If the idea of unemployment primarily caused by technological change is a valid, then it poses a serious risk to social and economic stability. I would like to see a post about possible solutions to technological unemployment. This topic doesn’t seem to get as much mainstream attention although 60 minutes did recently do a segment on it. There is prior discussion on LW, but none that offer potential solutions.
Also, I’d like to know how this community is split on this topic.
Unemployment primarily caused by technological change is a major problem: [pollid:439]
EDIT for clarification
EDIT gwern’s essay on Neo-Luddism here for those interested.
I attempted to clarify what I mean by editing the post. I meant unemployment and I apologize for being unclear. Also, I didn’t want to say, “Do you agree with the Neo-Luddism?” because I think that you could still believe that structural unemployment caused by technology is a real risk, with out having the philosophy of opposing technology. Perhaps there are solutions that would minimize suffering, if technological unemployment is a significant risk, that does not involve halting progress in software and robotics.
I agree that technology renders jobs obsolete, so in a sense I agree.
However, I think that thus far the “Demand is unlimited” axiom held in some branches of economics has held true in the long term (short term disruptions aside), so I disagree with the implication that technology will result in unemployment in the foreseeable future. (I am open to the possibility of paradigm shifts which render historical evidence irrelevant, I simply do not see at reasonable to assume the future will look the way we currently expect it to look; “Nothing ages faster than yesterday’s tomorrow,” quote source not immediately determinate to me.)
Demand may be unlimited but humans will probably not be the most efficient suppliers of any goods in the future. Once it’s cheaper to run a robotic AGI than to support a human the economy will change dramatically. Personally I think the long term solution is just to ensure everyone owns enough capital to sustain themselves directly (permanent retirement, essentially), but transitioning to that kind of situation and then keeping it sustainable for thousands (billions) of years sounds fairly difficult.
If the idea of unemployment primarily caused by technological change is a valid, then it poses a serious risk to social and economic stability. I would like to see a post about possible solutions to technological unemployment. This topic doesn’t seem to get as much mainstream attention although 60 minutes did recently do a segment on it. There is prior discussion on LW, but none that offer potential solutions.
Also, I’d like to know how this community is split on this topic.
Unemployment primarily caused by technological change is a major problem: [pollid:439]
EDIT for clarification
EDIT gwern’s essay on Neo-Luddism here for those interested.
Unsure what “technological employment is true” means.
I attempted to clarify what I mean by editing the post. I meant unemployment and I apologize for being unclear. Also, I didn’t want to say, “Do you agree with the Neo-Luddism?” because I think that you could still believe that structural unemployment caused by technology is a real risk, with out having the philosophy of opposing technology. Perhaps there are solutions that would minimize suffering, if technological unemployment is a significant risk, that does not involve halting progress in software and robotics.
Currently disagree (although it’s most likely a minor source of unemployment right now) but expect it to become a major problem in the future.
Disagree, but I think the position is subtle:
I agree that technology renders jobs obsolete, so in a sense I agree.
However, I think that thus far the “Demand is unlimited” axiom held in some branches of economics has held true in the long term (short term disruptions aside), so I disagree with the implication that technology will result in unemployment in the foreseeable future. (I am open to the possibility of paradigm shifts which render historical evidence irrelevant, I simply do not see at reasonable to assume the future will look the way we currently expect it to look; “Nothing ages faster than yesterday’s tomorrow,” quote source not immediately determinate to me.)
Demand may be unlimited but humans will probably not be the most efficient suppliers of any goods in the future. Once it’s cheaper to run a robotic AGI than to support a human the economy will change dramatically. Personally I think the long term solution is just to ensure everyone owns enough capital to sustain themselves directly (permanent retirement, essentially), but transitioning to that kind of situation and then keeping it sustainable for thousands (billions) of years sounds fairly difficult.