[lambert1]

When robots become more advanced and cheaper than human labour will we have to switch to communism in order to prevent mass unemployment?

[Sime]

Well a lot of human labour has already been replaced by automatic machines, such as in agriculture and the automotive industry. Former employees of this area have moved into the service industry, but now automated machines are encroaching on this area as well - but this doesn't mean that this is the end. There has been a big surge in science, design, IT, and creative fields, all of which are as of yet beyond the capability of any computer. The future will most likely bring forth new fields unheard of today, similar to how the internet has had a huge impact in the past two decades.
So 'technological unemployment' may not necessarily spell as end to an employment based economy, and I once too held that fear. The wikipedia page generally outlines the main opinions, there are concerns over the transitory period during which a sector becomes automated however.

[Snagprophet]

I'm imagining this being the way to utopia because you don't have to work any more.

[prog2djent]

Lol, you have just described the venus Project/zeitgeist movement, robots somehow take care of everthing and we all live like kings with no jobs, no money, no authority, no state (apart from a central robot automaton state, like in the matrix) and everyone is born equal, with equal opportunity.

[PicardianSocialist]

Technological progress does not create unemployment. It destroys certain jobs in certain sectors, but creates new ones in other, more productive sectors.

For example, let's say I'm a capitalist. I own a factory, but for sake of simplicity say wages are my only cost and I have no fixed costs. I employ 10 people at £10 each to make 10 widgets, which I sell for £12 each, so I make a profit of £20. Then, a man comes to me and says that he will loan me his work-O-matic android for £10, and that will do the job of my entire workforce. I accept the man's offer and fire my entire workforce (the robot is so great that it doesn't need maintenance workers) and replace it with the android. My costs are now £10, my revenue is still £120, so I make £110 pounds profit.

If we stop the story here, it would appear that I have created unemployment, but it doesn't. I have a choice of what to do now, I could either: enjoy my profits, and hire a full cleaning staff for my house; or I could increase production and cut prices closer to cost. If I do the former, then I will have created the jobs for a cleaning staff, if I do the latter, then the profits have been passed onto consumers, who can buy things they want with the savings which will increase employment in those sectors.

If technological progress really did destroy jobs without creating any, then we would all be unemployed by now.

[CandyFlipper]

(Original post by PicardianSocialist)
Technological progress does not create unemployment. It destroys certain jobs in certain sectors, but creates new ones in other, more productive sectors.

For example, let's say I'm a capitalist. I own a factory, but for sake of simplicity say wages are my only cost and I have no fixed costs. I employ 10 people at £10 each to make 10 widgets, which I sell for £12 each, so I make a profit of £20. Then, a man comes to me and says that he will loan me his work-O-matic android for £10, and that will do the job of my entire workforce. I accept the man's offer and fire my entire workforce (the robot is so great that it doesn't need maintenance workers) and replace it with the android. My costs are now £10, my revenue is still £120, so I make £110 pounds profit.

If we stop the story here, it would appear that I have created unemployment, but it doesn't. I have a choice of what to do now, I could either: enjoy my profits, and hire a full cleaning staff for my house; or I could increase production and cut prices closer to cost. If I do the former, then I will have created the jobs for a cleaning staff, if I do the latter, then the profits have been passed onto consumers, who can buy things they want with the savings which will increase employment in those sectors.

If technological progress really did destroy jobs without creating any, then we would all be unemployed by now.

Glad to see someone talking sense. Yet we have the leader of the free world saying that ATM machines cause unemployment. This economic fallacy (that technology causes unemployment) is very deep rooted, sadly.

[Oswy]

(Original post by PicardianSocialist)
Technological progress does not create unemployment. It destroys certain jobs in certain sectors, but creates new ones in other, more productive sectors.

...

If technological progress really did destroy jobs without creating any, then we would all be unemployed by now.

Technological advance can generate new jobs as it destroys others but not always and certainly not always at the same rate, so we shouldn't get carried away. The underlying trend in any sector is to shed human-labour for machines where possible - once perfected machines are uniformly more productive (often many times more), cheaper to operate and maintain and can be run for anything up to 24 hours a day. While some sectors have been able to replace human jobs with machines quickly and effectively others have struggled but the trend is nevertheless always towards the shedding of human labour for machines, it's just a matter of time.

As for your second point - as anecdotal evidence we have already seen a steady upward creep in the underlying rate of unemployment and underemployment in 'advanced' industrial economies like the UK from the post-War era to the present. And, we will "all be unemployed" only when technology has been able to replace us all, something that is probably some way off, otherwise, and in the meantime, I have no doubt that some of us, indeed plenty of us, are unemployed right now because of technology.

[Oswy]

(Original post by CandyFlipper)
Glad to see someone talking sense. Yet we have the leader of the free world saying that ATM machines cause unemployment. This economic fallacy (that technology causes unemployment) is very deep rooted, sadly.

Heh, you weren't capable of imagining android cleaning staff or production ceilings in the example you've praised?

[zaliack]

(Original post by PicardianSocialist)
Technological progress does not create unemployment. It destroys certain jobs in certain sectors, but creates new ones in other, more productive sectors.

For example, let's say I'm a capitalist. I own a factory, but for sake of simplicity say wages are my only cost and I have no fixed costs. I employ 10 people at £10 each to make 10 widgets, which I sell for £12 each, so I make a profit of £20. Then, a man comes to me and says that he will loan me his work-O-matic android for £10, and that will do the job of my entire workforce. I accept the man's offer and fire my entire workforce (the robot is so great that it doesn't need maintenance workers) and replace it with the android. My costs are now £10, my revenue is still £120, so I make £110 pounds profit.

If we stop the story here, it would appear that I have created unemployment, but it doesn't. I have a choice of what to do now, I could either: enjoy my profits, and hire a full cleaning staff for my house; or I could increase production and cut prices closer to cost. If I do the former, then I will have created the jobs for a cleaning staff, if I do the latter, then the profits have been passed onto consumers, who can buy things they want with the savings which will increase employment in those sectors.

If technological progress really did destroy jobs without creating any, then we would all be unemployed by now.

Let's not forget that the guy who made the robot had to employ an R&D team to design a prototype, and then either have a construction team make it by hand or create more robots to create that robot.

[Martyn*]

I doubt that Communism will solve unemployment. In my view, you cannot have antagonism between industry and finance when attempting to get people back to work. Communism preaches the class war - exactly what Marx preached and what Marxist Socialists often preach today - which antagonises the two powers. It is often encumbent upon Communism to create further antagonism, between brain and muscle workers, for example.

What is needed is proper Socialism as a natural adjustement to modern methods of production. No antagonism, just co-operation.

[Oswy]

(Original post by zaliack)
Let's not forget that the guy who made the robot had to employ an R&D team to design a prototype, and then either have a construction team make it by hand or create more robots to create that robot.

I suspect that the rate of labour generated for R&D, construction and maintenance is consistently lower than the rate of labour lost by implementation of their machines, otherwise it just wouldn't be a very cost-effective excercise in toto. In short there pretty much has to be an overall loss in human labour where machines replace people. Moreover, should we reach a stage where machines/robots can themselves design and build robots to take over human jobs (not to mention the the maintenance) the loop will be completely closed. This latter circumstance may be a long way off but as we creep towards it the effect on human labour opportunities will surely be felt.

[zaliack]

(Original post by Oswy)
I suspect that the rate of labour generated for R&D, construction and maintenance is consistently lower than the rate of labour lost by implementation of their machines, otherwise it just wouldn't be a very cost-effective excercise in toto. In short there pretty much has to be an overall loss in human labour where machines replace people. Moreover, should we reach a stage where machines/robots can themselves design and build robots to take over human jobs (not to mention the the maintenance) the loop will be completely closed. This latter circumstance may be a long way off but as we creep towards it the effect on human labour opportunities will surely be felt.

I imagine that the labour costs for R&D are actually substantially higher than all other costs, but that is because the R&D is a long term aim. For example, it may cost £1000 to develop a machine over a 10 day period (Obviously nonsense statistics). In that 10 days, it only costs £50 for the manual labour. Overall, it takes 200 days to recover the loses of the machine, however after that the machine starts to generate profits. Within that 200 days, the R&D team will be focusing on different projects. So, although we may see a slight decrease in human labour, this tends to lead to more work for developing the machinery at a better wage, leading to an overall increase in standard of living.

Of course, I have no idea what will happen if we get to the point that there is self-replicating robots, but I imagine the teams who develop that will get a very nice paycheck.

[pr0view]

No because when robots become that advanced it will be possible for all of society to own the means of production hence all been middle class of higher. There would be no working class. Communism would be more irrelevant that it already is.

[PicardianSocialist]

(Original post by Oswy)
Technological advance can generate new jobs as it destroys others but not always and certainly not always at the same rate, so we shouldn't get carried away.

I think we should feel free to get carried away. If you look at the situation in terms of aggregate demand and aggregate supply.



Here we have an aggregate demand curve (AD) in blue and a long run aggregate supply curve (LRAS) in red with the price level (PL) on the y axis and output (Y) on the x axis. When we introduce the androids, LRAS shifts out because it is now possible for us to produce more. Because of this, the price level falls (more goods chasing the same amount of money) and output increases. But it is clear that there is no unemployment at Y*2 as there is no way we can reach a higher level of Y at any point along our LRAS curve, indicating that all available resources (land, labour, capital) are being used.

I don't usually like aggregate diagrams, but here I think it works quite well.

Of course, adjustments will always take time, but the tendency is towards full employment.

(Original post by Oswy)
As for your second point - as anecdotal evidence we have already seen a steady upward creep in the underlying rate of unemployment and underemployment in 'advanced' industrial economies like the UK from the post-War era to the present.

I don't think the increasing rate of unemployment is a result of improvements in technology.

[Nick100]

We won't have to switch; either we will use human labour for other purposes or the work week will end up ridiculously short.

[Rakas21]

Of course not for the universe is limitless.

Technological advancement is already driving us towards space and exploiting resources so even if mining is done by robots then people will still explore and research.

I imagine the majority will end up as scientists.

[Rhadamanthus]

This Venus Project malarky is just a hyped up version of socialism without the intellectualism. It will not work, and it will not work because of the same reasons that the old socialism did not work: the economic calculation problem, uncertainty, and ontological subjectivity.

[Oswy]

(Original post by zaliack)
I imagine that the labour costs for R&D are actually substantially higher than all other costs...

I don't think you're getting it. Unless it is ultimately cheaper to use machines than to use human labour there'd be no take up of mechanisation and which would include the R&D. Yet human labour is routinely replaced by machines, so it must be cheaper - either because fewer staff can ultimately be employed by the bosses or cheaper staff can be employed by them, or more often likely, both.

Imagine a factory that employs 100 workers to make product X. The bosses are not going to make a transfer to technological replacement of those 100 workers if by doing so they simply end up paying (indirectly) the same - or more likely greater - costs of 100 R&D, manufacture and/or mainenance workers. There must ultimately in toto be a reduction in labour per unit of production, either in terms of sheddingt staff or reducing wages, or both. Yes, in some instances the switch to technology allows for greater output with no loss of labour but, as I've said, the trend is always to cut staff through technology where possible, it's an ongoing process and all production has a ceiling (whether we're talking about environmental/resource limits or consumption limits). As more and more human labour roles are mechanised (in whole or part) so fewer and fewer opportunities remain for humans looking for work. Mention of 'new sectors' doesn't really help because a) new sectors tend to start out with high technology/low-human labour ratios anyway and b) new sectors, like old ones, are always being scrutinised by their bosses for more technological advance to replace human labour where it makes for lower costs/bigger profits.

[Oswy]

(Original post by PicardianSocialist)
I think we should feel free to get carried away. If you look at the situation in terms of aggregate demand and aggregate supply...

Unemployed people without money can't buy stuff (not even even 'cheap' machine-made stuff) and in the absence of a welfare state are reduced to begging and reliance on whatever charity might or might not be available.

[JacobW]

(Original post by PicardianSocialist)
Technological progress does not create unemployment. It destroys certain jobs in certain sectors, but creates new ones in other, more productive sectors.

For example, let's say I'm a capitalist. I own a factory, but for sake of simplicity say wages are my only cost and I have no fixed costs. I employ 10 people at £10 each to make 10 widgets, which I sell for £12 each, so I make a profit of £20. Then, a man comes to me and says that he will loan me his work-O-matic android for £10, and that will do the job of my entire workforce. I accept the man's offer and fire my entire workforce (the robot is so great that it doesn't need maintenance workers) and replace it with the android. My costs are now £10, my revenue is still £120, so I make £110 pounds profit.

If we stop the story here, it would appear that I have created unemployment, but it doesn't. I have a choice of what to do now, I could either: enjoy my profits, and hire a full cleaning staff for my house; or I could increase production and cut prices closer to cost. If I do the former, then I will have created the jobs for a cleaning staff, if I do the latter, then the profits have been passed onto consumers, who can buy things they want with the savings which will increase employment in those sectors.

If technological progress really did destroy jobs without creating any, then we would all be unemployed by now.

Exactly. This tiresome argument is just an example of history repeating itself. If we listened its proponents, productivity would have stagnated since the 18th century and Malthus would have been proved right.