Ray Kurzweil Explains Why Technology Won't Eliminate Human Jobs (fortune.com)

Futurist Ray Kurzweil, now a director of engineering at Google, made an interesting argument in a new interview with Fortune: We have already eliminated all jobs several times in human history. How many jobs circa 1900 exist today? If I were a prescient futurist in 1900, I would say, "Okay, 38% of you work on farms; 25% of you work in factories. That's two-thirds of the population. I predict that by the year 2015, that will be 2% on farms and 9% in factories." And everybody would go, "Oh, my God, we're going to be out of work." I would say, "Well, don't worry, for every job we eliminate, we're going to create more jobs at the top of the skill ladder." And people would say, "What new jobs?" And I'd say, "Well, I don't know. We haven't invented them yet."

That continues to be the case, and it creates a difficult political issue because you can look at people driving cars and trucks, and you can be pretty confident those jobs will go away. And you can't describe the new jobs, because they're in industries and concepts that don't exist yet.
Kurzweil also argues that "the power and influence of governments is decreasing because of the tremendous power of social networks and economic trends..."

"A lot of people think things are getting worse, partly because that's actually an evolutionary adaptation: It's very important for your survival to be sensitive to bad news. A little rustling in the leaves may be a predator, and you better pay attention to that."

Comments

It's in the detail

[bickerdyke]

For a lead futurist, that's astonishingly undetailed. I read a much deeper piece a few months ago, and it agreed with Kurzweil in two major points:

* Each technological progress eliminates human jobs
* Each technological progress creates new jobs
* While it's easy to predict the eliminated jobs, it is next to impossible to foresee the newly created ones
* But they will likely be more skilled and less manual labor than the old ones

But that's the starting point. It's here where the problems will start:

* for the skilled jobs, you need skilled workers. What to do with Joe Sixpack or anyone just not capable to learn those skills? (or for the US: to afford certified studies of those skills) Let them starve? Take their dignity by putting them on a welfare budget just low enough to not starve, but we still can mock them as lazy bums wo don't want to work?

* most countries are already complaining about a shortage of STEM (in Europe: MINT) degrees needed for the current "skilled" jobs

* In numbers alone, the ration between eliminated and created jobs got worse with each "industrial revolution". During the first one, the combined labor force of farmhands set free by the beginning automation in farming was not enough to fulfill the labor needs of the new factories. For the following technologies, the ratio declined until the latest (digitalisation of office) did not create more new jobs than it ate. So for the next one, it may be the first time, where actually less new jobs will be created than eliminated. And that they require an already lacking skillset, is not helping either.

Re:Clear logical fallacy

[The_Revelation]

Engun's comment is very concise. I would add that I believe the premise of Kurzweil's argument is flawed. We have not replaced all of the jobs in human history already. Jobs such as teaching, customer service (markets, traders etc), prostitution and people at the start of the food chain have always had to exist. Sure, those jobs may have become augmented throughout time to improve volume, but have never come even close to becoming significantly displaced. I'm unsure as to how he is deriving his numbers.

Re: World population has doubled since 1971

[Kjella]

I doubt the absolute number of people matter much, if you have half the people you need half the food, clothes, houses, cars, TVs etc. and if you have double you need double. Maybe on the margin you have niche items/services that only exist because we're 8 billion or resource constraints where there's not enough Beluga caviar for everyone or you have scaling effects where building 200m iPhones takes less than 2x 100m but I think they're small when you look at the whole economy. For the most part supply and demand rise together.