Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Much has been made recently of the coming robotic revolution. Every sector will see some form of automation, from retail to medicine and the legal profession. This raises some issues, chief among them employment. Unlike previous changes, like the industrial revolution, this will be unlikely to see a transition of jobs from one area to another, some lost out but more people gaining something. We are far more likely to see large numbers of people become unemployed, with little scope for them to move elsewhere. Alongside this, the same revolution will drive down costs, making living generally cheaper. Which brings into play the possible solution to this problem, constant welfare.

    Are we going to have to accept a permanent welfare state, where large numbers of people are simply expected to live off welfare? Or would we see a system like Saudi Arabia, where the state simply creates large numbers of non-jobs and an expanded civil service to give citizens some sense of purposes. Or finally, and most optimistically, will we simply see another large transition from one sector to another of jobs? Will many people find a way to remain in well paid purposeful jobs?

    Thoughts?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Automation is an ancient trend and it doesn't correlate with increased unemployment. People are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Actually surprised to see this being discussed, anyway, aside from house prices, I think that things will improve quite dramatically compared with the lives our parents and grandparents endured.


    I know in some continental countries such as Germany and the Netherlands, young people work 4 day weeks and use the final day to improve their skills, and while this mentality of improving people and integrating them into a high skilled economy is good, I don't believe that in the future it will be sufficient. I think we need to move away from this attitude of people having to work grind out a living through hard toil and eventually introduce basic income, because certainly within the next 30 years, I do think that many jobs will be automated and aside from jobs which are very creative or require a human touch, there will be no replacement jobs.


    It's fascinating, to give an example I read that Google's selfdriving cars have driven over 700,000 miles and not a single collision has been caused which is the fault of the driving algorithm, either it was being driven by a human (they switched the automation off and drove it the conventional way) or collision was caused by another human driver. When these things are rolled out within the next 10 years, the economy will change hugely, less people will potentially own cars and instead subscribe to companies which run a fleet of these things, maybe you dial your journey in with a smartphone and it takes you to where you want to be. This could affect the insurance industry, maybe we will insure the vehicle rather than the driver, or maybe the algorithm and everyone who drives a model which uses that algorithm contributes part of the collective payment, but also urban planning as the need for parking decreases.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Automation is an ancient trend and it doesn't correlate with increased unemployment. People are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
    Such a bore.


    Even though we're supposed to be young, educated and open minded, us TSR users really are just as dumb and jaded at the daily mail comments section posters.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Automation is an ancient trend and it doesn't correlate with increased unemployment. People are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
    I'd argue that is somewhat different. There were always different sectors to go into. We have never seen automation of areas like Law, HR or even parts of medicine. We are starting to see modernization of typically professional sectors.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    -scratch that, misunderstanding-
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    I'd argue that is somewhat different. There were always different sectors to go into. We have never seen automation of areas like Law, HR or even parts of medicine. We are starting to see modernization of typically professional sectors.
    Sure, some wealthy incumbents are likely to see a drop in relative status, just like barrel coopers and blacksmiths don't make as much as they once did. But that is not a social problem, it is a private problem, and then only for some people, the vast majority of others benefiting from lower prices.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    You think I am dumb because I test my beliefs against evidence and jaded because I do not believe in a disaster prediction? I don't want to know what you think is intelligent optimism.
    It doesn't have to be a disaster, a society where people have loads of freetime, but also where everyone is fed, clothed and has some luxuries is extremely possible and with the right political mechanisms, likely.

    To say that what we are just now entering in terms of the technological revolution is nothing new, it's kinda sad if anything.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Sure, some wealthy incumbents are likely to see a drop in relative status, just like barrel coopers and blacksmiths don't make as much as they once did. But that is not a social problem, it is a private problem, and then only for some people, the vast majority of others benefiting from lower prices.
    If anything, wealthy incumbents will be better off than skilled middle class professionals. When jobs such as accountancy and paralegals are being automated, the richest people, aside from the mos creative computer scientists, will just be people who gain wealth from investments.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by get schlonged m8)
    It doesn't have to be a disaster, a society where people have loads of freetime, but also where everyone is fed, clothed and has some luxuries is extremely possible and with the right political mechanisms, likely.
    Reading your first post, I think we are agreeing with one another. Was your post meant to be criticising me? If so, I don't understand why.

    To say that what we are just now entering in terms of the technological revolution is nothing new, it's kinda sad if anything.
    What the OP has highlighted is the automation of production of legal forms and HR bureaucracy. That doesn't hold a candle against what has already happened, the automation of agriculture, clothing, house building, etc. that you have highlighted.

    There is an exciting revolution on the horizon, but it is not automation of old industries, it is the direct improvement of humanity by genetic manipulation.
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by Aj12)
    I'd argue that is somewhat different. There were always different sectors to go into. We have never seen automation of areas like Law, HR or even parts of medicine. We are starting to see modernization of typically professional sectors.
    Machines are catching up to human capabilities, you mean

    The best solution is to ensure human capabilities increase, through advances in health, genetic engineering, etc., so we can take the best jobs
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Reading your first post, I think we are agreeing with one another. Was your post meant to be criticising me? If so, I don't understand why.


    What the OP has highlighted is the automation of production of legal forms and HR bureaucracy. That doesn't hold a candle against what has already happened, the automation of agriculture, clothing, house building, etc. that you have highlighted.

    There is an exciting revolution on the horizon, but it is not automation of old industries, it is the direct improvement of humanity by genetic manipulation.
    I didn't mean to be rude, at the time I felt you were underestimating just how drastic these changes will be.

    I feel that fairly soon, we will get to a point where people don't have to work to having some form of a living, whereas our parents generation had this view that you go out and earn and living and that nobody has a right to just get food and shelter. Soon this sort of thinking will be obsolete. If you are wondering, I would still want to work, because I like the idea of being part of the creative process.

    I agree with this other point you have raised, eventually humans will be genetically modified and probably cybernetically enhanced. Even the old notions of racial superiority will be destroyed when humans can be changed and improved beyond anything which has so far evolved.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    Machines are catching up to human capabilities, you mean

    The best solution is to ensure human capabilities increase, through advances in health, genetic engineering, etc., so we can take the best jobs
    Why should we need to if machines can do the jobs?

    If machines can work 24/7 better than a human for zero pay, rather than making humans work for the sake of it, it would surely make sense to allow technology to advance and give every human a basic income.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Given that the number of possible careers is always expanding I think that a short term shock will iron out in the long term.

    I'm an optimist and don't expect to be unemployed.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Much has been made recently of the coming robotic revolution. Every sector will see some form of automation, from retail to medicine and the legal profession. This raises some issues, chief among them employment. Unlike previous changes, like the industrial revolution, this will be unlikely to see a transition of jobs from one area to another, some lost out but more people gaining something. We are far more likely to see large numbers of people become unemployed, with little scope for them to move elsewhere. Alongside this, the same revolution will drive down costs, making living generally cheaper. Which brings into play the possible solution to this problem, constant welfare.

    Are we going to have to accept a permanent welfare state, where large numbers of people are simply expected to live off welfare? Or would we see a system like Saudi Arabia, where the state simply creates large numbers of non-jobs and an expanded civil service to give citizens some sense of purposes. Or finally, and most optimistically, will we simply see another large transition from one sector to another of jobs? Will many people find a way to remain in well paid purposeful jobs?

    Thoughts?
    Surely the more optimistic result is one where we continue advancing productivity, technology development, better medicine and quality of life for more people at the same time as reducing working hours... where eventually the role that was carried out by slaves and an oppressed proletariat is done by machines instead. The Suadi "solution" is the stupidest one and we are heading in that direction with our welfare state. That's the kind of optimism people had 100 yes ago ffs. Keynes was saying we would be working 2 day weeks etc. Instead of all this dystopian vision of the future can we go back to having something utopian to aim for please.

    That should be the future and the people trying to hang onto notions such as "work ethic" and enforcing scarcity of essentials on people should be made to look like Luddites.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Surely the more optimistic result is one where we continue advancing productivity, technology development, better medicine and quality of life for more people at the same time as reducing working hours... where eventually the role that was carried out by slaves and an oppressed proletariat is done by machines instead. The Suadi "solution" is the stupidest one and we are heading in that direction with our welfare state. That's the kind of optimism people had 100 yes ago ffs. Keynes was saying we would be working 2 day weeks etc. Instead of all this dystopian vision of the future can we go back to having something utopian to aim for please.
    We need to realise that expanding the welfare state and shaming those who are poor into finding some drudgery will eventually not feasible, it's pretty sad though that it will never change until it's Mr. Respectible Middle Class Guy learning that his accountancy job can be done by an algorithm.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by get schlonged m8)
    I didn't mean to be rude, at the time I felt you were underestimating just how drastic these changes will be.
    It's kind of vague. I think that ~1% annual GDP per capita growth will continue. After 100 years that will make society look a lot different. On the other hand I do not believe that we are about to see anything unprecedented in terms of growth; society of 100 years ago looked a lot different to our current society too.

    I feel that fairly soon, we will get to a point where people don't have to work to having some form of a living, whereas our parents generation had this view that you go out and earn and living and that nobody has a right to just get food and shelter. Soon this sort of thinking will be obsolete.
    I don't think it will, because peoples' definition of what constitutes food and shelter will just increase, or more things will be added to that bundle of "necessities".

    Basic JSA is greater than the per capita GDP of some countries and of this country in 1800. In that sense, you don't need to work today to have food and shelter. But what has happened is that JSA has come to be considered unliveably meagre, rather than that work has come to be considered superfluous.

    The per capita production of the country will continue to be well below what people considered "more money than I care about" for centuries.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by get schlonged m8)
    We need to realise that expanding the welfare state and shaming those who are poor into finding some drudgery will eventually not feasible, it's pretty sad though that it will never change until it's Mr. Respectible Middle Class Guy learning that his accountancy job can be done by an algorithm.
    Yup.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Basic JSA is greater than the per capita GDP of some countries and of this country in 1800. In that sense, you don't need to work today to have food and shelter. But what has happened is that JSA has come to be considered unliveably meagre, rather than that work has come to be considered superfluous.
    You get harassed into looking for work and made to work. SO you need to at least be able to keep up lieing that you are applying for jobs etc, go on stupid courses on how to stack shelves. Learn how to pick up things and put them in boxes. Society looks on you as scum. It is not deemed acceptable to not work. It is also not universal. Everyone should be given that base amount. Allowing the warehouse wage slave to go 4 days a week if he wants to and still have same standard of living. As society and production improves the basic income can increase. Thats the point. To share out the progress.

    The fact you can't see these problems left wing advocates of basic income identity and want to change shows you don't understand the arguments you are trying to discredit. Just going on your "science" and counting out the money people have is not good enough rebuttal.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    x
    Imagine how brilliant it would be.

    People retire at say 50 and your teachers, rather than being 23 year olds straight out of university, are experts with decades of experience volunteering to pass on what they learned throughout their lives.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.