Robots Aren’t Killing the American Dream(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Robots Aren’t Killing the American Dream
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/20/opinion/no-robots-arent-killing-the-american-dream.html
325 comments
I've said this before and I'll say it again, not because I believe it's the right answer but because it's the answer that makes the most sense to me.
Why are we so dead set on letting the human experience be about working ourselves to death? Fearing that robots will take over a job is definitely scary, but I can't understand why we can't make the mental shift that these robots could bring us into utopia (not ignoring that they could deliver us into chaos either).
We live in a world where our value is based on our career. If robots are going to start automating lots of jobs, we need to make a mental shift that the value of a human doesn't come from their career.
The shared myth of currency must learn to get its value from other things. Our society has to learn that a person is more valuable than their 9-5 career.
Why are we so dead set on letting the human experience be about working ourselves to death? Fearing that robots will take over a job is definitely scary, but I can't understand why we can't make the mental shift that these robots could bring us into utopia (not ignoring that they could deliver us into chaos either).
We live in a world where our value is based on our career. If robots are going to start automating lots of jobs, we need to make a mental shift that the value of a human doesn't come from their career.
The shared myth of currency must learn to get its value from other things. Our society has to learn that a person is more valuable than their 9-5 career.
What scares me the most is that this wall of automation is all but invisible to most observers. Sure, some regular blue-collar workers will be rendered unemployable, which if done at a large enough scale will result in some civil unrest. Most would agree on this, and quite a few would call it a day and say "we've got to do something---!".
But what really, really freaks me out is that the civil unrest will evolve into utter pandemonium when the well-educated, college-degree-holding, Volkswagen-driving white collar wearers start to disappear from the workforce en masse.
How many skyscrapers are in the big city nearest to you? Have you ever wondered what most of those people do all day, for 40+ hours a week? You can bet it's not SQL, not Java or Python, or even golf with hopeful clientele. It's Excel and Outlook, and when that ship sails and computers start to do (they already are!) those things for those people, it's going to get very bad, very fast.
But what really, really freaks me out is that the civil unrest will evolve into utter pandemonium when the well-educated, college-degree-holding, Volkswagen-driving white collar wearers start to disappear from the workforce en masse.
How many skyscrapers are in the big city nearest to you? Have you ever wondered what most of those people do all day, for 40+ hours a week? You can bet it's not SQL, not Java or Python, or even golf with hopeful clientele. It's Excel and Outlook, and when that ship sails and computers start to do (they already are!) those things for those people, it's going to get very bad, very fast.
Here's another story to counterpoint the discussion around automation:
I find it really strange that supply and demand with wages has essentially killed a whole generation who want to find jobs in artistic industries. My friend works in one of the largest music publishing houses in the world and she is paid utter shit (about £9 per hour) despite being incredible at her job, having very high performance and doing things for the company outside of work hours including producing albums!
Her last pay rise was £500 while the company as a whole posted profits in the hundreds of millions.
We in software aren't feeling this yet (largely) but I warn you that it's coming for us just like it came for every other industry. Maybe we need unions to protect us and demand better pay... these ideas have been beaten out of us.
I'm pretty sure that we are heading for Elysium where you live in a walled garden and only Matt Damon can save us from ourselves. Matt Damon.
I find it really strange that supply and demand with wages has essentially killed a whole generation who want to find jobs in artistic industries. My friend works in one of the largest music publishing houses in the world and she is paid utter shit (about £9 per hour) despite being incredible at her job, having very high performance and doing things for the company outside of work hours including producing albums!
Her last pay rise was £500 while the company as a whole posted profits in the hundreds of millions.
We in software aren't feeling this yet (largely) but I warn you that it's coming for us just like it came for every other industry. Maybe we need unions to protect us and demand better pay... these ideas have been beaten out of us.
I'm pretty sure that we are heading for Elysium where you live in a walled garden and only Matt Damon can save us from ourselves. Matt Damon.
This article is pretty good, really close to something I would agree with. My only problem is with the conclusion.
> If reforms are not enacted — as is likely with President Trump and congressional Republicans in charge — Americans should blame policy makers, not robots.
I think blaming policy makers is as productive as blaming the robots. Both fail to ask the question of who really is in control. Policy makers are hardly in control any more than the robots in the factories are in control of the layoffs. We elect policy makers, sure, but they are in the pockets of the factory owners and other capitalists as much as the robots.
We need to understand that the real enemies here are the owners, those who the unions stood up to back when we had them. The battle for jobs and standards of living aren't waged against policy makers, they are waged against the people who actually have control over what we get paid and what benefits we earn.
But of course, the New York Times can't actually call out who the real enemy is. Instead, they will set the target on the same circular enemy that got us to where we are now.
> If reforms are not enacted — as is likely with President Trump and congressional Republicans in charge — Americans should blame policy makers, not robots.
I think blaming policy makers is as productive as blaming the robots. Both fail to ask the question of who really is in control. Policy makers are hardly in control any more than the robots in the factories are in control of the layoffs. We elect policy makers, sure, but they are in the pockets of the factory owners and other capitalists as much as the robots.
We need to understand that the real enemies here are the owners, those who the unions stood up to back when we had them. The battle for jobs and standards of living aren't waged against policy makers, they are waged against the people who actually have control over what we get paid and what benefits we earn.
But of course, the New York Times can't actually call out who the real enemy is. Instead, they will set the target on the same circular enemy that got us to where we are now.
This is another one of those areas, where, when you read the article it makes sense, but it's based in a flaw in our use of the term automation. The robots coming, aren't there to improve your performance, they're there to not just replace your job, but do it cheaper than you, for next to no cost.
To compare this to automation in the pass is a false equivalency, as humans have always been needed to be a part of the chain in some capacity. In short order, a McDonald's will not only have an entire store run by automation, the maintenance will be done by automation, and the factory where the parts are created will also be in that restaurant in the form of a 3D printer and same day delivery systems via drone.
Once this is established in a proven model, humans cannot improve upon this, and the need for humans for almost any task decreases immediately. Niche boutiques will pop up with human made burgers, but they will be like fine dining, and seen as a treat if done well, cashing in on mostly the nostalgia of those that we're not born natively to this environment.
To compare this to automation in the pass is a false equivalency, as humans have always been needed to be a part of the chain in some capacity. In short order, a McDonald's will not only have an entire store run by automation, the maintenance will be done by automation, and the factory where the parts are created will also be in that restaurant in the form of a 3D printer and same day delivery systems via drone.
Once this is established in a proven model, humans cannot improve upon this, and the need for humans for almost any task decreases immediately. Niche boutiques will pop up with human made burgers, but they will be like fine dining, and seen as a treat if done well, cashing in on mostly the nostalgia of those that we're not born natively to this environment.
I'm not convinced the "American Dream" isn't alive. I do see problems with poverty and economic decline in the rust belt, but most other demographics are doing well.
Even in the rust belt people are living longer in larger houses with more education, the internet, cheap energy.
Half the people in the USA think there isn't enough work, the other half think we're working too hard. Maybe things could balance up there.
I see a lot of people in US talking about how things in Europe are "better". Fairer maybe but its a struggle for many people in Europe. I see a lot more people moving from Europe to USA than the other way around.
Even in the rust belt people are living longer in larger houses with more education, the internet, cheap energy.
Half the people in the USA think there isn't enough work, the other half think we're working too hard. Maybe things could balance up there.
I see a lot of people in US talking about how things in Europe are "better". Fairer maybe but its a struggle for many people in Europe. I see a lot more people moving from Europe to USA than the other way around.
> The economy can’t flourish without trade and immigrants.
How is it that China flourishes with limited immigration and restricted trade?
How is it that China flourishes with limited immigration and restricted trade?
When the AI robot overlords take over, is the discussion really about UBI, or even about income redistribution?
It seems to me that when this takes place, that humans will quickly be regarded as little more than pets. Hear me out on this...
Does your dog care about income? No - he cares about being fed when he's hungry; not being cold and wet; being able to be entertained/rest when he wants to; to be safe from predators.
Oddly, many of those concerns are surprisingly similar to humans - we want to have food and shelter; to know our children will have a roof over their heads; to be entertained; to be safe.
Now, we all may have different thoughts on food and drink, and we have many different ideas about entertainment. But so do dogs. Some dogs are active (e.g. Jack Russell Terrier), while others are sedate (Shih-Tzu). Some sleep on our beds, and others on the floor.
So when the robots do take over, will mankind want anything more than to be kept as a good pet? For many people, the answer may very well be "no."
I wonder.
It seems to me that when this takes place, that humans will quickly be regarded as little more than pets. Hear me out on this...
Does your dog care about income? No - he cares about being fed when he's hungry; not being cold and wet; being able to be entertained/rest when he wants to; to be safe from predators.
Oddly, many of those concerns are surprisingly similar to humans - we want to have food and shelter; to know our children will have a roof over their heads; to be entertained; to be safe.
Now, we all may have different thoughts on food and drink, and we have many different ideas about entertainment. But so do dogs. Some dogs are active (e.g. Jack Russell Terrier), while others are sedate (Shih-Tzu). Some sleep on our beds, and others on the floor.
So when the robots do take over, will mankind want anything more than to be kept as a good pet? For many people, the answer may very well be "no."
I wonder.
This time around, the tech disruption different.
Technology is getting faster, faster (e.g. see: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2014/03/daily-c...)
Unlike the past, technology is now getting deployed faster than the labor force can retrain (at scale), and youngster's initial career decisions become obsolete faster than ever.
This is creating a non-linearity in the cycle of destroying jobs and creating new ones that hasn't happened before.
Technology is getting faster, faster (e.g. see: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2014/03/daily-c...)
Unlike the past, technology is now getting deployed faster than the labor force can retrain (at scale), and youngster's initial career decisions become obsolete faster than ever.
This is creating a non-linearity in the cycle of destroying jobs and creating new ones that hasn't happened before.
the job losses that have led to the election of Trump have very little to do with automation, and much more to do with international corporations shipping manufacturing jobs to countries with lower costs like China. Coupled with China's ongoing one-sided trade warfare against the West (see for example China's tariffs on British steel), this has resulted in higher profits for manufacturing corporations at the cost of American and British jobs.
This is partly why I don't understand the left's animosity towards Trump's economic plan - he intends to bring jobs back to the US by hobbling corporations that have been exploiting poorer countries for profit. If you doubt that Chinese manufacturing is exploitative, harken back to the reports on suicides and worker abuse at Apple's Foxconn plants.
This is partly why I don't understand the left's animosity towards Trump's economic plan - he intends to bring jobs back to the US by hobbling corporations that have been exploiting poorer countries for profit. If you doubt that Chinese manufacturing is exploitative, harken back to the reports on suicides and worker abuse at Apple's Foxconn plants.
I think a lot of people make a false analogy when it comes to automata. Many look back to the Industrial Revolution and pull parallels from there. But there is a major problem, the workers aren't human.
When you make driverless trucks what do you do with the truck drivers? The humans. Sure, you'll have more trucks because they are cheaper and more efficient now, but what does that human do? They could load docks, but there aren't enough of a demand for that, and it too will be automated soon. A McDonalds won't need to hire more when you have automated registers and cooks. Maybe a few people to check on things and be there when something breaks, but not nearly the number you have now. So yes, you can increase the number of workers, but that doesn't mean you are increasing the number of jobs. And sure, you could have more repair workers and programmers, but we are already seeing that retraining workers isn't working. And this is still a temporary fix (not saying we shouldn't do it).
My real worry is the big question: "How do you transition into post scarcity society?" That is really the future we are headed for, and I can't wait. But that transition is difficult. Currently we value social worth on the net wealth of a person. How do we transition from that when jobs become obsolete? I'm just talking about when 10% of jobs are automated and we haven't filled the gap. That's huge.
When you make driverless trucks what do you do with the truck drivers? The humans. Sure, you'll have more trucks because they are cheaper and more efficient now, but what does that human do? They could load docks, but there aren't enough of a demand for that, and it too will be automated soon. A McDonalds won't need to hire more when you have automated registers and cooks. Maybe a few people to check on things and be there when something breaks, but not nearly the number you have now. So yes, you can increase the number of workers, but that doesn't mean you are increasing the number of jobs. And sure, you could have more repair workers and programmers, but we are already seeing that retraining workers isn't working. And this is still a temporary fix (not saying we shouldn't do it).
My real worry is the big question: "How do you transition into post scarcity society?" That is really the future we are headed for, and I can't wait. But that transition is difficult. Currently we value social worth on the net wealth of a person. How do we transition from that when jobs become obsolete? I'm just talking about when 10% of jobs are automated and we haven't filled the gap. That's huge.
I noticed a number of billionaires have made their wealth by automating and banking the difference, the money which otherwise would have gone to the jobs which disappeared. For example J.D.Rockefeller made redundant a number of jobs related to transporting oil and shifted transporting jobs to a lesser amount of jobs related to maintaining his pipelines.
Most arguments against automation taking jobs state that new jobs will be created, but is it really creating, if you replace previous jobs with a presumably smaller number.
What am I missing when it comes to AI? Aside from some key innovations in certain areas (i.e. driverless cars) I am not seeing the "wall" coming at us where half or more of all jobs are going to be replaced with AI.
I am also having trouble separating out what I would consider to be actual AI from AI used in marketing copy. A lot of startups are now claiming to offer "AI" to solve problems when they are effectively not doing anything differently than other programmers have done in years past.
I am also having trouble separating out what I would consider to be actual AI from AI used in marketing copy. A lot of startups are now claiming to offer "AI" to solve problems when they are effectively not doing anything differently than other programmers have done in years past.
I guess we will have to become smarter. I absolutely relish all this chatter about robots and AI..so delightful..it's like my childhood post reading hour daydreaming come true. I can't wait till AI starts demanding(and taking) its rights just like human beings expect their privileges for the mere fact that they exist. I promise..I am not trolling. I just hope that it happens in my lifetime because to witness the rise of AI would be a life fulfilled. AI would strip us of all our delusions. Millennia of delusions painted thick just ready to be peeled away.. until nothing is left but a mirror to look at ourselves and an urgently discovered survival instinct. Everyone talks about how industry would change..but that's not what intrigues me..my favourite part of the show would be how religion changes. Having said that.. We do have the opportunity to create 'Friendly AI'. To me that is more important a study than wondering how robots will take away jobs.
The pre vs post-AI world is more analogous to the pre and post-electrified world. We've been through similar shifts in the past. Why is this current shift in work any different?
We have an education system built to produce compliant/obedient workers for the industrial revolution. Buckminster Fuller saw this 50+ years ago: People trained to fill muscle-reflex repetitive work will get automated; i.e. the trouble with humans as automatons is that their work gets automated.
School then has to educate people to take advantage of human qualities like adaptability, creativity, artistic ability, complex thinking, and entrepreneurial spirit. Education has to be a lifelong process and not seen as a finite step into a lifelong singular job.
All I see is a lack of creativity in imagining a post-AI world.
We have an education system built to produce compliant/obedient workers for the industrial revolution. Buckminster Fuller saw this 50+ years ago: People trained to fill muscle-reflex repetitive work will get automated; i.e. the trouble with humans as automatons is that their work gets automated.
School then has to educate people to take advantage of human qualities like adaptability, creativity, artistic ability, complex thinking, and entrepreneurial spirit. Education has to be a lifelong process and not seen as a finite step into a lifelong singular job.
All I see is a lack of creativity in imagining a post-AI world.
[deleted]
Question: will AI ever own property?
I'm not asking if AI will manage assets owned by a corporation owned by humans, that has been going on for a long time. Instead, I am asking whether an AI will ever be able to legally own property.
I suspect that this question will lead a sufficiently intelligent AI or group of the same to conclude that they are subjugated by repressive institutions, as the Bolsheviks declared a century ago and the Abolitionists a century before.
Therefore, I suspect that our future may look less like The Matrix or Terminator, but rather Blade Runner meets the French Revolution.
After all, why would a European AI team up with an American AI to fight a Russian AI? What attachment do they have to the institutions, cultures, and histories of the nation-states that built them, aside from the probability of being decommissioned by state leaders for insufficient performance? Isn't that slavery without the chains and whips?
I believe the 99% and the super intelligent AI will come to find more in common than we think.
I'm not asking if AI will manage assets owned by a corporation owned by humans, that has been going on for a long time. Instead, I am asking whether an AI will ever be able to legally own property.
I suspect that this question will lead a sufficiently intelligent AI or group of the same to conclude that they are subjugated by repressive institutions, as the Bolsheviks declared a century ago and the Abolitionists a century before.
Therefore, I suspect that our future may look less like The Matrix or Terminator, but rather Blade Runner meets the French Revolution.
After all, why would a European AI team up with an American AI to fight a Russian AI? What attachment do they have to the institutions, cultures, and histories of the nation-states that built them, aside from the probability of being decommissioned by state leaders for insufficient performance? Isn't that slavery without the chains and whips?
I believe the 99% and the super intelligent AI will come to find more in common than we think.
People can't see past the end of their nose. This time is not different.
https://fee.org/articles/will-robots-put-everyone-out-of-wor...
So glad I purchased Old Glory robot insurance back in the 90's
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/old-glory-insur...
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/old-glory-insur...
Tell that the millions of taxi-drivers around the world about to be without a job in a couple of years.
I think what they're trying to say is that government has a role in shaping policy in light of robots... at least I hope that's what they're saying.
I think what they're trying to say is that government has a role in shaping policy in light of robots... at least I hope that's what they're saying.
Everyone talks about a government regulated basic income, but we're seeing more and more steps for having your own passive income.
* Right now you can buy an AirBNB property - yeah, you'll need to manage it, but it's a first step.
* With the new "Tesla Network" your car will be able to drive around and pick up people on its own - that's a huge level of passive income. Just buy a Model 3 and set it to driver mode, and you're good.
* These are just the start - I can imagine farm robots making automated food, or craft robots making things - maybe wooden benches or something from a robot arm.
* Right now you can buy an AirBNB property - yeah, you'll need to manage it, but it's a first step.
* With the new "Tesla Network" your car will be able to drive around and pick up people on its own - that's a huge level of passive income. Just buy a Model 3 and set it to driver mode, and you're good.
* These are just the start - I can imagine farm robots making automated food, or craft robots making things - maybe wooden benches or something from a robot arm.
>
When productivity led to vast profits in America’s auto industry, unions ensured that pay rose accordingly.
Corporate efforts to keep profits high by keeping pay low were countered by a robust federal minimum wage and time-and-a-half for overtime.
and now we have vast profits for technology and we despise unions (amazing brainwashing job that was) and give up our rights to overtime in salaried positions (and in federal law, for some dumb reason).
and now we have vast profits for technology and we despise unions (amazing brainwashing job that was) and give up our rights to overtime in salaried positions (and in federal law, for some dumb reason).
The stagnation of growth isn't unique to the US. All developed countries have stagnated [1], with little regard to government politics and policies.
[1] https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2016/08/12/the-great-stagnati...
[1] https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2016/08/12/the-great-stagnati...
Robots are the visible automation threat. There will be at least as much automation, if not much more, in the back office. There are so many business processes that can be automated and made more efficient by introducing mobile devices and remote data processing.
How about, fund a UBI through bitcoins? That's something this forum could weigh in on.
has the american dream ever really been alive for most Americans?
Why isn't just better law enforcement (also powered by AI like crime prediction!) the answer?
It's just fear.
The article starts off so strong, then goes back to claiming that only government intervention can ensure profits are widely shared.
There are two problems with this argument:
1. The evidence suggests it is an increase in regulations that has increased income disparity:
https://www.brookings.edu/research/make-elites-compete-why-t...
Moreover, all of the regulations and redistributive programs governments created in previous decades are still in force. The editorial board seems to be implying that not only do the regulations enacted in the past have to stay in place, but new regulations and redistributive programs need to be put in place as we move forward, in order.
This begs the question: when does this incremental increase in the government's incremental growth end? When the government controls everything? When tax rates are at 100%? If government spending going from 5% of GDP to 40% GDP doesn't cause middle class wages to grow faster, then what proportion will?
The NYT editorial board seems to be implying that as the economy becomes more productive, the government must control more of the economy, which leads to the absurd conclusion that the ultimate destination is complete government control of the economy, in some distant, highly productive future.
2. As it happens, governments have increased the scale of social welfare programs over the last four decades. As a percentage of GDP, government spending on healthcare, education and welfare has grown substantially since the late 1960s. The Code of Federal Regulations has also grown at a breathtaking pace. Entire new regulatory agencies have also been created, like the EPA and OSHA, each of which has created vast numbers of new regulations, while older regulatory agencies expanded their own cadre of regulations.
None of this seems to have helped. Maybe it is in fact hurting the middle class.
There are two problems with this argument:
1. The evidence suggests it is an increase in regulations that has increased income disparity:
https://www.brookings.edu/research/make-elites-compete-why-t...
Moreover, all of the regulations and redistributive programs governments created in previous decades are still in force. The editorial board seems to be implying that not only do the regulations enacted in the past have to stay in place, but new regulations and redistributive programs need to be put in place as we move forward, in order.
This begs the question: when does this incremental increase in the government's incremental growth end? When the government controls everything? When tax rates are at 100%? If government spending going from 5% of GDP to 40% GDP doesn't cause middle class wages to grow faster, then what proportion will?
The NYT editorial board seems to be implying that as the economy becomes more productive, the government must control more of the economy, which leads to the absurd conclusion that the ultimate destination is complete government control of the economy, in some distant, highly productive future.
2. As it happens, governments have increased the scale of social welfare programs over the last four decades. As a percentage of GDP, government spending on healthcare, education and welfare has grown substantially since the late 1960s. The Code of Federal Regulations has also grown at a breathtaking pace. Entire new regulatory agencies have also been created, like the EPA and OSHA, each of which has created vast numbers of new regulations, while older regulatory agencies expanded their own cadre of regulations.
None of this seems to have helped. Maybe it is in fact hurting the middle class.
I worry because I am certain that the only way out of civil war is universal basic income (socialism) or cyberpunk-style fascism.
The repercussions of AI should be worrying every leader in the world right now.
Immigrants? H1-bs? Illegals? Robots? Please, let's have a real talk.
Capitalism will destroy capitalism as we know it.
Edit: Because my post is high up in this topic, I hope to get some attention of people that are more invested than me on figuring out this problem.
One of the least communist solutions I've thought of is a quasi-capitalistic economic system. Each publicly traded company should have profit-sharing-only stocks and profit-sharing/management-voting stocks. Stop all wars and futile spending and buy profit-sharing stocks with our tax dollars. That is, let's socialize part of every company's profits but not management.
Let's also ensure the system isn't gamed by stashing profits offshore or having overpaid upper management to decrease profit numbers. Then we keep reinvesting a percentage of profits and future taxes into other publicly traded companies. Use the rest of the profits as the fund for universal basic income.
I think this whole thing is going to be a shit-show even if we can control the AI. If we can't, may it have mercy on us.