To think at some point none of us will work

[BrightonCalling]

Do you think that because of automation at some point it just wont be possible for the majority of people to be employed?

If that happens, how will we need to restructure society/the way we live?

Even complex surgeries are using machines specially programmed now. Who knows what new tech will be made in the future and how society will be affected.

I think there will be a combination of new jobs, and initiatives like the citizen's wage. But it will also be messy with a fair amount of upheaval. Driverless lorries aren't that far off.

What happens to those people?
Citizens' wage. It's already happening in places like Norway (I think) and some parts of Canada.
The population will reduce to reflect the declining need for 'workers'.

This was a common fear during the industrial revolution. In the end the jobs change that's all.

Perhaps humans trying to compete with robots will have to lower their labour costs, compared with the costs of building/buying and running/maintaining complex machinery- so people who are able to get work will have longer hours with less leisure time.

Interesting topic. There’s a series of Ted talks on this subject.

It occurred to me that 90% of my job (HR & finance in a school) could’ve done by a computer, but it’s a long way off. Fir smaller organisations too, the technology would have to be pretty cheap to purchase, install and maintain to replace a human being. So yes, the technology is moving fast but the mass market application of it has a lot further to go

I think jobs that involve intimate human interaction and subjective choices about style and comfort such as hairstylist, beauty therapist, interior designer, massage therapist will be very hard to reproduce in non human form. Even now many of these services, at least where I live, are being more luxurious, specialised and pricey.

Same for many health professions: nurse, physical therapist, podiatrist, etc.

Then the classic "where's there's muck there's brass": cleaning difficult to access or complex areas. Lots of farming and harvesting is also still very difficult to automate.

Caring for and raising humans: childcare, elder care, teaching.

Finland did a pilot study where they paid people to not work recently. Here is an update: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43866700

People don't deserve to live in poverty but the attitude that 'you've done well so give me a share' pisses me off

What is the solution then? How are people who lose out from automation to be supported?

We already live in a society that requires those who have done well to share. That's why we have progressive taxation. We accept that a society shouldn't just be a free for all in which the wealthy become ever richer and the poor starve.

We also recognise that not everyone has equality of opportunity. The children of wealthy parents are far more likely to be wealthy than the children of poor parents. Intelligent and capable people are likely to better than unintelligent or incapable people. Nobody has control over the family they are born into or the ability they have. This is why we redistribute wealth to ensure everyone has what they need to live.

You also have to ask why it is that some people do well. Usually, they have benefitted hugely from the labour of others. The owner of a factory isn't working any harder than a worker in that factory. And the wealthy of a factory owner is generated by the work of thousands of others. If the factory owner can save money by using some of the profits generated by the labour of factory workers to install automated processes, is it fair that those workers are left unemployed and impoverished?

And you may say 'life isn't fair', but that isn't a fundamental and inalienable truth. Life isn't fair because we haven't addressed the conventions, laws and practices that make it unfair. That doesn't mean things can never change. It doesn't mean we can't make society fairer.

Most people are bright and industrious
Hmmm
I take it you went to selective schools and live in a wealthy area

I thought I'd seen that somewhere about the Finns, Blue

Johan Hari's latest book about depression talks in one place about UBI. He discusses an example from a native American - I think, though it may have been First Nation - reserve, where income from land rents is divided by all. Amongst other effects, medication rates for ADHD amongst the children of those involved decreased substantially: the people who ran the study weren't looking for this, or anything related to it, but concluded it might be as a result of the additional family time that the majority of adults involved had decided to "spend" their additional income on. (ie they could now afford to work fewer hours, so did so, instead of opting to work the same but have more luxuries). Food for thought all round.

I think the easiest areas to automate are those such as in law and those with numbers and admin where they are clear black and white "right" and "wrong" answers (until you get to more complex law).

I live in the states and it is common knowledge that many law students are struggling to find work and lots of the grunt work junior lawyers used to do involving looking for information in stacks of papers has become automated. Law is definitely not perceived as the surefire way to a secure well paid career that it used to be and is now seen as an expensive and risky bet, as law school is so expensive.

So work with clear objective answers and boundaries and repetitive tasks is much easier to automate. Work that involves frequent subjective decisions and choices and constant adaption, such as teaching, is much more difficult to imitate successfully.

Remember Charles Dickens and "Hard Times" and the discontent at the harsh, impersonal and uncreative world that the industrial revolution was unleashing? Yet we still have labour intensive ways of educating children and creativity and entertainment is still highly prized.

I dont see why in the future it wouldn't be possible to do away with lawyers and judges using algorithms.

@BrightonCalling

Which algorithms? You mean like Ibelievyou trial by statistics?

I actually agree, Brighton - and I'm a lawyer!

Algorithms are already more accurate in predicting the results of US Supreme Court decisions than legal experts, even with less information. That's obviously not the same as actually adjudicating over a legal dispute but it's enough to show me that I would be naive to assume my job is safe forever.

As I previously said, jobs will be there, but not necessarily particularly attractive ones. As it is, care homes struggle to recruit, even if they pay good wages and have good terms and conditions. The situation will only get worse when we have swathes of people aged 120 with drug-assisted functioning bodies but no mental capacity. Do you let people claim a citizen’s wage when there are jobs - albeit literally shitty ones - available?

Btw I still hear kids saying they want “to go into journalism” as if print media is a burgeoning industry.

@mellowW
I have zero knowledge of the law so I'm just imagining some fictional scenario.

But surely it must be pretty easy to enter facts into a piece of software which would then calculate the probability of guilt. We have software that can "read" emotion in voices and scan body language, so that could be added into the mix too. The result would be a % result of likely guilty calculated by the software.

@wellBeehivedWoman
Cross post, see post above!

The jobs will just change.

AI is nowhere near where we need it to be and neither is robotics.

Full automation is technically possible but it’s a very long way off - not in our lifetimes.

I’m very skeptical that they will introduce UBI. It benefits workers, but it doesn’t benefit those who want to control populations. A populace with leisure time and no debt is a dangerous thing.

GDPR is making judging by algorithm illegal.

This isn't new. It was set as a topic for essays when I was at school in the '60s. Humans aren't redundant yet.

Old skills become redundant and new ones appear, but as long as we keep generating waste and litter, for example, we'll still need binmen and streetsweepers. As long as we want to eat out, we'll need people to serve our meals and clear them away. As long as we want to go away on holiday, we'll need people to clean the bedrooms and bathrooms in the hotels.

Why do so many people lack imagination. It's pretty obvious that this won't be the case. As automation reduces the amount of unskilled work people will be forced to aquire the skills that are in demand. Just add they did in the past. Mad unemployment subsidised by the hardworking few will never be an option because tax payers will opt out by moving to jurisdictions with more reasonable tax resulting in welfare systems collapsing or governments taking austerity measures to prevent the loss of money earning inviduals.

@DrEustaciaBenson
Although small hotels have been closing thanks to the likes of airbnb
, and jobs disappearing with them. Although thats a separate debate on the sharing economy...

Re the law, law in Britain is created in the Higher courts (Common law) as well as Parliament (legislation). This is a key part of our constitution. The judiciary will never be automated, nor fully at least. The most important tasks have nothing to do with guilt and everything to do public policy. Next you are going to suggest that our MPs will be Robots too (eyeroll)

@Racecardriver
You're taking a pretty aggressive stance on what's a very unemotional subject..