The challenge is to figure out whether or not the most fundamental tenet of economics—that demand is unlimited—holds true.
Even if demands are unlimited, the problem is that automation will drive down the costs of a lot of labor to where regulatory and transaction costs make hiring most people more trouble than it’s worth. It’s not that there won’t be labor people want done, it’s that machines will out compete most people in those tasks, making then economically unviable.
Which is exactly what happened for the other 1.4 billion jobs that don’t exist anymore in the United States.
What you fear has been feared for a hundred and fifty years, since automation started to seriously replace workers. Instead of driving us to a dystopia, however, it’s pushed us into a relative utopia.
What you’re proposing isn’t new. The implication you aren’t addressing is that the trend of -new- jobs, previously not worth employing someone to do, but rising at the margins with increased specialization, arising as workers were freed from old ones will suddenly cease.
Machines used to compete on brute strength and endurance. Mankind always used to have advantages in intelligence, communication, sensation, and precision control. All of those are under attack in ways they have not before.
In short, people are rapidly losing a comparative advantage versus machines. The real problem comes when the opportunities for profit from using machines overcomes the opportunities for profit by employing people. The accelerating rates of improvement in technology will make that more and more the case.
Actually, machines used to compete on strength. They required constant maintenance, however; many people were mutilated fixing the machines while they were still running. That was last century.
Then they began competing on precision control; that’s been on the rise for the past century.
Communication has been the story of the last thirty years. Sensation, similarly, has been rising for the past twenty years. Intelligence is still in the works.
At no point in this process did machines lead to mass unemployment; indeed, employment has -increased- over the past century, as women have begun entering the workforce.
Your proposition ultimately comes down to this: You can’t imagine what we’ll be doing next. I have only this to say: The person who -can- imagine, that person will be the next billionaire, or possibly even the first trillionaire. It shouldn’t surprise you that you can’t imagine what jobs will keep billions occupied over the next century, if you could you would be the extremely exceptional case.
Your proposition ultimately comes down to this: You can’t imagine what we’ll be doing next.
No, my proposition comes down to this:
In short, people are rapidly losing a comparative advantage versus machines.
What comparative advantage will people still have? How big is that market? How many people likely to be out of work can fill that market?
Really good robotic hookers and “escorts” are a ways off. There will be work there for a while, but not everyone would be in demand in that market.
There’s no reason every person has to have economically viable capabilities, particularly in a regulated economy where there is a minimum cost threshold through regulations. Some people now, don’t. Babies don’t.
Even if demands are unlimited, the problem is that automation will drive down the costs of a lot of labor to where regulatory and transaction costs make hiring most people more trouble than it’s worth. It’s not that there won’t be labor people want done, it’s that machines will out compete most people in those tasks, making then economically unviable.
Which is exactly what happened for the other 1.4 billion jobs that don’t exist anymore in the United States.
What you fear has been feared for a hundred and fifty years, since automation started to seriously replace workers. Instead of driving us to a dystopia, however, it’s pushed us into a relative utopia.
What you’re proposing isn’t new. The implication you aren’t addressing is that the trend of -new- jobs, previously not worth employing someone to do, but rising at the margins with increased specialization, arising as workers were freed from old ones will suddenly cease.
It’s not exactly what has happened.
Machines used to compete on brute strength and endurance. Mankind always used to have advantages in intelligence, communication, sensation, and precision control. All of those are under attack in ways they have not before.
In short, people are rapidly losing a comparative advantage versus machines. The real problem comes when the opportunities for profit from using machines overcomes the opportunities for profit by employing people. The accelerating rates of improvement in technology will make that more and more the case.
Actually, machines used to compete on strength. They required constant maintenance, however; many people were mutilated fixing the machines while they were still running. That was last century.
Then they began competing on precision control; that’s been on the rise for the past century.
Communication has been the story of the last thirty years. Sensation, similarly, has been rising for the past twenty years. Intelligence is still in the works.
At no point in this process did machines lead to mass unemployment; indeed, employment has -increased- over the past century, as women have begun entering the workforce.
Your proposition ultimately comes down to this: You can’t imagine what we’ll be doing next. I have only this to say: The person who -can- imagine, that person will be the next billionaire, or possibly even the first trillionaire. It shouldn’t surprise you that you can’t imagine what jobs will keep billions occupied over the next century, if you could you would be the extremely exceptional case.
No, my proposition comes down to this:
What comparative advantage will people still have? How big is that market? How many people likely to be out of work can fill that market?
Really good robotic hookers and “escorts” are a ways off. There will be work there for a while, but not everyone would be in demand in that market.
There’s no reason every person has to have economically viable capabilities, particularly in a regulated economy where there is a minimum cost threshold through regulations. Some people now, don’t. Babies don’t.