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."
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.
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?
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.'"
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.