How do we structure society for reduced employment?

[estebanrey]

The truth is nobody knows. Pro-capitalists will claim some invisible hand will magically materialise new jobs in emerging markets & that anybody who claims otherwise is a luddite - the greatest irony being the luddite fallacy is infact a fallacy in it's own right - I don't have faith that the market will ensure things keep flowing without intervention.

Funny then how that 'fallacy' has been proven true for the past 200 years since the luddites have been making their arguments then.

The reality is the purpose of technology is to free mankind from undesirable labour (most would agree) - otherwise what's the point of advancing?.

No the purpose of technology is speed up task so mankind can get more done in a day. When you eliminate a task via automation that person can now do something else.

 

[elmarko]

Funny then how that 'fallacy' has been proven true for the past 200 years since the luddites have been making their arguments then.

I don't believe that because X statement has been accurate so far it will therefore be accurate forever is a very strong logical argument.

Once automation hits the service & retail sector we will have a distinct lack of jobs which require no specific skills. Agriculture, manufacturing have already been almost entirely automated - once the service sector heads the same what do you believe will fill the gap?.

Call me cynical but blind faith in the "invisible hand" isn't a good enough reply, neither is "emergent markets have taken the workload historically, they will in the future")

No the purpose of technology is speed up task so mankind can get more done in a day. When you eliminate a task via automation that person can now do something else.

Subjective.

You make it sound like doing things for the sake of doing things is something to aspire to - that work is valuable within it'self (As opposed to the product of that work).

 

[Kamwah]

MORE TAXES!

 

[exhashdotdot]

You can't. Successful countries need unemployment. The number of unskilled jobs far outweighs skilled jobs. Anyone can sit at a till and cash money all day, but only certain people can do specialist work in sectors such as science, economics, law, etc. And it's innovation and advancement in such sectors which drives an economy.

So when an engineer for Rover gets made redundant, it's better for the economy that he be unemployed until finding a new position in a similarly skilled job. Also remember that simply transitioning between jobs through some temp work is still considered unemployment by a lot of people.

 

[estebanrey]

I don't believe that because X statement has been accurate so far it will therefore be accurate forever is a very strong logical argument.

Nor is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Wasn't this Einstein's definition of stupidity.

Once automation hits the service & retail sector we will have a distinct lack of jobs which require no specific skills. Agriculture, manufacturing have already been almost entirely automated - once the service sector heads the same what do you believe will fill the gap?.

You make it sound as if when Farming machinery was invented all the people who used to do those jobs were thinking "phew at least we've got the retail sector to fall back on".

There was no such thing as a retail sector back then, it came about via people moving on and doing new things. Sectors create and die over time, in 100 years who knows what types of work we'll be doing. You can't look at the sectors we have today and forget how they came into existence in the first place and that new ones will come a long and replace those over time.

Call me cynical but blind faith in the "invisible hand" isn't a good enough reply, neither is "emergent markets have taken the workload historically, they will in the future")

Maybe because their is no 'invisible hand', it's just people doing stuff and eventually find a way to make a living out of it.

Subjective.

But it's not, it's self evident. Just look around you at what man has invented over the years. Why didn't we just stop after we'd discovered fire, sharp tools and the wheel?

Man is naturally inclined to explore, invent and discover.

This argument reminds me of when Karl Pilkington said that we've invented everything and nothing more needs to be invented. Like the luddite argument people have been saying that for over a hundred years time.

And it's the same fallacy, that life now is the end point and so all we can do now is make what we currently know and use faster, cheaper and more efficient.

Mankind is far from that point.

You make it sound like doing things for the sake of doing things is something to aspire to - that work is valuable within it'self (As opposed to the product of that work).

Look how many people in their free time go to the gym, or for a walk, or volunteer at a charity shop etc. Sure there are lazy people, but there are far more preferred to be occupied in some way.

 

[Super-Spy]

Interesting question and one that is slowly becoming reality.

There will be fewer and fewer jobs in the future. We are already seeing some of the potential effects of this in that the population is ageing ie more people will be claiming pensions than there are people to work !

That means we need money to pay the older people.

If the younger people, eligible to work, have fewer jobs, there will be fewer people paying taxes and more drawing on the state. The key here though is that the comoanies that used to employ these people are still making money, it just means more is in profit.

I think the solution needs to result in much higher taxes for companies so that money can be distributed to those that are not working because the jobs no longer exist as technology takes over.

In future, I think the people who will be more employable will be those with manual skills like plumbers, electricians, decorators etc. I can't see computers and robots taking over those jobs for some time to come.

Those with degrees who are planning for high paid managerial and service sector jobs will find those jobs to be few and far between in the future.

This ternd is already worrying me as I am not sure what my children will end up doing. I am pushing them to do well at school but in the back of mind, I think they will need a back up plan.

What are others thoughts ?

 

[realBabelfish]

To do that we will need to have proper AI, and having jobs will be the least of our problems when we have self aware robots.

skynet can sort it all out for us!

 

[elmarko]

Nor is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Wasn't this Einstein's definition of stupidity.

Flawed analogy, the variables have changed with each different move from primary (agriculture) to secondary (manufacturing) to tertiary (service) sectors.

You make it sound as if when Farming machinery was invented all the people who used to do those jobs were thinking "phew at least we've got the retail sector to fall back on".

Not at all, the increase in technology which allowed for farming machinery by change much of the same technology was applicable for large scale manufacturing.

There was no such thing as a retail sector back then, it came about via people moving on and doing new things. Sectors create and die over time, in 100 years who knows what types of work we'll be doing. You can't look at the sectors we have today and forget how they came into existence in the first place and that new ones will come a long and replace those over time.

You assume something will crop up, you do not know something will crop up.

Maybe because their is no 'invisible hand',

That we can agree on.

it's just people doing stuff and eventually find a way to make a living out of it.

You don't know this will be the case for all time going forward.

But it's not, it's self evident.

Declaring something as self-evident doesn't make it so.

<Snip>

I'm not saying people will stop inventing or developing new technologies, I'm saying that a percentage of the workforce has the possibility of being displaces once all the jobs for people with no skills are automated.

Neither was I suggesting that people will simply not want to do anything, just that not enough paid employment would exist within our current social structure to continue.

Which would require a change in perspective about what percentage of the population would need to work.

Do you honestly think something will ensure that there will always be enough jobs for people? - already we have more people than jobs, what's so hard to believe that as technology increases the unskilled population would end up increasingly out of work?.

I fail to see how you can not see that already not enough unskilled jobs exist in a modern western democracy for the average distribution of skills in a population.

 

[JonJ678]

I can also see this trend, but don't think it matters a great deal. The following perspective is clearly that of an engineer determined to eliminate jobs using machinery.

A subsistence economy relies on almost everyone finding food. Everyone is meaningfully "employed", looking for food. If instead the society discovers agriculture, perhaps half of the people are employed looking for food. Half the population is unemployed! Given some more time and automation, you end up with one employed person providing food for many, many unemployed people.

The general idea seems to be that it's very bad to have so many unemployed. I don't see it. Everyone still has food. It doesn't matter a damn what the unemployed people are doing, the few gainfully employed are carrying them. As long as the machinery is working, the majority of the population can work in "services", as hair dressers, diet consultants, whatever crap they like really. It doesn't matter - they still have food.

I believe this generalises beyond providing food. Previously people played music live, now a single recording can provide millions of people with music forever. So we don't need thousands of bands roaming the land in order to have music. Thousands of people who would otherwise be playing live music can do something else instead. I don't really care what.

edit: If the actual problem is people wanting to feel useful, when they're not - tough. Move to Africa.

 

[Glaucus]

I'm not sure we need to structure anything... back in the day 99% of the population worked the land, practiced archery on weekends and built their own houses/mud huts - the fact that only a small percentage are now required to provide the very basics - food, shelter etc.. doesn't necessarily mean there is nothing for the rest to do.

.

I wish we were still allowed to do this


though some jobs have gone, other jobs have opened up.

 

[Efour]

I predict on a larger scale a Luddite type movement that rebels against future technology for a simpler way of pre industrial life.

Sadly i also predict that WW3 will sort out most of our over population problem in the coming 100 years as we fight for fresh water and what is left of crude oil.

And my final prediction 3 5 23 28 33 48 (49)

We need a fundamental shift away from Live to work mentality and a shift away from modern capitalism we dearly love. If we can invent some kind of limitless free, or ludicrously cheap power source i think we might be alright. Otherwise ill stick with WW3.

 

[The Funktopus]

Thunder Dome. Seriously.

We pair the population off at random. Two men, or women, or a combination thereof enter. Only one leaves. Problem halved.

Your welcome.

 

[Super-Spy]

Did anyone watch the recent Utopia series on Channel 4 ?

That had quite an interesting take on the solution for the world's over population problem !

 

[Efour]

Your welcome.

My Welcome?

 

[Mr^B]

Thunder Dome. Seriously.

We pair the population off at random. Two men, or women, or a combination thereof enter. Only one leaves. Problem halved.

Your welcome.

It's a pity it's not "Spelling Dome".

 

[aardvark]

soylent green - problem solved.

 

[deusexlumina]

It's a pity it's not "Spelling Dome".

Golden

 

[sid]

Self service is actually affecting jobs now. They are taking place everywhere such as petrol stations, supermarkets, cinema, train stations, etc.

Place where you expected humans to serve are just machines now

 

[Amp34]

The truth is nobody knows. Pro-capitalists will claim some invisible hand will magically materialise new jobs in emerging markets & that anybody who claims otherwise is a luddite - the greatest irony being the luddite fallacy is infact a fallacy in it's own right - I don't have faith that the market will ensure things keep flowing without intervention.

The reality is the purpose of technology is to free mankind from undesirable labour (most would agree) - otherwise what's the point of advancing?.
For a society to function technology may result in only 20% of the population needing to work & of those jobs 90% of them requiring high skill sets - if it did happen (key point IF).

Many potential ways of getting people to do the work exists,

1. Non material rewards for those who work, popularity/recognition/authority in the given field.
2. Attempt to restructure the populations motivational drive reward system from personal to social, from monetary reward to mastery, contribution or purpose motive (key drivers for motivation aside from money).

(On a side note, I'd have posted this in speakers corner instead)

So basically you're suggesting a race to the bottom?

Either we stop technological advancement and don't remove lower end jobs or we tak those intelligent people making lots of money to look after those with no jobs. The latter makes everyone question why they should be working hard when they could have a good life doing nothing... (As those working would almost certainly have to have more money given to them than today's unemployed).

On the other hand markets change, we move from the field to somewhere else. There will always be jobs of all skill levels available for those that want them. You may have to retrain or move around a little but they will generally be there. As automation increases costs fall (less salary costs) which means either prices fall. What could happen then is you have a situation where the employees can potentially work less hours than they do now and the company can hire more people. The whole 2 people working 20hours a week rather than one doing 40 hours. Considering average hours are increasing (and have been for a while) there is plenty of opportunity to do this. On the other side of the coin if a company doesn't choose to do this then they make more profit, which either increases the tax revenue for the government or increases investment and more employees.

I'm sure society will change, I doubt on the other hand it will change for worse. There will always be in/low skilled jobs, there will always be high end jobs. Much like we have seen over the last 200 years. Or we could just use this supposed issue as an excuse to raise taxes and tax the successful more.

 

[elmarko]

So basically you're suggesting a race to the bottom?

Please explain exactly how you came to that conclusion.

Either we stop technological advancement and don't remove lower end jobs or we tak those intelligent people making lots of money to look after those with no jobs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

The latter makes everyone question why they should be working hard when they could have a good life doing nothing... (As those working would almost certainly have to have more money given to them than today's unemployed).

I see you didn't read the part about changing the focus of motivation.

On the other hand markets change, we move from the field to somewhere else. There will always be jobs of all skill levels available for those that want them. You may have to retrain or move around a little but they will generally be there.

What exactly proves this will be the case forever?, or is this just a massive assumption on your part?.

As automation increases costs fall (less salary costs) which means either prices fall. What could happen then is you have a situation where the employees can potentially work less hours than they do now and the company can hire more people. The whole 2 people working 20hours a week rather than one doing 40 hours. Considering average hours are increasing (and have been for a while) there is plenty of opportunity to do this. On the other side of the coin if a company doesn't choose to do this then they make more profit, which either increases the tax revenue for the government or increases investment and more employees.

If it's not absurd to think people may have to start working shorter weeks (20 hours instead of 40) why is such a step to not think it's a possibility it could go the whole way (in which most people don't need to work due to automation?).

I'm sure society will change, I doubt on the other hand it will change for worse.

Why exactly would a society in which people didn't do work which a trained monkey could do be worse?.

There will always be in/low skilled jobs

Well, you simply don't know this as a fact - it's an assumption based on historical trends (which can't be projected as the variables haved changed)

here will always be high end jobs.

For the foreseeable future, but people do high end jobs for reasons other than material gain - people don't work in call-centres or retail for the same reasons (mastery/contribution/drive etc).

Much like we have seen over the last 200 years. Or we could just use this supposed issue as an excuse to raise taxes and tax the successful more.

It's nothing to do with taxing the successful, it's how to structure society if we end up in a situation we have 10 times the amount of people as we have jobs.

If we had a population of 120,000,000 in the UK in the year 2080 - but only 5,000,000 jobs - how would our society work (if people who are out of work branded "lazy" or are not given support?).

Most jobs can be automated, pretty much all retail can be - almost all customer service/call centre can be - half of all office staff can be from my experience (as most people do glorified data entry), improvements in robotics & AI (along with improvements in manufacturing) could see off a large portion of our manual jobs (rubbish collection) - with only a handful of staff required for exception work (when the automated solution fails).

A call centre of 50 turns into a group of 5.

A checkout which had 30 staff now had 3 to deal with when the self-service machines fail.

I'm not saying that all jobs are going to disappear - just the manual jobs which technology can already replace (or is very close to being able or is in the process of currently replacing).

While new positions may develop, it would be in the areas which require skills beyond a portion of the population which would get displaced.