Slashdot Mirror


White House: US Needs a Stronger Social Safety Net To Help Workers Displaced by Robots (recode.net)

The White House has released a new report warning of a not-too-distant future where artificial intelligence and robotics will take the place of human labor. Recode highlights in its report the three key areas the White House says the U.S. government needs to prepare for the next wave of job displacement caused by robotic automation: -- Fund more research in robotics and artificial intelligence in order for the U.S. to maintain its leadership in the global technology industry. The report calls on the government to steer that research to support a diverse workforce and to focus on combating algorithmic bias in AI.
-- Invest in and increase STEM education for youth and job retraining for adults in technology-related fields. That means offering computer science education for all K-12 students, as well as expanding national workforce retraining by investing six times the current amount spent to keep American workers competitive in a global economy.
-- Modernize and strengthen the federal social safety net, including public health care, unemployment insurance, welfare and food stamps. The report also calls for increasing the minimum wage, paying workers overtime and and strengthening unions and worker bargaining power.

The report says the government, meaning the the incoming Trump administration, will have to forge ahead with new policies and grapple with the complexities of existing social services to protect the millions of Americans who face displacement by advances in automation, robotics and artificial intelligence. The report also calls on the government to keep a close eye on fostering competition in the AI industry, since the companies with the most data will be able to create the most advanced products, effectively preventing new startups from having a chance to even compete.

10 of 635 comments (clear)

  1. Frostipsot by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why not just have a bigger army? It'll be needed sooner or late.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  2. Outsource jobs, blame AI, bring 3rd world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Nice plan Demoncrats:
    1. outsource jobs (NAFTA, etc)
    2. bring whole 3rd world into country
    3. blame AI (scapegoating)
    4. insist workers must pay for whole 3rd world

    1. Re:Outsource jobs, blame AI, bring 3rd world by ranton · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Have you done anything in your life to fix any of the problems you claim exist?

      Yes, I have donated money to political campaigns and have been vocal in social media (including when using my real name) about my position in an effort to inform and persuade others. Although evidence for an upper middle class non-business owner like myself would be far different than for a wealthy business owner; for instance a donation from a wealthy man would be indistinguishable from lobbying while my thousand dollar donation would not.

      How many execs are motivated by philanthropy instead of profit?

      The average ultra high net worth philanthropist donates just over 10% of their net worth over their lifetime. According to Trump's figures that would mean if he was just average, not exceptional, he would be on track to donating $1 billion dollars over his lifetime. And while we don't know how much he has donated over his life, according to research done by the Washington Post he has donated $5.5 million to his own "charity" and $2.3 million elsewhere since the 80's.

      Even if Trump doubles his charity over the next perhaps 20 years of his life, he would have donated less than 2% as much as the average ultra-high worth individual. If you rule out his own fraudulent charity, the figure drops far under 1%. It is quite clear Trump has never cared about anyone but himself, including his own kids before they came of age, so it's unclear how anyone could believe otherwise.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  3. The Last Gasp Mutterings of a Lame Duck by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Obama will issue all sorts of feel-good proclamations and what-have-you between now and 1/20/17, just because it will look good as part of his legacy, which he is busily imagining and crafting. It's a waste of time to afford these any real discussion. He's not serious about any of this stuff at this point, why should we be?

  4. There are millions of jobs that need doing... by CrankyOldEngineer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    but no one trained to do them. So instead of improving our educational system, POTUS wants to pay people to do nothing. Yikes! And by improving our educational system, I do not mean throwing Federal dollars at it. We already have the most expensive system in the world with pitiful results. CrankyOldEngineer believes that any child can and should learn math and science, if we hire teachers that are qualified to tech these subjects. By jobs that need doing, I do not mean current openings on the want-ads. The human race needs doctors, engineers, and all kinds of skilled people, but we've created incentives for the wrong professions.

    --
    COE
  5. Not a social safety net, please... by bradley13 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Let's not have more people on the dole, please. We need a better answer than that.

    I remember, years ago, some African ambassador was touring government housing in the UK. I suppose he was supposed to be impressed that unemployed people got houses for free from the oh-so-generous government. His comment at the end of the tour was something like "How soul deadening, these people have no purpose in life. I'd rather be poor.". Coming from an African who knew what poverty was, it was a powerful indictment of social safety nets.

    People need a purpose in life. If we are going to be displaced from our jobs, then we need a different purpose. Being freed from repetitive, menial labor should allow us to do something more meaningful. Just putting ever more listless people into a lifelong holding pattern is not the right answer.

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    1. Re:Not a social safety net, please... by Gilgaron · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How could the government give them purpose? The proposal is basically that we keep them from dying. To give them purpose in a dystopian automation future would require makework projects if there's nothing left for some ever increasing percentage of the population to train towards. You could pay them to grow a community garden, for example, but then you need money for the plot of land, and if a fiscal hawk comes around they're going to notice that it is cheaper to hand out bread.

  6. Re:We already have one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That's fine as a motivation to work, but it leads to very poor efficiencies because the workers will hate their job and do the bare minimal. The way to get more out of your workers and maximise profit is to get them to love their job so they go out of their way to do more for your business. Whether that be more work in hours, recommending your company to friends, or putting in overtime.

  7. Wow, took long enough! by ErichTheRed · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's funny how these things go from a few "wackos" talking about robots taking over manufacturing, to the US government actually acknowledging there may be a problem with the system sooner than we think. I do think people are trying to lay the groundwork now, to minimize the negative effects. I could imagine some pretty bad methods of "population control" to use a euphemistic term if we tried to carry over the current system with majority unemployment being the norm.

    Of course, this is a parting shot from the outgoing administration -- given Trump's cabinet picks, I foresee some pretty nasty congressional fights and an eventual dismantling of most social programs. The Social Security system may be handed over to hedge funds and banks for safe keeping, Meidicare may become a voucher system that just enriches the insurance companies, and what little welfare there is left may be taken away. I'm happy the current administration is getting it on the record that we've been warned...it could be an interesting historical footnote or maybe a wake-up call.

    The fact is that even though "AI" isn't nearly as thrilling as the pundits claim, it is good enough at this point to displace a huge number of very vulnerable people. People aren't working assembly line or fast food jobs because they love the work...they're doing it because it's the only thing they're capable of. That's the first problem -- a lot of people are poorly educated, and a great number of those won't benefit from additional education resources getting thrown at them. Median IQ is 100 -- there's a lot of people at or below that. Unless you want to start engineering society to model "Brave New World," you either need to find something for these people to do, or allow them to do nothing and stop complaining.

    The next iteration is what I'm worried about -- professionals could easily have their roles reduced. Doctors and lawyers are a good example -- most of medical and law school is designed to select for people with photographic memories and dump volumes of information into their brains. When that knowledge doesn't need to be kept in someone's brain anymore, the status of the professional holding it is reduced. Same thing goes for IT -- I'm in systems architecture so I'm designing stuff and coming up with procedures, and it's obvious where things are headed. Hands-on IT work is almost at the point where we just need to tell someone to plug in cables, remove hard drives, etc. Development is moving offshore and increasingly done as a series of pre-formed code components and microservices. Note that this also goes for almost every office job out there too. Working in corporate IT, I see so many generic C-strudent business majors from Big State University performing an updated version of a 40 year old process. It sounds like a good idea to increase productivity by automating and replacing them, but I haven't lost sight of the fact that these people are having kids, buying products and living in communities. Take them out, and no one's around to buy the things your company is making in their fully automated factories.

    Lots of people are saying this will never happen and that anyone who suggests it will is a Luddite. Maybe so, but I don't see anywhere for most workers to go -- there's no retraining for jobs that don't exist in the modern AI world. It's going to require a radical rethinking of how we define work, wealth, etc. And if it isn't done very carefully, it will lead to a very bad end. Imagine the uproar when you tell everyone that the retirement savings they worked for all their lives won't need to be saved up by future generations, or that we have to enact more social safety programs for the 80% and rising unemployed people out there. If this is done badly, it will lead to the owners of businesses hoarding everything for themselves or calls to control the population in certain ways.

  8. Re:We already have one. by penandpaper · · Score: 1, Interesting

    trumps education secretary wants to eliminate public education,

    This is inaccurate.

    He is a supporter of school vouchers. The idea is that you as a parent get a stipend from the government for education that you can choose to use on schools how you see fit. Instead of forcing district lines that force parents to send their kids to a bad school or move, create competition among schools and give parents more choice in how their child is educated.

    There are a lot of challenges with public education and a lack of competition is one of them. The whole point of a school voucher system is to create competition among schools. If the best school happens to be public, then it would be rewarded with a lot of vouchers from parents. If a private school is doing better than a public school, there is no reason to force parents to use a lack luster institution when there are clearly better options that need only be made available.

    this idea that the free market can eliminate the need for social programs if given a chance only shows a vast ignorance of history

    What history also shows is that competition is a good thing for most markets not a natural monopoly. Institutions suffer when there isn't competition forcing them to be better.