# Start Here > Guest Forum >  Machinery and our society based on jobs

## Boshembechle

I view the creation of robots that will do everything for us as an inevitable creation within the next few centuries. How are we going to reconcile our system in which people earn money by performing jobs for people with these new creations. Or will these new creations make it unnecessary for people to work? Will goods have no cost? 

Many will reply that predictions in the past have been grossly wrong about job destruction due to machinery. I agree, but that is because they were not robots that were being introduced. For example, the creation of the car did indeed displace the buggy, but it didn't displace the need for human labor. The creation of the spinning wheel did not displace the need for human labor. What will happen when everything from financial consulting to orange picking will be done by a robot?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> What will happen when everything from financial consulting to orange picking will be done by a robot?


 Then there will be big money in programming financial consulting robots.

----------


## jkr

what will happen?
hunger games* logans run
*that* will happen

humans are not ready to have so much free time, the adjustment will be ugly for some

----------


## Boshembechle

> what will happen?
> hunger games* logans run
> *that* will happen
> 
> humans are not ready to have so much free time,* the adjustment will be ugly for some*


If all jobs are done by a robot, how will people get money, since our society disperses money based off of labor.

----------


## jkr

> If all jobs are done by a robot, how will people get money, since our society disperses money based off of labor.


social 
security
*NUMBER*

----------


## acptulsa

> If all jobs are done by a robot, how will people get money, since our society disperses money based off of labor.


You think robots won't need supervision?  You think robots will become so perfect that there won't be a market for new, improved robots?  You think robots will write novels and make watchable movies?  You think no one will need tech support when their robot cleaner turns their carpet into a pile of fluff?

That's the problem with progressives.  They have absolutely no faith in their fellow humans.  Except Obama, of course--probably the one human in all the earth _least_ worthy of faith...

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Boshembechle needs to read some science fiction.  Expand your horizons!  You may not have much of an imagination yourself, but _other_ people do!  Let them help you.

----------


## jkr

he needs to watch the ANIMATRIX

----------


## juleswin

Society will slowly adjust to machines taking over some of human jobs that is unless we accelerate the process by pricing ourselves out of a job. Also consider that there are millions of jobs machines can never do better than humans at the cost humans can do it at.

----------


## jkr

the only jobs left will be BOSSING PEOPLE AROUND 
i hear it is quite lucrative


sound familiar?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> the only jobs left will be BOSSING PEOPLE AROUND 
> i hear it is quite lucrative


Why would it it be lucrative, or even feasible, if robots are doing all the work?  Who would allow you to boss them around?  Why should I let you boss me if I have robots tending to my every wish and desire?  I'll tell you to take a hike and have my robots escort you to the door.

----------


## jkr

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-0...dle-class-work

fresh from the hedge

The Changing Nature Of Middle Class Work
Tyler Durden's picture
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/08/2014 12:29 -0400

    ETC
    Gross Domestic Product



inShare5



Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith of OfTwoMinds blog,

As a result of these profound systemic changes, new models of work are emerging.

Gordon T. Long and I recently discussed the changing nature of work--specifically, work that can support a middle class lifestyle and aspirations. This is the third of my series on the decline of the middle class:

How the Middle Class Lifestyle Became Unaffordable
The Destabilizing Truth: Only the Wealthy Can Afford a Middle Class Lifestyle

The economy is changing in structural ways that affect not just the job market but the nature of work itself. If we ask, what is work?, the conventional answer is tasks that somebody will pay us to do. This is true, but it doesn't address why someone is willing to pay us. The answer is to create value.

In general, work creates value by completing processes. The higher the value of the processes completed, the higher the premium created by labor. Low-value work cannot command a high wage; any organization paying high wages for low-value work will eventually go broke.

Processes that are programmable can be done by machines and software at much lower costs than human labor. (Programmable work is typically tradable, i.e. it can be done anywhere on the planet.) Recall from yesterday's essay that labor costs are rising for structural reasons: as robotics and software get cheaper, human labor gets more expensive.

Urbanization, Baumol's Cost Disease and demands for more government benefits push labor costs higher. Even though wages are stagnant, the labor overhead costs paid by employers--healthcare, pensions, payroll taxes, workers compensation, etc., i.e.total compensation costs--are soaring.

These trends cannot be reversed by policy tweaks. They are built into the economy whether it is capitalist, socialist, communist or theocratic.

The decline of well-paid, simple-to-learn jobs is a result of technology. Though it is politically popular to blame outsourcing/offshoring for the demise of "good paying manufacturing jobs," if trade barriers were erected tomorrow that banned all imported goods, domestic manufacturers would employ robots and software to produce most goods, for the simple reason that hiring costly humans to complete processes that machines can perform faster, better and cheaper makes no financial sense.

As technology's ability to replace costly human labor moves from the factory floor to the service sector, the nature of middle class work is changing. Technology does not go away because we don't approve of the consequences: processes that are faster, better and cheaper will spread, regardless of our approval or disapproval.

Economies that limit technological innovation stagnate and become poorer.

Jobs that can be learned in a few hours are prone to being replaced by machines.If a process and its end-state can be specified, a machine or software can be programmed to do the work. Human labor that generates low market value cannot command a high wage. We can choose to subsidize higher wages, but these higher costs must be paid by someone else via higher taxes or costs.

There is always an opportunity cost to any such subsidy: what else could have been done with that money? In general, subsidies are mal-investments that siphon money from productive sectors to prop up politically powerful unproductive sectors. Economies that enforce mal-investment eventually decline, as years of under-investment hollow out the parts of the economy that are propping up all the parasitic sectors.

The protected sectors beset by soaring costs (healthcare, higher education, major weaponry programs, finance, etc.) will undergo the creative destruction of technology-based productivity gains for the reason that they are already unaffordable, not just to households but to the nation.

These low-productivity bastions of secure, high-paying middle class jobs cannot keep increasing their share of the national income. Either productivity will increase and costs fall or these sectors will implode as their costs exceed the nation's ability to fund them. Take fast-rising healthcare costs and slow-growth GDP and extend the lines on a chart: can healthcare absorb 90% of GDP? Clearly that won't happen; the sickcare system is already breaking down at 20% of GDP.

As a result of these profound systemic changes, new models of work are emerging. I have written about hybrid work for years, and recently coined the term Mobile Creatives to describe the class of workers who don't fit into traditional job categories. International Workers' Day (May 1) and the New Class: Mobile Creatives

My new book Get a Job, Build a Real Career and Defy a Bewildering Economy is in essence a how-to guide to becoming a Mobile Creative.

Here are a few of the many dynamics Gordon and I discuss in the program:

1. The cost of software and 3-D fabrication tools is declining
2. The speed of change places a premium on adaptability
3. Problem-solving increasingly depends on cross-fertilization of skills
4. The human capital value of integrity and accountability increases as the trust horizon shifts
5. New models of sharing work and revenues are emerging--these are both global and local


And much more....

----------


## jkr

> Why it it be lucrative, or even feasible, if robots are doing all the work?  Who would allow you to boss them around?  Why should I let you boss me if I have robots tending to my every wish and desire?  I'll tell you to take a hike and have my robots escort you to the door.


because im wearing this costume *SEE*! doesn't matter if it is obsolete, _i got the threadz_ and _YOU DONT_, munDayne, so feed me or ill protect and serve you!

----------


## jkr

snip of coments:

aardvarkk
aardvarkk's picture

Absolutely.  Look at Detroit.  Then look at Fargo, ND.  Look at the population of Fargo and then look at job listings in Fargo.  They can't find enough people to fill all the available jobs.  Nearly as busy as Williston, but without the "growing pains" and some of the lowest cost of living in the nation by some measures...and this in a place where the climate often is, shall we say, "inhospitable".  I'm guessing any small-sized city you look at across the country, you'll see much the same thing.  Just because things are falling apart in places like Detroit and Cleveland doesn't mean the end of the world.  It just maybe means people need to downsize.

A town of 5-10,000 is often a great place to live and work.  A city of 1,000,000 often is not.  I spent about 13 years in and around Minneapolis, one of the NICER large cities around, and I'l never go back.  NEVER.  The traffic alone nearly drove me bat$#@!.  I'm currently saving money, and when I have enough I'm going to move to a particular town in outstate MN of maybe 10,000.  MN has stupid politics, but this area has some of the prettiest country I've ever seen and more lakes than some people believe exist.  Property prices are reasonable and I should be able to afford a simple place on a lake with a few acres.  I can ignore the politics and catch fish.  Or read while I wait for fish to bite.  Or split wood.  Or go have breakfast/lunch at the diner in town.  Or sit on the dock and write.  Or walk up the road with my dog.  Or hunt rabbits.  Or do a little woodworking in the shop.  When the time comes to die, I want it to happen there.

    Login or register to post comments

Thu, 05/08/2014 - 14:02 | 4740450 Stuck on Zero
Stuck on Zero's picture

Correct.  There is 100% employment in countries with honest governments.  Unemployment is caused by government.  Do you think a little village without any government has unemployment? 

    Login or register to post comments

Thu, 05/08/2014 - 15:01 | 4740722 insanelysane
insanelysane's picture

My favority analogy!

Instead of a country of 350 million people, imagine a village of 350 people.  Would you have a 60% workforce participation rate?  Would prisoners be doing hard labor?  Would you pay some aholes to sit around all day recording what the other villagers were doing?

----------


## Boshembechle

> You think robots won't need supervision?  *You think robots will become so perfect that there won't be a market for new, improved robots?  You think robots will write novels and make watchable movies?  You think no one will need tech support when their robot cleaner turns their carpet into a pile of fluff?*
> 
> That's the problem with progressives.  They have absolutely no faith in their fellow humans.  Except Obama, of course--probably the one human in all the earth _least_ worthy of faith...


Yes

----------


## Cleaner44

Who will design the robots?

Who will build the robots?

Who will maintain the robots?

Skynet?

When the robots become self aware, who will fight the robots?

What the $#@! are we talking about?

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty



----------


## Bryan

Define "everything". I disagree that will happen but there certainly will be great advances. I think it's best to consider what we have seen over the last 50 years and keep projecting up. Robots will continue to displace both low-skill and automatable work. These are not one in the same, for example, surgeries could be done with a properly configured robot. As this trend continues it will drive down prices, but there will be some reasons goods may still have a cost:
- People may still seek a profit.
- Rights to raw materials may have to be purchased.
- Robots needs to be maintained, so you need a self-maintaining robot army for no cost.
- Energy expenses, for no cost goods you'd need to be able to produce energy at no net-cost - energy is needed to power robots, move raw and finished materials and more.
- Designs, you may have to pay people to design new and improved goods, until robots can effectively be successful in this.

IMO, the last three really represent major hurdles and as each are achieved there will be a major market shift. With all three done, yes, you pretty much could have Skynet.  ... or not have to work until your natural resources to run the machines is consumed.

Anyway, as this continues there certainly will be some technology driven unemployment, which means those workers need to learn new skills, of course there will be new jobs to maintain and design robots (until those hurdles are solved). I think part of the unemployment balance will be solved by people who do have good employment wanting to work fewer hours, thus opening other new jobs.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Anyway, as this continues there certainly will be some technology driven unemployment, which means those workers need to learn new skills,....


We need to hear more of this logic from our prospective ones. How they would lead given this reality. Education is the best platform in which to frame the matter while popping two birds with one stone. Which is merely my own opinion. Not something I feel lke debating really just because I understand the bases position on education. It just always goes the opposite direction as I'd like and the relevance you share here gets lost every single time.

----------


## oyarde

Well , gladly , I will not be alive in a few centuries to ponder such bull$#@!. To celebrate that , I am having a cigar and bourbon .In a duel , I can still defeat a robot .LOL

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Well , gladly , I will not be alive in a few centuries to ponder such bull$#@!. To celebrate that , I am having a cigar and bourbon .In a duel , I can still defeat a robot .LOL


I don't think your tomahawks will be useful against killer robots, uncle oyarde...I'll teach you some sword handling techniques...by the time Skynet becomes self-aware, we'll have light sabres.

----------


## oyarde

> I don't think your tomahawks will be useful against killer robots, uncle oyarde...I'll teach you some sword handling techniques...by the time Skynet becomes self-aware, we'll have light sabres.


Yeah , I know , but I am pretty good with baling hooks ,corn knives and machetes ,ice picks  .30 cal rifles and 12 Gauges , LOL

----------


## Boshembechle

> Define "everything". I disagree that will happen but there certainly will be great advances. I think it's best to consider what we have seen over the last 50 years and keep projecting up. Robots will continue to displace both low-skill and automatable work. These are not one in the same, for example, surgeries could be done with a properly configured robot. As this trend continues *it will drive down prices*, but there will be some reasons goods may still have a cost:
> - People may still seek a profit.
> - Rights to raw materials may have to be purchased.
> - Robots needs to be maintained, so you need a self-maintaining robot army for no cost.
> - Energy expenses, for no cost goods you'd need to be able to produce energy at no net-cost - energy is needed to power robots, move raw and finished materials and more.
> - Designs, you may have to pay people to design new and improved goods, until robots can effectively be successful in this.
> 
> IMO, the last three really represent major hurdles and as each are achieved there will be a major market shift. With all three done, yes, you pretty much could have Skynet.  ... or not have to work until your natural resources to run the machines is consumed.
> 
> Anyway, as this continues there certainly will be some technology driven unemployment, which means those workers need to learn new skills, of course there will be new jobs to maintain and design robots (until those hurdles are solved). I think part of the unemployment balance will be solved by people who do have good employment wanting to work fewer hours, thus opening other new jobs.


By the time we reach the point in which robots do everything for us, I don't think money will be of use anymore.

----------


## Demigod

> he needs to watch the ANIMATRIX


I really like the story and the way it was told but nukes would be effective as hell against machines ,between EMP`s frying their entire electrical system,the heat melting everything and sustained radiation will completely destroy any electronics.And the plan with blocking the sun must be the worst plan ever ,how did they plan to grow food or even live after the war.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> because im wearing this costume *SEE*! doesn't matter if it is obsolete, _i got the threadz_ and _YOU DONT_, munDayne, so feed me or ill protect and serve you!


While I may not think that your authoritarian robot world scenario is very realistic, I do agree with you that it would be very bad and I strongly oppose it and would stand shoulder-to-shoulder with you to fight against it.

----------


## acptulsa

> Yes


Okay.

Now.  Why are you worrying about a time so far beyond your lifespan that you couldn't possibly account for all the variables anyway?  Especially when there are so many disasters looming on the immediate horizon like the collapse of the federal reserve and the default of the nation's massive debt?

----------


## Intoxiklown

> Society will slowly adjust to machines taking over some of human jobs that is unless we accelerate the process by pricing ourselves out of a job. *Also consider that there are millions of jobs machines can never do better than humans at the cost humans can do it at*.



I am a robotics engineer, specializing in manufacturing. I cannot begin to tell you how incredibly wrong this is.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I am a robotics engineer, specializing in manufacturing. I cannot begin to tell you how incredibly wrong this is.


Remember that in the broad category of activities called "jobs" are jobs that, today, have never been done, have never even been thought of.  The number of these is not mere millions, but infinite.

Are you in the camp that believes that true machine intelligence is an inevitability?

----------


## Boshembechle

> Okay.
> 
> Now.  Why are you worrying about a time so far beyond your lifespan that you couldn't possibly account for all the variables anyway?  Especially when there are so many disasters looming on the immediate horizon like the collapse of the federal reserve and the default of the nation's massive debt?


Because unlike you I worry about future people. How will anyone survive in a world where robots do everything? How will people get paid?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Because unlike you I worry about future people. How will anyone survive in a world where robots do everything? How will people get paid?


How will anyone survive in a world where fully-roasted turkeys fall out of the sky?  How will anyone get paid?

----------


## Boshembechle

because unlike turkeys falling out of the sky, what robots produce will still cost money. Except no money will be had by people because labor is all robotic.

----------


## acptulsa

> because unlike turkeys falling out of the sky, what robots produce will still cost money. Except no money will be had by people because labor is all robotic.


Ever consider reading the thread and addressing the points people have made before repeating the OP verbatim?  Or did you put the lot of us on ignore before you came among us, lest we infect you with a little common sense?

Not that we would blame you.  Your liberal friends would surely, in all their compassion and brotherly love, pillory you and beat you if you were to contract a contagious case of common sense...

----------


## Anti Federalist

What will happen?



All under total and absolute surveillance.

----------


## pcosmar

> What will happen?
> 
> 
> 
> All under total and absolute surveillance.


Lol
If only.

But no,, with the next major conflict (in the Mideast) a leader will rise promising and perhaps brokering peace..
and the world will praise him,,and he will gain total control to the point that he is worshiped.

Then the King will return..

Robots will not rule.

----------


## Boshembechle

> Ever consider reading the thread and addressing the points people have made before repeating the OP verbatim?  Or did you put the lot of us on ignore before you came among us, lest we infect you with a little common sense?
> 
> Not that we would blame you.  Your liberal friends would surely, in all their compassion and brotherly love, pillory you and beat you if you were to contract a contagious case of common sense...


I made the distinction in the OP about machinery and robotics. When people say that technology saves consumers money, thus allowing them to spend that money in other markets, thus increasing employment in that market, there is an assumption that that market has human labourers. But what if all markets in the future are robotic? How will saving money in one market increase employment in the other?

----------


## Bryan

> By the time we reach the point in which robots do everything for us, I don't think money will be of use anymore.


My highlighted point was that prices will go down during the trend, so we hadn't reached any point.




> because unlike turkeys falling out of the sky, what robots produce will still cost money. Except no money will be had by people because labor is all robotic.


This seems to imply that money has no value except beyond what could be produced by robots. I would submit there would still be reasons some medium of exchange could have value such as:
- Raw materials will still be limited, and will be of value as they are today.
- People may still appreciate, and being willing to pay to enjoy, the fine arts as done by humans, as they do today. Think humans creating beauty. 
- There may still be more personal services that people will pay a human for. Think human personal appreciation. 
- People may still appreciate, and being willing to pay to enjoy, sports as they do today. Think human physical achievement. 
I could go on with many other constructs such as around human intelligence and more. In some way, even if robots could do it better, the drive for human achievement will likely still have a market.

----------


## Bryan

> I am a robotics engineer, specializing in manufacturing. I cannot begin to tell you how incredibly wrong this is.





> Remember that in the broad category of activities called "jobs" are jobs that, today, have never been done, have never even been thought of.  The number of these is not mere millions, but infinite.
> 
> Are you in the camp that believes that true machine intelligence is an inevitability?


I think the balance here is that, even by today's standards, robots can be configured and programed to meet millions of applications, each of which have their own complex series of control variables.

The notion of "have never been done, have never even been thought of" gets into the concept of robots doing "original design", which I agree we are far, far, away from that. Hence the third major hurdle in my first post here. I'd question that machine intelligence could ever be perfect in this regard, but that wouldn't be needed, they'd just need to be better than most/some/all humans doing the same design work. 

Besides, there is no such thing as a perfect design, designs are all about making proper trade-offs to solve a particular application which aims to satisfy part of a market segment. (ie: not everyone needs a 4-door car) The optional solution would be for every individual to have everything tailor designed for their needs, and manufactured for them, and maintained, etc. Trying to solve this quickly becomes a logistical problem on its own. So how many designs do you have? How do you keep up with demand?

----------


## Intoxiklown

> Remember that in the broad category of activities called "jobs" are jobs that, today, have never been done, have never even been thought of.  The number of these is not mere millions, but infinite.
> 
> Are you in the camp that believes that true machine intelligence is an inevitability?



I understand your point, however, remember that robots open up jobs never before considered possible. Also, I can assure you that with a basic six axis bot, some photo eye sensors, and a half hour to program, I can make a bot that will replace 5 of your employees. Also, the bot never needs a break, doesn't argue about overtime or hours, doesn't need medical, and doesn't need vacation. The cost savings from a bot are astronomical, the main cost coming up front for initial cost. 

And I am in that camp. We already have a lot of work being done in the field, with what is called a "soft programming" that allows a machine to alter it's parameters based on interaction with it's surrounding. Although some would say it is merely correcting faulty program commands, is that not learning?

----------


## jkr

KOBE 
BEEF
IS
PEOPLE

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> because unlike turkeys falling out of the sky, what robots produce will still cost money


Why?  What do robots want with money?  What could they possibly do with it?

----------


## Boshembechle

> Why?  What do robots want with money?  What could they possibly do with it?


It's not the robots who want the money, it's the owner of the robot.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I understand your point, however, remember that robots open up jobs never before considered possible.


 This does not undermine nor contradict my assertion about new jobs arising in the future, but supports it.  So delete the "however" and I agree.




> Also, I can assure you that with a basic six axis bot, some photo eye sensors, and a half hour to program, I can make a bot that will replace 5 of your employees. Also, the bot never needs a break, doesn't argue about overtime or hours, doesn't need medical, and doesn't need vacation. The cost savings from a bot are astronomical, the main cost coming up front for initial cost.


 I agree with all this.  It's all just a part of the capital structure getting taller and taller.  Of course whether it makes sense or not to robotize still depends on the particular situation today, but more and more situations do make sense all the time, and the trend will surely be towards more automation and more robots as long as we don't experience serious economic regress.





> And I am in that camp. We already have a lot of work being done in the field, with what is called a "soft programming" that allows a machine to alter it's parameters based on interaction with it's surrounding. Although some would say it is merely correcting faulty program commands, is that not learning?


 Have you read ‎Kurzweil?  The Singularity is Near?

It could happen.  I certainly wouldn't say it couldn't.  These are certainly exciting times we live in, aren't they?  But, what you wrote above made it almost sound like you think we have artificial intelligence already.  No, not even close -- and that's not to say that it couldn't happen relatively quickly (20-30 years), progress in computing has happened so quickly over the last few decades, but we are quite some orders of magnitude away from creating in a computer the level of complexity found in the human brain.  And even once that is done, my own belief is that it is not necessarily a guarantee that actual full-fledged intelligence will automatically and spontaneously arise just because the machine is complex.  It's possible, but I hesitate to pronounce inevitabilities regarding something we know so little about**: intelligence.

Anyway, this is all very relevant to the thread, because while I'm fairly sure Boshembechle doesn't understand any of this, if Intoxiklown's prediction comes true and we manage to create true artificial intelligence, then (and only then) does his vision of the obsolescence of humans start to have _some_ (very limited) value.  But even then, just as there is a place for low-IQ people in a free market world, so there is room for people with slow-thinking biological neural nets.  We may not be able to compete with those who have uploaded their consciousness into silicone, but we can still live our lives as we choose.  And we can be even _more_ productive and will be paid even _more_ than if there were no such super-smart super-productive people, just as the mentally handicapped menial worker is able to be much, much more productive today thanks to the existence of very bright, ambitious, and productive people than he would be if everyone were as challenged as he is.  So still, the actual original "dilemma" posed by Boshembechle is totally unfounded and wrong and not-thought-through.

But the statement by Intoxiklown could be right.  He was replying to this:

Also consider that there are *millions of jobs machines can never do better than humans* at the cost humans can do it at.

And he said that that was incredibly wrong.  And if the machines become intelligent, he _could_ be right (though it's possible there may still be particular jobs that the version 1.0 carbon-based biological humans are better at for one reason or another and could specialize in).  But the way that he's right is a little bit of a loophole.  You see, the machines become better than humans at everything.... *by becoming human themselves.*

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> It's not the robots who want the money, it's the owner of the robot.


Why is he the owner?  How did he get to be the owner?

And what would the owner want with money?  He, just like the robot, has no use for it.  He has everything he wants.  Everything is made by robots.  No one is paid for anything.  What would he buy with it?  Well, there _is_ nothing!

----------

