The Future of Employment

[Vlerchan]

There seemed to be a resounding consensus in The War on the Stupid (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2028735) that general economic welfare of society should not be held back in service of the least-best-educated, low-skilled, or otherwise incompetent. Which raises the question, as to what should be the role of employment given increasing automation.

The automation of the last two decades has hollowed out the middle-class, and reduced the formally technical-orientated producer and administrator to that of the working-class. It has prompted considerable gains for the upper-middle and upper-class, with the productivity gains of automation being significantly capital-biased. It has also prompted a larger upper-middle class*, built amongst those that were capable of reinventing themselves as managers of this change.

The automation of the next two decades looks like it might eliminate the current employment of the working-class, immiserating work to be sure, but work all the same. What do you feel the social consequences of this will be, and how should it they be dealt with?

---

* Not everywhere the case. Some countries, that never adapted, are beholden to considerable labour shortages amongst the managerial and techno-productive (programmers, etc.), a clamp on the expansion of welfare in their economy. One good example is Spain, where persistent labour shortages of skilled labour exist while the unemployment rate is at 18%.

[Porpoise101]

I'm reading a book right now about the Boxer Rebellion. Much of the unrest at the time resulted from the unemployment that came with the railroads (since most transport was done by porters). These hard times made the poor and middle classes upset and idle. This caused two things: emigration and the forming of clubs and societies. These cliques can be subversive and should not even be needed by people ideally.

So from that example, I believe that we need to retool and re educate our workforce to make them more skilled. That way they don't just languish and cause problems.

[Living For Love]

I think certain professions will never cease to exist, whether it's jobs related to automation (programmers, engineers, etc...) or related to certain tasks which cannot be automatised (teachers, health care providers, etc...). With the increasing automation, technological illiteracy can be a problem in some countries. I think we just need to re-adapt the way we're educating students so that they're more prepared to face the challenges automation brings.

[Porpoise101]

I think certain professions will never cease to exist, whether it's jobs related to automation (programmers, engineers, etc...) or related to certain tasks which cannot be automatised (teachers, health care providers, etc...).
In Japan, they already have robotic teaching assistants. With the rise of artificial intelligence, computers will eventually outpace us at this current rate. This means that they will have creative capacity to design and build. Eventually no one will have jobs and they will take our place in the world.

But this shouldn't happen within our lifetimes.

[Hyper]

Unconditional basic income.

It is inevitable. Either that or massive increases in crime leading to a collapse of society or some movie like elitish society where the population is divided first and foremost by living in a lawless zone or not.

P.S I am curious as to what you define as a middle class, since I don't believe one exists overall.

[sqishy]

There seemed to be a resounding consensus in The War on the Stupid that general economic welfare of society should not be held back in service of the least-best-educated, low-skilled, or otherwise incompetent.

That society should advance with the 'better equipped' as it were? (sorry for not getting you fully)



The automation of the next two decades looks like it might eliminate the current employment of the working-class, immiserating work to be sure, but work all the same. What do you feel the social consequences of this will be, and how should it they be dealt with?

Does there need to be a presumption that automation of services is not a good thing? Perhaps, for example, when a certain industry moves to automation, those formerly qualified in working there do not stop getting paid, but rather have that pay be continued on condition that they search for a job in another industry or whatever.


Still though, do we need to presume that we have to work to get paid? To me, the idea to work and get paid makes sense when we have a economic system that necessarily needs people to run aspects of it, because otherwise it will not function. The people get paid as compensation for this.

I have issue with this, that you only are given a monetary means to access services and products, through this compensation (money being the main/only way to get to most things in the economic realm), and nothing else. You get no pay aside from work, which indicates, to me at least, an absence of recognition of some inherent deserving of basic needs, but I can still leave that aside and be critical of this economic system.

Can we not have a economic system which is mostly or entirely run by automation, and pay people anyway? There is no rule against logical paradox or whatever, that we cannot give someone money or some other economic capacity to get stuff, just because they don't work.


A tl;dr would be that I guess I am going for universal basic income, but not necessarily in the form of one fixed number.

[Vlerchan]

Unconditional basic income.
This is also what I believe should happen.

There should also be grants for re-skilling. I'm actually quite excited about platforms like Coursera and Lynda for this reason.

P.S I am curious as to what you define as a middle class, since I don't believe one exists overall.
White-collar workers, typically possessing mid-level technical ability and involved in directed and routine labour, such as administration, earning within 20% of the median income.

Disclaimer: That 20% figure I just made up to make it seem as if I'd put a serious amount of thought into it. I will probably come to regret everything about that definition before we even finish this conversation.

Still though, do we need to presumhat we have to work to get paid?
Unless we live in a post-scarcity environment, yes.

money being the main/only way to get to most things in the economic realm
You'll find that money is merely an [1] easily portable, [2] possibly divisible, [3] relatively homogeneous and fungible, and [4] usually cognizabile, claim on a good or service. We could use shark teeth, or salt, or sea-shells if we wanted to instead.

[...] an absence of recognition of some inherent deserving of basic needs [...]
It's more the case that production that is beholden to significant social grace, merit, or compensation otherwise, does not require monetary compensation so that people might prefer to engage in it (at the expense of their leisure time).

Can we not have a economic system which is mostly or entirely run by automation, and pay people anyway?
This would exist in a post-scarcity enviorment. In such a case, there is no need to work, this conversation is irrelevant, and I lose my job, too.

[sqishy]

Unless we live in a post-scarcity environment, yes.

What do you mean?



You'll find that money is merely an [1] easily portable, [2] possibly divisible, [3] relatively homogeneous and fungible, and [4] usually cognizabile, claim on a good or service. We could use shark teeth, or salt, or sea-shells if we wanted to instead.

We could for sure, but nevertheless the economy we are in uses mostly money. I was referring to the economic realm we are in, not ones that can happen.



It's more the case that production that is beholden to significant social grace, merit, or compensation otherwise, does not require monetary compensation so that people might prefer to engage in it (at the expense of their leisure time).


Can you rephrase? (I can randomly not get things, I know)



This would exist in a post-scarcity enviorment. In such a case, there is no need to work, this conversation is irrelevant, and I lose my job, too.

I'm aware of what it would mean for my suggestions to be an actuality.
I didn't say that people cannot have jobs if they don't want to, I have nothing against those who want one. The future of employment is still relevant I feel even in this alternate economic realm, because here employment is not necessary, rather than necessarily not a thing.

[Vlerchan]

What do you mean?
It would require an environment where there is no such thing as scarce resources.

We could for sure, but nevertheless the economy we are in uses mostly money. I was referring to the economic realm we are in, not ones that can happen.
I was pointing out that it makes no material difference what we use as a base level. We gravitated towards 'money' for specific reasons, but it's really inconsequential.

Can you rephrase? (I can randomly not get things, I know)
You do not need to pay people to engage in occupations that they engage in regardless.

Society tends to reward good deeds, which is the reason markets don't need to.

I didn't say that people cannot have jobs if they don't want to[...]
Economics is define as the study of human decision making under conditions of scarce resources.

:)

[sqishy]

It would require an environment where there is no such thing as scarce resources.

Universal basic income doesn't require this though.



I was pointing out that it makes no material difference what we use as a base level. We gravitated towards 'money' for specific reasons, but it's really inconsequential.

Yes, in which case I am referring to currency in general.



You do not need to pay people to engage in occupations that they engage in regardless.

This is a nice thing yes.



Society tends to reward good deeds, which is the reason markets don't need to.

More debatable.



Economics is define as the study of human decision making under conditions of scarce resources.

:)

My view of economics isn't defined as that, rather as that which is the theory and practice of that which physically sustains an ordered human population, by members of that same population, or another population.

I'm fine with calling my thing different though, worry not. I don't see it as being irrelevant though.

[lliam]

Unconditional basic income? I'm a fan of it.

But imo, I don't consider it's financially viable. Not with the today's amount of population in most of the countries around this planet.

A conditional basic income with the obligation by certain social activities to minimize the costs to near zero, eg, in the social sectors would be somewhat more realistic, I guess.

[dxcxdzv]

But imo, I don't consider it's financially viable. Not with the today's amount of population in most of the countries around this planet.

Do you mean the more a country's population is big and the more it is difficult to sustain an unconditional basic income?

Or do you mean it is not applicable to all the planet at the moment?

[Vlerchan]

Universal basic income doesn't require this though.
I'd propose universal basic income in the current environment too.

More debatable.
At the very least, people believe that their is a social reward to their actions.

I'm fine with calling my thing different though, worry not. I don't see it as being irrelevant though.
That's how economists define it and what I study to actually be able to do.

Of course, we can have multiple definitions.

[sqishy]

I'd propose universal basic income in the current environment too.

Good :D .



At the very least, people believe that their is a social reward to their actions.

The majority do, yes. We seek reward of some form out of everything we do, if we are sane by doing things for direct/indirect pleasure at least.



That's how economists define it and what I study to actually be able to do.

Of course, we can have multiple definitions.

Alright, you know me to be outlying in some ways already anyway.

That definition I just gave is not the best I can do, might improve on it in another thread I want to start up soon.

[Hyper]

White-collar workers, typically possessing mid-level technical ability and involved in directed and routine labour, such as administration, earning within 20% of the median income.

Disclaimer: That 20% figure I just made up to make it seem as if I'd put a serious amount of thought into it. I will probably come to regret everything about that definition before we even finish this conversation.


So do you define it more based on skillsets or income? I don't believe there is a middle class based on incomes, just for future reference.

Also to some doubting that unconditional basic income is unviable in todays economies.

The answer to that is getting rid of almost all current existing forms of welfare. I believe there have already been real life pilots done with unconditional basic incomes, Vler might know exactly what I'm refering to & if someone is curious I'll probably dig those specific examples up, and the results were nothing but positive for the economy overall.

[lliam]

Do you mean the more a country's population is big and the more it is difficult to sustain an unconditional basic income?

Or do you mean it is not applicable to all the planet at the moment?



simply: both.



I would really like it see it realize in any country,and apart from the mentioned population problem, I guess the next decades will prevent the installation of such a basic income and probably, lets say it in general, because of our attitudes to power, money, economy, productivity, consumption ... and the importance of social services etc.


And I would even say, this attitudes are the real problem, which is why there will be no an unconditional basic income for a long time in any single country, espacially in the so called western world.


But I suppose there are certain countries that could afford it already now. And there are certainly enough examples of how to implement something like UBI also for future generations.


But imo, rather becomes an African-Native-American communist President of the United States, as that UPI an regular standard for incoming in the countries where it could somehow be realized in the near future.


So, I think our social structures, views and insights must make a 180 ° swivel before UBI or such a thing can take place some day.


Ok, is just a gut feeling ... and not based on well-researched evidence analysis, which would give me headaches anyway.

[DriveAlive]

simply: both.



I would really like it see it realize in any country,and apart from the mentioned population problem, I guess the next decades will prevent the installation of such a basic income and probably, lets say it in general, because of our attitudes to power, money, economy, productivity, consumption ... and the importance of social services etc.


And I would even say, this attitudes are the real problem, which is why there will be no an unconditional basic income for a long time in any single country, espacially in the so called western world.


But I suppose there are certain countries that could afford it already now. And there are certainly enough examples of how to implement something like UBI also for future generations.


But imo, rather becomes an African-Native-American communist President of the United States, as that UPI an regular standard for incoming in the countries where it could somehow be realized in the near future.


So, I think our social structures, views and insights must make a 180 ° swivel before UBI or such a thing can take place some day.


Ok, is just a gut feeling ... and not based on well-researched evidence analysis, which would give me headaches anyway.
Why would you want an unconditional basic income?

[dxcxdzv]

lliam
I don't see why population's a problem, as it is a matter of efficiency

[jamie_n5]

I think things will be alright. As automation and advancement go along I believe that this process will also create new jobs along with it. At least I hope so. I also agree Vlerchan and concerned about the rich get richer and the poor get poorer issue. I think the spread between classes has worsened in the last two decades.

[Vlerchan]

[...] Vler might know exactly what I'm refering to [...]
I have read the studies, and the somewhat-analogous negative-income-taxation studies.

Though, I would say that there needs to be a lot more work done on the UMI impacts before we can be sure about the results. So far, it seems positive, though.

Why would you want an unconditional basic income?
In-large, because it doesn't disincentivise labour participation like traditional social welfare.

That might seem counter-intuitive, but remember that for those on welfare there isn't a massive difference between welfare-allowance and the minimum-wage, and so the relative gain-effects are much larger where a basic minimum income follows them over regardless of employment. It's possible it might increase labour market participation rates.

It would also simplify the welfare-arm of the state, reducing bureaucracy and the costs associated with it. So, we would get a more efficient government and out tax-dollars would go further, as an effect.

[PlasmaHam]

I read something recently on a similar vein regarding automation. The push towards a 15 dollar federal minimum wage(Something I don't support, especially at the Federal level) is encouraging the use of automation in restaurants. Currently, it is economically nonviable to automate restaurants, but if the 15 minimum wage goes through, your average fast food restaurant could afford automation. It would be initially very expensive, but in a span of about 2 years the price should equal out with human workers, and actually start to go down.

I am personally against the current welfare system altogether, and I certainly don't support unconditional basic income. We don't live in a post-scarcity environment like Star Trek, and we have a lot of lazy people. I've seen people basically live off welfare, not worrying about finding a job because the had all the necessities for no work at all. A universal basic income would exacerbate that problem to the utmost degree.

[Vlerchan]

I read something recently on a similar vein regarding automation. The push towards a 15 dollar federal minimum wage(Something I don't support, especially at the Federal level) is encouraging the use of automation in restaurants. Currently, it is economically nonviable to automate restaurants, but if the 15 minimum wage goes through, your average fast food restaurant could afford automation. It would be initially very expensive, but in a span of about 2 years the price should equal out with human workers, and actually start to go down.
I haven't read this recent paper (Downey 2016 (http://econweb.ucsd.edu/~pmdowney/pdfs/wp/PartialAutomation.pdf)) in full but it provides an interesting insights into the spillovers of increasing the minimum wage on middle-class wages. The result - in short - is that increasing the minimum wage reduces the automation of middle-class jobs. This is because most automatons still require low-skilled operators and a higher minimum wage means a lower relative gain here. So the effects aren't clear-cut.

Without a doubt a higher minimum wage is going to encourage the automation of low-skills jobs though.

I am personally against the current welfare system altogether[.]
Is there an alternative to be proposed here?

I've seen people basically live off welfare, not worrying about finding a job because the had all the necessities for no work at all. A universal basic income would exacerbate that problem to the utmost degree.
If there is welfare - we will have individuals looking to take advantage of it. Minimum basic incomes are preferable because it increases the relative gain of taking a job and prompts those at the margin to action.

The literature seems to indicate that it doesn't exacerbate - though as I also said: the literature is also quite incomplete.