thing. by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      It's also a good thing that billions of people aren't needed in the work-force...

      Billions of workers aren't needed, but currently billions of consumers are. Current demand for air travel, for example, seems barely enough to keep two world wide companies going which seem to be in a zero sum game and only still around and unmarked due to national interests. Remove the consumers and demand drops and there will be less demand for planes, so perhaps only one company will survive. Likewise, less flights needed, less airports, etc. At a certain point, their won't be enough demand for planes to even keep the infrastructure in place to build them any more. Many other industries are similar and without the demand and way for it to be fulfilled, the supply will disappear too. Eventually, it will be worth it to give everybody a basic income, or some other strategy for support, because not doing so will mean a drop in available technology even for the rich.

    61. Re:This is a good thing. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Thing is, we do produce enough stuff for everyone without having everyone work 40+ hours a week, if we define "enough stuff" about where we did a century ago. We don't produce enough stuff to do it by today's criteria. For example, I'd like a new laptop, but not enough to pay for it right now. If we made enough stuff for everyone, I'd just go get one.

      Maybe in 2050 we'll make enough stuff for everyone by today's standards. However, not everyone will just get something or other that's been developed after 2015.

      Some things are just not possible to make. I wouldn't mind having my house as lakeshore property, but that's limited, and the best I can do is about seven blocks to the Mississippi River.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    62. Re:This is a good thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then that machine gets replaced by another machine that doe not need any morons to operate it because is capable of self learning

      But you are right, there is no need for the machine age to became a disaster, there are economic systems that could work in a society were machines do most of the labour.
      The problem, as usual is us, the people, society is reluctant to change, the status quo refuses to release its power and as stronger and older the society the more conservative against change it is
      hence we most likely will bring suffering, war and misery to ourselves so that a younger more dynamic society can bring a new status quo
      Just like when the French and American revolutions.
      Sadly it is usually the weakest and the poorest that ends paying the highest price, and this just because the ruling class refuse to change, they value their status more than your life

    63. Re:This is a good thing. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Wages are stagnant because the upper class has gotten pretty much all of the new wealth. They typically pay a smaller proportion of their income as taxes than I do, which doesn't help. Shuffling around money in the bottom 80% doesn't result in wage stagnation.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    64. Re:This is a good thing. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      What do you have against fractional reserve banking? Do you have another idea to allow banks to pay their overhead?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    65. Re:This is a good thing. by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      Wages are stagnant because the upper class has gotten pretty much all of the new wealth.

      That simply doesn't work out numerically.

      They typically pay a smaller proportion of their income as taxes than I do,

      Sorry, but that's nonsense. In fact, the top 20% are the only ones paying a larger share of income tax than the share they receive in income. Don't take my word for it, take the CBO's data: https://www.cbo.gov/publicatio...

      Shuffling around money in the bottom 80% doesn't result in wage stagnation.

      It does if the middle class is increasingly footing the bill for benefits to low income and out of work families. It does so even more when cash wages are turned into non-cash benefits by government mandate. And both of those have been happening extensively over the last few decades. In addition, the labor force participation rate is dropping, so as families work less, they make less money; nothing sinister about that.

    66. Re:This is a good thing. by pacman+on+prozac · · Score: 1

      Far from it, I just don't believe that our only option is to become a nation of luddites.

    67. Re:This is a good thing. by orasio · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's essentially the same thing, you believe the economy will keep growing forever, because there will always be scarcity to fuel it.

      The problem with that is that you can sell only 7 billion iphones a year, and the minute you achieve that, you just can't keep growing anymore.

      The few things that are naturally scarce are not enough to fuel an economy. A small fraction of people work because they want nicer things, but most do it because they need to pay the mortgage or feed their kids. That's a large part of the economy.

    68. Re:This is a good thing. by notequinoxe · · Score: 1

      Let's presume the following... X is a coder. Let's presume the code business will/could(etc. just hypothesizing) have the same bubble dynamics like the real estate business in 2008. Suddenly, coder inflation. Now, a coder should get a useful skill, right? Problem is, he can't compete with a traditional engineer, or other technical profession (HR judges in respect to education, experience - and virtually no one hires overqualified people for menial jobs - that's fact, by the way) X is now in a position such he cannot make end's meat. Now, will X mug you in order to feed himself, or provide for his family and loved ones? Or turn to other crime? I know I would. Would you? Because if you say no, it's clear that you elude both common sense and basic logic, which makes YOU the luddite. AND/OR proves my statement that you live in a bubble.

    69. Re:This is a good thing. by pacman+on+prozac · · Score: 1

      We're not talking about a bubble suddenly bursting here and dumping 15million people onto the job market, this is a slow change that would come over decades. You can't assume the next 50 years will be the same as the last few when the country was in recession following the banking crash.

      X would go and claim Job Seekers Allowance while looking for other work and possibly retraining.

    70. Re:This is a good thing. by notequinoxe · · Score: 1

      You're not seeing the complete picture.

    71. Re:This is a good thing. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I'm in the top 20%. I'm not in the top 1%. I know what I pay for taxes. I've heard what some rich people pay for taxes.

      The CBO report is wrong. It purports to consider payroll taxes, but the bottom quintile has average before-tax income of 15,500 or 24,600, however you want to count it, and 500 in Federal taxes. At that income, the payroll taxes on 15,500 alone would be in excess of a thousand.

      Even if we only consider Federal income tax, almost all my income is from the sucker's game: I work for a living and get paid a certain amount. That's the most highly taxed income. Go up some from my income and the FICA taxes hit a cap. Go up considerably more and we start getting into people who get a lot of their income on capital gains, or at least have enough money to arrange things to owe less in taxes.

      If productivity has gone up a lot from 1980, and median family income in constant dollars has been flat, the money's going somewhere, and it isn't into my pockets.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    72. Re:This is a good thing. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I believe what? I don't follow your reasoning processes. There are going to be limits to the economy somewhere, somehow.

      The definition of "enough stuff" is critical here. In my observation, there's always neat new stuff coming out for more than I'm really willing to pay for it. This neat new stuff requires humans to design and set up, at least for now. We're not close to enough hard limits to put a cap on what amount of stuff will be considered enough in the future. We make enough to keep everybody in reasonably comfortable living quarters, with good food and clothes. That doesn't mean they'll be happy with the basics.

      We also have artificial scarcity. The reason I couldn't get Jim Butcher's latest novel for almost free is copyright law (at least, why I couldn't get it legally for free). Given an opportunity, I can read an awful lot of books. If the cost of physical production gets lower, people will still make money on copyrights and patents.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    73. Re:This is a good thing. by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      The CBO report is wrong. It purports to consider payroll taxes, but the bottom quintile has average before-tax income of 15,500 or 24,600, however you want to count it, and 500 in Federal taxes. At that income, the payroll taxes on 15,500 alone would be in excess of a thousand.

      Just because the the payroll tax at the average income would be X doesn't mean that the average payroll tax is X.

      hat's the most highly taxed income. Go up some from my income and the FICA taxes hit a cap.

      I should hope so, since FICA is for capped benefits. FICA taxes already strongly favor low income recipients.

      Go up considerably more and we start getting into people who get a lot of their income on capital gains

      First of all, capital gains are effectively corporate profits, and the effective rate on that is already higher than your income tax. In addition, there is no logical reason why capital gains should be taxed at the same or higher rate than income.

      or at least have enough money to arrange things to owe less in taxes.

      Nice theory, but not really true in practice: http://www.theatlantic.com/bus...

      If productivity has gone up a lot from 1980, and median family income in constant dollars has been flat, the money's going somewhere, and it isn't into my pockets.

      Leaving aside the question of whether that data really means what you seem to think it does, why should it go into your pockets? You are part of the top 20%, you just said so. You contribute to inequality in the US, and if you want to reduce inequality in the US and raise the median family income, the top 20% of income earners are the primary source of people who need to pay more. You aren't going to get that kind of money from "the wealthy"; they don't have enough money, and even if they did, there is no tax policy you could devise to get it from them, because the very fact that they have much more money than they need gives them nearly infinite flexibility in how to allocate it.

      I think your comments reveal what really bothers you: you are part of the top 20%, you're educated and skilled, and you look at the billionaire peddlers of soft drinks and Chinese plastic crap, and you think that the world isn't fair and that you deserve better. I understand, I'm part of the top 20% too, and I see your attitude all around me. But the world isn't fair, and attempts to make it fair by means of taxation and government intervention will hurt people like you and me even more. And such policies won't even benefit the remaining 80% of the population that they ostensibly help.

    74. Re:This is a good thing. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Payroll taxes start with the first dollar you earn, and continue for a long time. If the median income of a group is about $15K, the median payroll taxes will not be $500. It will be more like double that. I don't know what the CBO report means, but it's not quite what it says. FICA taxes hit the poor the hardest, since they're having the most trouble doing without about 15% of their income. They also get lower Social Security benefits when they do retire.

      Capital gains do not include corporate income taxes. You get capital gains by buying something, holding it for a period of time, and selling it. If I'd bought Amazon stock two years ago, I'd have a tidy profit to be taxed at capital gains rates, but Amazon doesn't actually make noticeable profits, and so pays little if any corporate income tax. Other corporations avoid taxes by shifting money around internationally. Your statement would be true if: (a) nobody invested in anything but stock (many people invest in bonds, and there's other possible investments), (b) stock value was based on corporate profit, and (c) companies all paid income tax on their profits.

      As far as the wealthy go, you give me a cite presumably saying that they can't dodge taxes, and in your next paragraph you say "...there is no tax policy you could device to get [more money] from them, because the very fact that they have much more money than they need gives them nearly infinite flexibility in how to allocate it." You're contradicting yourself: (The Atlantic article also claims to be based on IRS information, and still purports to be all taxes. That doesn't work.)

      I have enough money. I have no problem with people who earn a lot more, since they did things, generally useful things, that got them more money. If I'd wanted that kind of money, I'd have done things differently, and I like to accept responsibility for my own actions. I like my life as it is, and don't think I'd be as happy if I'd pursued money primarily. I'm fine with the government raising my taxes, because I can afford it.

      What I'm not fine with is the median family income in constant dollars staying flat while the economy booms and worker productivity goes up.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    75. Re:This is a good thing. by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      Payroll taxes start with the first dollar you earn, and continue for a long time. If the median income of a group is [blah blah blah]

      Look, that kind of reasoning amounts to a hunch that the CBO numbers might be wrong, but they are not an argument. If you seriously want to claim that the CBO numbers are wrong, I suggest you get the study and dig through it. You will most likely find that your reasoning is wrong.

      Capital gains do not include corporate income taxes.

      Correct. What I'm pointing out is that it is incorrect to look just at the capital gains rate and compare it to the income tax rate. What you need to look at is the source of the money (profits) and then the overall tax rate that is applied for either wages or investments. For investments, that is the combination of the corporate tax and the capital gains tax (in fact, it's even worse than that because capital gains also tax gains from inflation, which means that the capital gains tax alone can be arbitrarily high).

      As far as the wealthy go, you give me a cite presumably saying that they can't dodge taxes, and in your next paragraph you say "...there is no tax policy you could device to get [more money] from them, because the very fact that they have much more money than they need gives them nearly infinite flexibility in how to allocate it." You're contradicting yourself:

      I didn't use terms like "dodge"; that's a politically loaded, economically meaningless term. Legally, tax compliance in the US is high. Economically, the top 20% are the only group that pay a bigger share in income taxes than they receive in government benefits. Those are just facts, and they have nothing to do with "dodging".

      But what happens if you increase taxes, in particular on the ultra-rich, is that you don't, actually, get a significant increase in tax revenue. That's also just a simple economic fact. And the source of that isn't any kind of deception or fraud, it's simply that people make different choices: they take less money out of their businesses in profits, they create more non-profits, they buy stuff whose value is difficult to assess or track, and, in some cases, they simply emigrate.

      What I'm not fine with is the median family income in constant dollars staying flat while the economy booms and worker productivity goes up.

      Median family income grew pretty steadily from 1967 (and earlier) to 1999, from about $40k in 1967 to about $52k in 1999 (both in 2009 dollars). (It has stagnated since, but the same is true for the top 1% and top 5%, largely due to the consequences of 9/11, the recession, and poor economic policies.) But it has actually grown more than that: apart from some statistical issues with the numbers people use for these comparisons, demographics have changed, and so have mandatory government benefits. When you take that into account, growth is significantly better. Furthermore, the same pattern is true in other Western countries (Germany, Japan, France, Canada), even ones with much higher tax progressivity and lower inequality.

      But your premise that wages should some how reflect "worker productivity" is also wrong. An individual worker can produce more stuff today, but that's largely due to more efficient production methods, not to any additional effort or skill on the worker's part. The gains from such productivity rightfully go to inventors and investors, not workers.

      Still, growth in the US is less than it should be, but that's largely due to taxes that are too high and too much regulation.

    76. Re:This is a good thing. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I don't have a "hunch" that the CBO report is wrong. I can calculate as well as the next guy, I happen to know something about payroll taxes, and I can do the statistics. Without digging into it, I'd believe that it's a correct accounting of income taxes, the most progressive taxes we have, and it's really misleading to use them only. (If money is allocated in payroll for me, and it by law goes to the Federal government, I'm calling a Federal tax.) If a CBO report came out that listed the median income of a US household as $100K, would you figure it was probably right?

      The question of who should reap the benefit for increased productivity is not an economic one. It's a social, or political, or ethical, question, not an economic one. In the past, workers have benefited from increasing productivity.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    77. Re:This is a good thing. by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      Your reasoning for why the CBO report is wrong was the following:

      The CBO report is wrong. It purports to consider payroll taxes, but the bottom quintile has average before-tax income of 15,500 or 24,600, however you want to count it, and 500 in Federal taxes. At that income, the payroll taxes on 15,500 alone would be in excess of a thousand.

      If fact, it took me about a minute of reflection to figure out where that discrepancy comes from. And it took me another minute to look at the report and verify that. I'll leave it as an exercise to do the same for yourself. You just need to overcome your arrogant disregard for the facts and your prejudices and actually read the details.

      I don't have a "hunch" that the CBO report is wrong. I can calculate as well as the next guy, I happen to know something about payroll taxes, and I can do the statistics.

      No, obviously you can't, because the CBO report numbers are, in fact, reasonable and consistent, and it is your reasoning that is wrong. In different words, you're jumping to conclusions.

      The question of who should reap the benefit for increased productivity is not an economic one.

      The term "should" can mean multiple things. I am using it in the sense of "expectation": in a free market and in the presence of automation, the prediction ("should") is that higher productivity doesn't lead to higher wages. Higher productivity only leads to higher wages if the productivity in some sense is due to "better workers". That's why we saw wages climb along with productivity for a few decades and then saw things level off. And, as I mentioned before, the notion that this is due to some underhanded manipulation by "the wealthy" in the US doesn't stand up to scrutiny, because you find the same pattern in Europe.

      You seem to be using the word "should" as a value judgment, advocating social and political interference in markets to achieve an outcome in which wages increase with productivity gains. If used as the basis for government policies, it has serious negative economic and social consequences. While you may say that you don't care about that, that is something economics does predict. We know that both from economic theory, and because such preferences and values were the cornerstones of socialist, communist, and fascist economics and they have never worked well in practice.

  4. 15M jobs is 50% by darthsilun · · Score: 2

    UK population is 64M.
    The UK workforce is 30M[1]
    You're trying to tell us that half of all jobs in the UK can be replaced by "smart machines"?

    Somehow I don't believe that number.

    [1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

    1. Re:15M jobs is 50% by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You're trying to tell us that half of all jobs in the UK can be replaced by "smart machines"?

      Just think about how many jobs you could automate away with a very simple shell script. Now think about how many jobs could be automated away with a very simple shell script and some basic robotics. The mind boggles. Also, a lot of jobs are just lost because the need for them goes away. For example, if we shift from internal combustion to electric motors, it's a fact that you won't need as many people to work on them because they are so much simpler to produce and so many of the steps can be completely automated, like motor winding — and they don't break down as much to begin with. It's simply a fact that you need less people to produce and maintain them. That's progress eliminating jobs, and not replacing them with anything.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:15M jobs is 50% by darthsilun · · Score: 1

      Thanks – that's Econ 101 stuff. I don't dispute that automation eliminating jobs is a good thing – not even for a minute.

      But I don't believe that 50% of all jobs in the UK can, or will, be eliminated by automation. Not any time soon.

    3. Re:15M jobs is 50% by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Thanks â" that's Econ 101 stuff.

      That's a nice way to wave your hands dismissively, but I notice you're not offering any useful response.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:15M jobs is 50% by darthsilun · · Score: 1

      Kinda like waving your hands dismissively and saying/writing "think of all the jobs you can replace with a bash script."
      I notice in return that you also aren't offering any useful responses, including your first response.

      eliminating all those jobs screwing caps on tubes of toothpaste will free up those people to do more valuable things.

      if you're doing it right.

      specific jobs get eliminated – they're replaced by other jobs. But 15M jobs aren't going to vanish into thin air because of automation.
      It hasn't happened – yet – in the 30+ years I've been in the workforce.

    5. Re: 15M jobs is 50% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Limeys aren't very smart to begin with, so replacing them even with dumb machine wouldn't be much of an effort.

    6. Re:15M jobs is 50% by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      You're trying to tell us that half of all jobs in the UK can be replaced by "smart machines"?

      Just think about how many jobs you could automate away with a very simple shell script. Now think about how many jobs could be automated away with a very simple shell script and some basic robotics. The mind boggles. Also, a lot of jobs are just lost because the need for them goes away. For example, if we shift from internal combustion to electric motors, it's a fact that you won't need as many people to work on them because they are so much simpler to produce and so many of the steps can be completely automated, like motor winding — and they don't break down as much to begin with. It's simply a fact that you need less people to produce and maintain them. That's progress eliminating jobs, and not replacing them with anything.

      The jobs that really could be gotten rid of with a very simple shell script and simple robotics are either already gone or still more efficiently and cheaply done by a human being. Those are the precarious ones--drive up labor costs, and suddenly it's no longer cheaper to have a person do it instead. Drive up the labor costs sufficiently, and you'll even see automation taking over jobs that automation really isn't up to replacing humans at yet, such as answering phones. (Needless to say, exactly at what point automating becomes cheaper than having humans do it varies by task and geography.)

    7. Re:15M jobs is 50% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We can all IMAGINE. If it really is so easy you should already be a very rich person. The problem is reality, a simple shell script and some robotics that is cheap enough to setup and maintain, but productive enough to use does not exist.

  5. Under Estimated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The estimate is way too low. We will rapidly replace almost all human employment. And it will not be in just the lowly positions at all. School teachers are already being laid off as computers can teach certain subject quite nicely. Meanwhile, the public does not want to see what is happening. The denial is so deep it resembles global warming denial. There are already homes being built by 3D printers and there is one bridge actually being 3D printed at this time. The public sees these things as a novelty or some kind of foolishness, but the reality is that it will explode and eliminate entire trades with an ever accelerating pace. Since humans rarely learn from past mistakes, we will do nothing to improve the transition until we suffer deeply.

    1. Re:Under Estimated by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      School teachers are already being laid off as computers can teach certain subject quite nicely.

      I'd have thought that it was these more people-oriented jobs that would be the last to be automated, assuming we don't suddenly invent strong AI.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  6. Ganbare! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Smart Machines Could Take 15M UK Jobs

    The same topic has recently been discussed on Slashdot, concerning another island nation:

    http://tech.slashdot.org/story/15/11/03/2256251/analog-still-big-in-japan

  7. Definitely correct on one point by digitig · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The article is definitely correct on one point. It says "The media will likely focus on the number of jobs that can be displaced and not necessarily Haldane's points on new jobs being created." And the /. headline? "Bank of England's Andy Haldane Warns Smart Machines Could Take 15M UK Jobs."

    --
    Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    1. Re:Definitely correct on one point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not just the media. Anyone who understands computing will fixate on the number, because it's WAY, WAY low.

  8. YOU THINK that's BAD !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What would you say if I told you that today is Friday . . . the THIRTEENTH !!

  9. Capitalism is crumbling. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Finally, things are coming to the point Marx predicted two hundred years ago. Take that, modern economics.

  10. Believable ? by __aagigi1968 · · Score: 1

    No,because it's from those morons in threadneedle street,they are so far removed from reality and so used to lying about everything that you cannot trust a word they say. According to them,interest rates should now have been going up for a year,same in USA,idiots with fingers crossed that wishful thinking works...

  11. Who`s going to buy all that machine prodced stuff? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who`s going to buy all that machine prodced stuff?

    Millions of millions of jobless across the globe?
    * Some people simply can`t be trained to to status qou white collor jobs. You can`t breed a slash dotter off of a truck driver, etc, etc, etc, etc.. Much less to put millions of job less truck drivers into a evermore accellerating IT.

    *Some people simply can't bei trained to be artists. You can`t breed a successful, artst aout of an slash dotter.
    Art is a personal desposition, not so much a paying job.

    Nothing, to put millions of people into work, still more so for a paying job.

    I really suspect, the political class (globally) will decline the prospect this ever to happen. They've been brought up the way, it is since the industrial revolution. We've been brought up this way as well.

    Once millions of people will be lais of in a couple of years, (or even months), they will lose their ability to feed themselves, their familes, the very same companies, that laid them off 3 months earlier.

    The whole organism will grind to a halt.

    Why continue to produce food, products, services, civilisation when no one will have money to buy it?

    So there's probably only one way to solve this.
    Unemployed people will have to be able to buy stuff, no matter what. That alone will change the entire planet.
    Machine tax (iirc)...

    Just my 2 cents...

       

  12. Still waiting for burger flipping robots by DirkDaring · · Score: 1

    $15/hr movement isn't moving fast enough for my robots to take over and make my order right 100% of the time, every time.

    1. Re:Still waiting for burger flipping robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you prefer, burger-flipping humans may be fast enough to come and get everything they need from your house, and obviously without asking for your useless permission. That's the easiest and most rational alternative to fair wages, working conditions, and wealth distribution. You might want to ask some Russian centenarians (there are many) how they rapidly solved similar problems in 1917.

    2. Re:Still waiting for burger flipping robots by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 2

      You won't have too long to wait.

      Momentum Machines burger maker.

      Want a patty custom ground out of 1/3 pork, 2/3 bison? No problems. The price of a burger is already set by the market. This thing eliminates the labour, the savings can be spent on high-end ingredients, gourmet burgers for McD's prices.

      The graph in this article is also a great illustration of why all the "oh, but tech makes new job opportunities" guys are wrong this time around ; the food-service industry already absorbed more than the unemployment from the manufacturing industry in the US, trading well-paid labour for subsistence on tips.

    3. Re:Still waiting for burger flipping robots by DirkDaring · · Score: 1

      Nah, I won't ask anything. I'll just wait for it to happen.

    4. Re:Still waiting for burger flipping robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok.

    5. Re:Still waiting for burger flipping robots by skovnymfe · · Score: 1
  13. Communism = stagnation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The guy who invented new pin machine makes more, the guy who buys new pin machine makes more. The guys who only did as told and never attempted to improve themselves are in misery.

    What you are implying is the guys who invented/invested in new pin machines should get no benefit from it and the lazy guys should get it all. If we went with that economic theory, how many advancements would be made? There is no benefit to inventing new techniques, no benefit to investing in new equipment, why bother because you would get no benefit from it.

    The other side, the total economy is improved for everyone because those laid off pin makers can make something else, or even collect welfare as they mow the lawns of the workers. Instead of that you sound like you want to punish the successful and teach them and everyone else the lesson to not be successful or you will use the full force of the government to punish them for thinking ahead.

    1. Re:Communism = stagnation by Sique · · Score: 3, Insightful
      You mess two things up, which makes your logic flawed.

      In Bertrand Russell's example, no one of the needle workers actually strives to improve his skills. But instead, the companies replace the old needle manufacturing equipment with new ones which doubles the productivity of their workers, and all of the workers get retrained for the new process. So yes, the inventor of the Improved Needle And Pin Machine gets his share, as he has outfitted all needle manufactures with his new invention. But the global market for needles does not increase, as needles are totally cheap already. A lower price for needles does not increase demand. So what we have now is companies with 100 percent surplus manufacturing capacities competing in a tight market, and half of them will get bankrupt in the process (it may be purely random which one get hit), until the manufacturing capacity for needles fits the demand again. It means half of the workforce will be out of a job, even if they don't differ in any way from the part of the workforce, that is still employed.

      So contrary to your hypothesis, it's not the individual strive or laziness that made the difference between unemployed and employed needle workers. It's pure random chance. They all trained for the new manufacturing process, they are all equally skilled. But they were just to many, if they kept their working schedule.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    2. Re:Communism = stagnation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you advocated for pin makes working half the hours for the same pay. That means the inventor/investor get no benefit in your proposition.

      What I said is not flawed or messed up. You are restating the EXACT same thing and claiming its not.

    3. Re:Communism = stagnation by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      So, what happens if 1/2 the pin factories shut their doors, but the other 1/2 of the pin factories hire their workers part time and double their hourly wages?

      The remaining factories still make the same profit, the workers still make the same salary, the world still gets the same pins at the same price, but 1/2 the factory owners are left scratching their heads for what to do that will pay as well as the pin business used to.

      In the current system, 1/2 the factory owners AND workers are out on the street, and the other 1/2 of the factory owners are now making twice as much profit as they used to.

      Something in-between the two would be more progress than either extreme, I think. But, we've been living the profit to the owners side of the extreme since WWII.

    4. Re:Communism = stagnation by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      The inventor is irrelevant in any major industrial venture. If a business sector is turning $1B/year of product (not profits), an invention that improves efficiency 1% is worth $10M/year. Investing $20M to implement the invention is a no-brainer, unless your stockholders demand instant gratification ROI quarterly. In any event, $10M payment to the inventor is in the noise, market variations will impact profits 10x that amount every year.

    5. Re:Communism = stagnation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, what happens if 1/2 the pin factories shut their doors, but the other 1/2 of the pin factories hire their workers part time and double their hourly wages?

      Funny! Why would the factories double the worker's wages? Double wages would soon lead to a glut of pin-makers, many of whom would work for less than the double-wages. So wages fall.

      In the current system, 1/2 the factory owners AND workers are out on the street, and the other 1/2 of the factory owners are now making twice as much profit as they used to.

      No, sorry. There would Amazon Pins, who think that if they grab enough of the market by selling pins at a lower cost, delivered overnight, that they would profit, and that drives down pin prices and hence profits.

    6. Re:Communism = stagnation by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      And no doubt you are a billionaire. Because you aren't lazy, are you?

      Thanks for your anonymous comment, Mr. Ellison!

    7. Re:Communism = stagnation by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      In Bertrand Russell's example...

      Your entire analysis is nonsense. You can't predict the effect of a decrease in the cost of making a product without knowing the demands for labor in other manufacturing plants, the difficulty of retraining, the elasticity of demand for needles, etc. Often, automation and mass production have increased the amount of employment related to making a particular product.

      So contrary to your hypothesis, it's not the individual strive or laziness that made the difference between unemployed and employed needle workers. It's pure random chance.

      That conclusion simply follows from your assumption that all workers are strictly identical and some are going to be unemployed. It has nothing to do with the economics of the situation. If the workers are not strictly identical, then businesses won't select them at random, but instead offer them salaries based on labor supply and demand.

      Furthermore, whether unemployed or simply receiving a lower salary, that kind of price signal is the whole point of having a free market; it is what causes people to change jobs to industries where they are more needed than in needlemaking.

    8. Re:Communism = stagnation by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      Something in-between the two would be more progress than either extreme, I think. But, we've been living the profit to the owners side of the extreme since WWII.

      Average corporate profits are around 7% a year, same as stock market returns and other risky investments. That's roughly where they should be; it's a fair compensation for the risks investors take and the value they contribute. And through the stock market, everybody can get that return.

      Profits don't go up long term when companies become more efficient; competition instead drives prices down. Companies become more efficient not to increase profits, which they can't, but because they would go out of business if they didn't stay competitive.

      When automation reduces the need for labor in the production of some good, profit margins may briefly go up, but then go down again as competitors automate as well. At that point, prices go down and demand goes up, depending on elasticity. Generally, fewer workers are needed, but they usually require different and higher skills so they get paid more; they don't earn more money, they simply transfer over from other similar paying jobs in other industries.

      The existing workers move into other industries appropriate to their skills, usually at about the same salary. But since some good has become cheaper now, their salaries are effectively worth a bit more, so the benefits of automation effectively show up as a slight wage increase for everybody.

    9. Re:Communism = stagnation by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Sure, just like all the oil companies we have means they don't collude and price gouge. Most products are priced at what the market will pay, not what the product can be delivered to market for in the most efficient scenario.

      Even Wal-Mart gouges, they drop their cost of goods as far as they possibly can, but they also raise prices as high as they dare in each individual store - thank you very much computerized inventory and price tracking.

    10. Re:Communism = stagnation by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Oh, come on, you're talking about the broader market. This is /. where we like to point at extreme cases as examples of why the world is unjust, unfair, corrupt, and generally not as much fun as we had hoped it would be when we watched the captain say: "Engage!"

      All in all, I do see more people apparently "stuck" in bottom-end economic situations, with less opportunity to "climb the ladder" than 30-50 years ago. Bottom-end housing today includes air-conditioning and twice the square footage of back then, bottom-end cars today out-perform (safety, handling, emissions and sometimes acceleration) the best of the best from 1965, bottom-end food choice seems more plentiful - if sometimes of questionable health value, and bottom-end healthcare (if you can get it) is quite a bit better, too. Even bottom-end neighborhoods seem to be safer to walk the streets, even at night. Then, we've got our bottom-end cellphone service and internet access that is better than what the top 0.01% had 50 years ago.

      Happiness is relative. Relatively speaking, I'd like to spend less time working my job and more time with family, personal projects, travel, etc. That doesn't seem to have improved much in the last 50 years - would be nice if we at least had a viable option to do that without having to go full retirement from the workforce.

    11. Re:Communism = stagnation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also logistics can be taken into consideration. Needle factory 1 is limited by it's production scale because of the infrastructure and supply of raw materials for needles. Needle company 2 pays a premium to the main supplier of needle materials and locks them into a contract thus cornering the needle material market. So now not only would you have to compete for sales but also compete for materials because if one company can produce enough to fill all the demand, and overhead has already been cut to its minimum, then the next logical area is supply of materials. Also creating artificial scarcity of materials has happend once or so I've been told. Cough debeers cough apple Luxottica.

  14. Yawn by bytesex · · Score: 1

    For economists and planners, the world of tomorrow is always the world of today, plus a little bit of what's already going on today. Forecasts of doom because of the 'machines take over' have been around since a long, long time.

    --
    Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
    1. Re:Yawn by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 2

      but unlike the earlier times, this time is different

  15. Lightbulb to eliminate whale hunting jobs by vvaduva · · Score: 1

    In other news, the invention of the modern light bulb will put thousands of whale hunters, butchers and ship owners out of work, endangering their retirements and family healthcare plans.

  16. Solution- Let in Millions of Muslims on Welfare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The solution that all the socialist countries is trying is unlimited immigration by uneducated Muslims. If the system does not crash on its own, bring in more unemployables. Once they control the government they can bring down those pesky statues of kings and perhaps Big Ben too. Ask Syria how it is working out.

    1. Re:Solution- Let in Millions of Muslims on Welfare by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Your lazy ignorance is astounding, and not in the least surprising. "They took our jeerrrrbs!". Idiot.

    2. Re:Solution- Let in Millions of Muslims on Welfare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *** SMACK*** is the sound of dave420 going down eating his words getting bitchslapped by apk http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

  17. Typical Liberal Thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Create robots to do our jobs and create a huge underclass of unemployed peasants who are completely dependent upon the government dole. These will be simple workers, tied to the land and living at the leisure of their demoncrap masters. They want to force the men to fight for their amusement and use the women into sexual servitude. This is what liberals want. They want to own you. Because they hate you.

  18. Re: Solution- Let in Millions of Muslims on Welfar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey now, that's an unfair comparison. Syria doesn't have millions of white women to gangrape to the point that their intestines come spilling out their buttholes.

  19. looking forward... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and bank of england can be replaced with bitcoin?

  20. 640k jobs by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

    should be enough for any planet

  21. Someone else who just doesn't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There won't be 15M jobs left in the UK after the dust settles.

    Time for a one child policy. Everywhere.

  22. Could this imply a potential population decline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps this will make us think whether it makes sense to create more people in the long run. If automation and uncertainty about the future drive down the birth rate, in a few centuries this planet will become a much better place.

  23. UK Independent victory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lets throw it under rug and let them win...

  24. 1/2 the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK, lets all believe the 15mil is right.

    Now what NEW jobs will be created from the influx of human resources available?

    Or is it that politicians are lazy and business owners only want the status quo. All lazy arse folks at this point. Adam Smith rolling in his grave I say.

  25. Humans need not apply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The following very interesting video discusses this topic, worth 15 minutes of your time....
    http://youtu.be/7Pq-S557XQU

    @daddydidaw