FSTDT Forums
Community => Politics and Government => Topic started by: Smilodon on January 19, 2012, 08:07:31 pm
-
I found this blog a while back. It's written by an economist who is concerned that the increasing abilities of automatons are starting to, or are about to, have an impact on employment.
Econfuture (http://econfuture.wordpress.com/)
Considering that unemployment can cause big changes in governments I thought it would be a good idea to put it here.
-
Looks like we shouldn't be worrying about Skynet killing us rather than taking jobs?
-
More news pertinent to this topic.
http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/2139817/lotusphere-ibm-plans-push-watson-finance-medical-markets
http://www.technologyreview.com/business/39410/page1/
-
Interesting stuff. Don't think it'll do away the IT industry anytime soon, though.
-
There's only so much you can advance in job automation before you reach something that requires solving an AI-complete problem (such as natural language understanding). And by the time we have true AI, jobs will not be a pressing concern (possibly because we're all dead)
-
There's only so much you can advance in job automation before you reach something that requires solving an AI-complete problem (such as natural language understanding). And by the time we have true AI, jobs will not be a pressing concern (possibly because we're all dead)
He knows that.
I’ve never said there will be “no jobs.†I’ve only said that technology may ultimately eliminate the bulk of routine jobs. But that will nonetheless result in major problems. History suggests that the 25% unemployment the United States experienced during the Great Depression is probably pretty close to the limit of what a democratic society can withstand.
-
I don't think automation is the reason for why there's a lack of job and I don't think it will mean there won't be jobs in the future. If we don't have increased demand alongside increased potential for productivity, sure, but is that really reasonable given our love of cheap shit? And even then there is nothing saying we absolutely have to stick to a 40 hour workweek. Wages cannot be dropped (yearly wages, not hourly wages) but due to greater productivity there is no reason not to pay an employee the equivalent of doing a 40 hour week in 1990 for working 30 hours if said employee is as productive as the 1990 employee due to gains in technology*. There is also the point that as one sector shrinks another sector can grow. It might require retraining and a different approach to education, but this is doable (and has been done in the past).
*adjusted for inflation, of course.
-
There is also the point that as one sector shrinks another sector can grow. It might require retraining and a different approach to education, but this is doable (and has been done in the past).
And ultimately this is what automation will do to the workforce; it will require more skilled workers as unskilled jobs are increasingly taken up by machines. This also increases the demand for higher education subsequently, so if governments are not smart enough to recognize that an expanded higher education network (or alternatively a vocational training network) is required for the next generation to compete in a complex universe (I'm looking at you, teabaggers), politicians don't deserve to make noise if their country falls behind.
-
There's only so much you can advance in job automation before you reach something that requires solving an AI-complete problem (such as natural language understanding). And by the time we have true AI, jobs will not be a pressing concern (possibly because we're all dead)
He knows that.
I’ve never said there will be “no jobs.†I’ve only said that technology may ultimately eliminate the bulk of routine jobs. But that will nonetheless result in major problems. History suggests that the 25% unemployment the United States experienced during the Great Depression is probably pretty close to the limit of what a democratic society can withstand.
Ah, thanks. I guess that's what I get for not reading the whole thing.