Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Humans Need Not Apply

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
It seems to me that the point is video's point pretty unassailable, the question is what the results are.

A) The owners of the machines, perhaps 10% of the population, take all the profits and the unemployable get the normal year or so of unemployment benefits then standard welfare payments for the rest of their lives. Some may go into service a la Downton Abbey.
B) Tax rates are raised a lot on upper incomes and transfer payments greatly increased so the unemployable get a reasonable standard of living, but no paid work, and the owners, say the top 10% or so, pay for it.

Personally I don't find either of these very appealing.
 
While it is very likely many people are going to have to adapt or die (in this case, lose their jobs...) I don't believe that we will end up in some crazy 50% unemployment rate.

US_Unemployment_1890-2009.gif


Here, from 1890 to 2010 is the US unemployment rate. As new discoveries have been made people lost their jobs, but it in turn ended up allowing for other new discoveries that created jobs. Using current technology will always allow some new as of yet unthought-of discovery. Unless you think we have discovered everything, in which case, you don't know much about the current state of science and this world/universe.

Consider the rebellion and coining of the term Luddite. This was people fearing the loss of their jobs because of (primarily) the change in the way stockings were made... it expanded from there, but that was one of the first things that sprung up rebellion. Pre-Industrial Revolution, stockings were only sold to a select few, wealthy people and had a very limited market because they were so expensive. Fearing the loss of their jobs these highly skilled artisians rebelled against the machines that were replacing their jobs and tried really hard to stop the progress. I unfortunately don't have the data off hand (I went looking for it, and can't seem to find it... or rather, the answer I am looking for is trapped behind pay-walls that I don't feel like trying to overcome) but this is a pretty classic example of supply and demand. In this case as the prices for stockings dropped, it became more available to everyone (it really used to be that a select few would wear them, and only for special occasion, now the only people not wearing socks are homeless and hipsters... no your sockless loafers are not cool). As it turns out the before and after picture of this was that the final outcome had more people employed making socks after these machines were in heavy use than before when they were all made by hand. Again, the difference, as I recall, was quite staggering, and I just can't find the data.

On the other hand, we have the potential to have people just lose their jobs, because it is no longer needed. Like Farmers... Used in the video. In this case, these farmers (and we are seeing this happen in real time right now in china) threw down their sickles and plows and picked up new jobs in the city. If we hadn't gotten more efficient at farming, then we would have many people stuck doing those jobs because they would be needed, and not out there doing other jobs like manufacturing or finance or whatever.

I don't buy into the notion that we will make machines that will drive us out of existence... But certain people can be replaced by machines and *should* be replaced by machines. Force people into a more productive environment! Star Trek here we come!
 
While it is very likely many people are going to have to adapt or die (in this case, lose their jobs...) I don't believe that we will end up in some crazy 50% unemployment rate.

I don't buy into the notion that we will make machines that will drive us out of existence... But certain people can be replaced by machines and *should* be replaced by machines. Force people into a more productive environment! Star Trek here we come!

Machines freed humans from a lot of physical work (planting crops, making stuff), and a lot of people were therefore able to devote time to mental tasks because they didn't have to worry so much about daily necessities.

The essential problem I see is that when machines begin taking over mental tasks, what's there for the humans to do? In a world where computing systems displace accountants, physicians, lawyers, and other people who do routine skilled work, a huge chunk of the middle class suddenly has no work. A human can produce economic output through mental and physical labor. That's it.

Skilled creatives are the only ones who will thrive. There will be work for those who design and build computing systems (engineers), work for those who run companies (managers), and work for those who start new enterprises (entrepreneurs). And of course, you still have government officials, police, teachers and other humans who are necessary to maintenance of societal institutions.

Governments have to start thinking about this stuff now. Unfortunately, a lot of people think that the markets will just take care of it.

I think the likely outcome is oligarchy, with a tremendous concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a relatively small number of aristocratic families. To a certain extent, this has already occurred in the United States.

The "Star Trek" future portrays a society where people are completely freed from material needs. Citizens of the Federation are shown to pursue creative and exploratory enterprises. Beyond Star Fleet, people are journalists, gardeners, restaurateurs, scientists, etc. The question that's not answered is: what does society do with people who aren't particularly creative or entrepreneurial? Do they just die out? Do they become cannon fodder in the endless wars against Klingons, Romulans, Borgs, Changlings, Cardashians, and Minbari? Or sit around in a holodeck all day to play video games?


It seems to me that the point is video's point pretty unassailable, the question is what the results are.

A) The owners of the machines, perhaps 10% of the population, take all the profits and the unemployable get the normal year or so of unemployment benefits then standard welfare payments for the rest of their lives. Some may go into service a la Downton Abbey.
B) Tax rates are raised a lot on upper incomes and transfer payments greatly increased so the unemployable get a reasonable standard of living, but no paid work, and the owners, say the top 10% or so, pay for it.

Personally I don't find either of these very appealing.

The Downton Abbey past as future is already here IMO. Much of the job growth in the past decade has been in poorly paid service work.
 
Technological unemployment is something that I'm fascinated by and I like to keep an eye on it. Here are some books that are must-reads for anyone concerned about it:

Robots Will Steal Your Job, But That's OK: How to Survive the Economic Collapse and Be Happy by Frederico Pistono. You can actually read the book without charge from his website: Read Online For Free Robots Will Steal Your Job, But That's OK: How to Survive the Economic Collapse and Be Happy

The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future by Martin Ford - a bit academic, but VERY informative!

Race Against The Machine: How the Digital Revolution is Accelerating Innovation, Driving Productivity, and Irreversibly Transforming Employment and the Economy by Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee - smart guys from MIT

Here's a fascinating 60 Minutes piece that came out last year:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As new discoveries have been made people lost their jobs, but it in turn ended up allowing for other new discoveries that created jobs. Using current technology will always allow some new as of yet unthought-of discovery.

If you were a bacteria floating around on Earth 1.5 billion years ago, you might have predicted that life will never be multicellular because that’s never happened before... but there was this one time that it happened, the life was never the same.

If you were mouse-like mammal 50 million years ago, you might have predicted that no species will ever be smart enough to travel to the moon and back because that’s never happened before... but there was this one species, and after it evolved, life was never the same.

If you were a Roman living in 100 AD, you might have predicted that Rome will never fall because that’s never happened before... but there was this one time in 476 that it did fall, and the history of civilization was never the same.

You might predict that technology / robots will never be better than humans at just about everything thus taking away all our jobs because that’s never happened before... but there will be a time, and humanity will never be the same.
 
If you were a bacteria floating around on Earth 1.5 billion years ago, you might have predicted that life will never be multicellular because that’s never happened before... but there was this one time that it happened, the life was never the same.

If you were mouse-like mammal 50 million years ago, you might have predicted that no species will ever be smart enough to travel to the moon and back because that’s never happened before... but there was this one species, and after it evolved, life was never the same.

If you were a Roman living in 100 AD, you might have predicted that Rome will never fall because that’s never happened before... but there was this one time in 476 that it did fall, and the history of civilization was never the same.

You might predict that technology / robots will never be better than humans at just about everything thus taking away all our jobs because that’s never happened before... but there will be a time, and humanity will never be the same.

I'm right there with you though! I hope we drag people away from 3.20$ an hour jobs (as referenced in the 60 minutes piece). Those are the jobs that should go away! And tasks which are time consuming and not particularly thought provoking should be pushed to the chopping block immediately! I picture a day when everyone learns some high level engineering or science skill in highschool and goes on to do some crazy thought provoking job. Because until you can mimic actual human thought that is where the skill set is shifting toward.

And the reason that computers are able to do "artistic" things like compose music is because math is rooted in everything... And a computer is very mathematical. Music especially... Go listen to any song and it will boil down to one of only a handful of base songs that consist of either three, four, or five chords... Why is that? Because music is math...

But yeah there are certainly to be tough times ahead. I don't doubt that. If you are still young or have kids, get into something that can't be replaced by a computer in 10 years... Because otherwise you are screwed. There are certainly jobs to be had out there... Problem is not many people are able to do them... We need to train our children into productive fields if we want them to succeed.

- - - Updated - - -


Relevant to the subject of music all being the same...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
From this weeks Economist:

Farming in the Netherlands: Dutch farmers add sustainability to their enviable productivity
AT THE entrance to Hoeve Rosa farm, in the southern Dutch province of Limburg, a sign gives a warning that unmanned machines might zoom past. This farm is run by robots. They feed 180 cows, monitor their health, clean their stables and milk them whenever the cows choose. Fons Kersten, who runs the place, just needs to keep an eye on his phone. An app alerts him if a cow needs human attention.

After inheriting the farm, Mr Kersten in 2008 invested €500,000 ($730,000) in the machines which enabled him to double the number of cattle, increase the milk yield per cow by 10-15% and reduce wasted feed. Technology-infused farmers like Mr Kersten and his robots are changing agriculture in the Netherlands and the world.

Land and labour are expensive in northern Europe. To compete, Dutch scientists, businesses and government have always worked closely to boost productivity and develop high-value crops. As a result, tomato seeds treated by Incotec, a Dutch agribusiness, are worth—literally—twice their weight in gold. Dutch cows now produce twice as much milk as they did in 1960. The result is that the value of the country’s agricultural exports is second only to America, a country 200 times the size of the Netherlands.

Now the Dutch are seeking to sell not only their food but their expertise to foreign farmers concerned about limited resources and quality control. Mr Kersten’s robots were developed by Lely, a Dutch firm that exports to 70 countries. In February Wageningen University, located in the heart of the country’s “Food Valley”, rolled out the red carpet to welcome China’s biggest dairy company, Yili. Plagued by infant-food scandals, which have chased consumers into the arms of foreign brands, the company chose Wageningen as its European centre for research and development.

It is not only food safety that sells. Consumers are becoming more concerned about whether farmers are adopting good environmental practices. Here, Dutch farms have had a bad reputation. A quarter of the country lies below sea-level. Reclaimed land was turned into monoculture “polders” for grazing cattle. The Netherlands has one of the lowest levels of biodiversity in Europe, alongside countries like Malta, an island made up mostly of rocks. A result of farms becoming larger and more productive in the 1970s, without tighter environmental rules, was degradation of the land. The grim practice of carpetbombing flat fields with manure and fertilizer contaminated fields and water.

Much is changing, claims Albert-Jan Maat, chair of the Dutch farmers association. His members are now going all-out for sustainable intensive agriculture. Under pressure from government and consumers, new technology and improved farming techniques are cleaning up Dutch farms. The newest stables are built so that manure is instantly removed by underground conveyor belts. At 14kg per animal, annual emissions of ammonia—a measure of how effectively farmers deal with excess dung—are now second only to Denmark and far better than the European Union average of 25kg.

The newest machines developed in Dutch laboratories rely on hovering cameras to tell them which tomato plants need a dose of pesticides, reducing use by at least 85%. Some greenhouses have solar panels and are energy producers rather than consumers: carbon-dioxide emissions have been cut by excellent insulation which means excess heat can be recycled and stored for winter by warming ground water, or turned into power for neighbouring houses; over 10% of electricity in the Netherlands is produced in this way.

The world’s population will be almost a third bigger in 2050. Estimates by the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organisation show that carbon-dioxide emissions from agriculture could increase by another 30% by then. Traditional farming methods, as practised in most of the world, are both expensive and environmentally damaging, says Harald von Witzke from Humboldt University in Berlin. Sustainable and intensive food production, where the Dutch are in the lead, he says, “is the only way forward.”
 
Machines have been replacing human jobs for decades now.

The answer has been to educate the workforce and provide them with other jobs. Change is often accompanied by turmoil and hardship, but something good arises after that.

The limits to this are unclear.

But the humen species has intentions. I do not see intentions in the machines. They are tools serving the intentions of their creators.
 
I picture a day when everyone learns some high level engineering or science skill in highschool and goes on to do some crazy thought provoking job. Because until you can mimic actual human thought that is where the skill set is shifting toward.

This would be ideal, but there are two major problems:

First, the engineering and science type jobs, or STEM jobs, result in devices and software that multiply productivity and reduce the need for workers. An economy only needs so many engineers and scientists to build and discover things. Also, if too many people are doing this kind of work, supply/demand will severely drive down wages.

Second, I'm skeptical that a person of average intelligence can really do the kind of top-notch scientific and engineering work that the economy demands. Unless the average human becomes significantly smarter and more driven, I don't think it's feasible for everyone to engage in high level, thought provoking work.
 
Unless the average human becomes significantly smarter and more driven, I don't think it's feasible for everyone to engage in high level, thought provoking work.

But haven't we already advanced this? As pioneers discover new things knowledge has a way of trickling down as we also discover new ways to teach children very complex subjects. I do not believe in core intelligence limitations, but rather that your brain is wired to heavily favor one aspect over another. I am no psychiatrist so I can't even begin to picture the variations of learning types in the human brain, but many studies have been done and different people learn... well, differently. I think for learning to truly progress we need a means to identify your best method of learning (and what you have a predisposition for) and then place you into a learning environment that is tailored to your mind.

But there is a lot of wasted potential because children get discouraged and push away from a subject when they have great aptitude for it. The easiest example of this is when looking at either the race or gender differences in professions. Why is it, for example, that the number of females in an engineering job is so low? So in order for this to work we would need to drastically reshape how we are raising our children and how we are teaching them in school.

But for some of the crazy stuff that has been done already, look at the advancements made in toddler education. It used to be that you would go to daycare and just play and nap and that was pretty much it... and at home you would play and nap... sure you would likely learn some basics like counting, your alphabet, and speech... but now, how things have changed. I watch a friends 3 year old on the leap pad and I am amazed at some of the things this device has basically taught her to do without her even realizing it.

But there will always be "low skilled" jobs out there. The bar for "low skill" is constantly moving for people to keep up with, but they will always be there.

I am not saying we aren't in for some trouble ahead, because we certainly are... but once the new way of life takes over it will be a whole different world.
 
I do not believe in core intelligence limitations, but rather that your brain is wired to heavily favor one aspect over another. I am no psychiatrist so I can't even begin to picture the variations of learning types in the human brain, but many studies have been done and different people learn... well, differently. I think for learning to truly progress we need a means to identify your best method of learning (and what you have a predisposition for) and then place you into a learning environment that is tailored to your mind.

I don't pretend to know the answer to the old "nature vs. nurture" debate, but it's been my experience that the average member of the public has fairly limited quantitative and reasoning skills. It's easy to forget this when one works/spends time around around people in the top 3-5% or higher on the IQ scale. At the risk of sounding elitist, my experiences with "average" intelligence employees in a skilled professional setting have been overwhelmingly negative. Specifically, these employees (1) Did not learn from mistakes (2) Lacked any sort of introspection or self-check mechanisms (3) Were unable to anticipate the consequences of their actions (4) Were unable to see the big picture and how things from one part of a system could impact other parts of that system (5) Would never admit that they were wrong. Not even after my boss fired them.

It didn't matter if they had a college degree or higher. They inevitably got canned for screwing up and causing trouble.

Would better schools and teaching methods unlock hidden brainpower? I don't know.
 
Gonna be a tough pill for some people to swallow but the only real solution to the kinds of automation and levels production we're going to see in the coming decades is a guaranteed minimum income.

We won't need a lot of workers but we WILL need A LOT of consumers... the answer is as obvious as it is unwelcome...
 
Gonna be a tough pill for some people to swallow but the only real solution to the kinds of automation and levels production we're going to see in the coming decades is a guaranteed minimum income.

We won't need a lot of workers but we WILL need A LOT of consumers... the answer is as obvious as it is unwelcome...

Exactly. Automation happens more in high wage countries because it's cheaper than hiring people. Automation's effect is to reduce labor, but increase productivity, increasing humanity's wealth. The only reason large-scale automation is a concern is because people are stuck in a win-loss mindset in the labor market. It should be seen as a massive opportunity to make society happier and healthier. I'm not talking Brave New World life of leisure, but of using the increased wealth and available labor to improve quality of life, with workfare on a massive scale. The only problem we'd have is an unwillingness to set a minimum wage high enough.
 
Last edited:
What should seem absurd on it's face is the fact that the '40 hour' week hasn't moved since it was established in 1946. Since then productivity has increased >200%... so really we should now have a '15 hour' week. In The Netherlands full time is 32 hours. I wish more people would look at this as an engineering problem... the economic pump(consumption) is cavitating... you need to get more fluid(capital) to the sump (middle class purchasing power) engineers usually don't have an ideological opposition to how a problem is solved.

saupload_mfgpp.jpg
 
Prime example of when the video talks about how companies will switch to robots just based on economics and the bottom line:

Robots Could Cut International Labor Costs 16 Percent by 2025, Consulting Group Says - US News

"As labor costs rise around the world, it is becoming increasingly critical that manufacturers rapidly take steps to improve their output per worker to stay competitive,” said Harold L. Sirkin, a senior partner at the Boston Consulting Group, according to a Tuesday news release. “Companies are finding that advances in robotics and other manufacturing technologies offer some of the best opportunities to sharply improve productivity.”

A robotic spot welder, for example, cost an average of $133,000 for automotive manufacturers to own and operate in 2014 – about $8 per hour to operate. Paying a human worker an hourly wage to perform the same tasks cost companies an average of $25 per hour, according to the report.