Are global wages about to turn?
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
Most of the developed world is sloughing off huge portions of its working populations. For example, Italy is set to halve its workforce in the next decade. There are huge economic, social, and political ramifications.
(I'm not seriously making this statement, but "they" are)
China may have a growing middle class, but there are over 1 billion people in India and 1.1 billion people in Africa which have yet to be brought into the middle class, and companies will take advantage of this army of reserve labour.
By the time these countries have been exploited, then robotics will have taken over and most everyone will be unemployed.
Once fully automated, are the owners of the robots going to be even richer than today, and the rest of the world population left to live in misery, or will there be a revolution (peaceful or violent) which forces redistribution?
Do you think the world is running out of problems to be solved? I don't particularly, so automation doesn't concern me per se. I am concerned that we need to address mobility and people's chances to learn new things, so that people are able to work on whatever problems need working on.
Either the rich will do this by force using their agents (e.g police, military, mercenaries, security robots) , or the intelligent robots will do it.
While I agree with many of your points, and certainly there are many people who get exploited. But overall, if employers and employees are agreeing to mutual employment terms without coercion, then by definition it is not exploitation.
Additionally, things robotics and 3D printing are different than events like the industrial revolution which a large amount of capital was required. The owners of robotics and computing will be much more distributed and require less capital.
Brining people into the middle class with the modern infrastructure and stability that comes with is a really great thing. Robotics will only augment the quality of life for these people, freeing up massive amounts of human potential.
However, not all coercion is someone putting a literal gun to your head. Labor is systemically coerced due to having an inferior negotiating position.
It is called exploitation when it is much more important for the employees to get (and keep) the job so they can survive, especially when people are living paycheck-to-paycheck. They can't afford to negotiate, because even trying to do so might get you denied the job, and not be able to eat.
AI (or whatever you want to call it), is coming - perhaps not as fast as its proponents would like, but I think we can agree it will happen.
This is the first technology that automates the power of the human mind.
The range of jobs that can't be done by a machine is going to get increasingly narrow
Another thing which is often missed is how complementarity may play out for certain jobs: it's NOT going to necessarily be "program / robot replaces every job X", but instead "program / robot allows one person to do the job previously done by 50." You can still have massive unemployment without getting rid of every worker doing a certain job (and their job may change more to be a machine guide / manager / error corrector.)
An example I see all the time now is in supermarkets. You have self-checkout lanes that are overseen by one person. It used to be 5 lanes staffed by people. Now you only need one to intervene when something goes wrong. 5 workers have become 1 without eliminating the job "register person" completely. Instead, they've changed into "auto register checkout manager" while everyone else got the ax.
The registers get more self sufficient as the software matures. The security systems become cheaper and more accurate to eliminate the lackluster security effect a clerk has standing there. The clerk is removed entirely. Then the shelf stocking is automated with computer vision and maybe magnetized sticker guide rails in the floors.
And then people realize its stupid to go to a store to buy stuff when you can virtually tour a mall of everything and have whatever you want shipped to you. You order it, it goes through computers without ever interacting with a person, and a manufacturer ships you it instantly.
And that process gets automated too. The transport goes from self driving autos transporting your goods using standardized automated transfer mechanisms to your automated mailbox to a fabricator in your own home that comes from Star Trek.
None of that (besides the fabricator part at the end, thats going a bit heavy) is nothing novel or even new. It exists. It just takes market pressure and time to make it economical to implement and for culture to accept it. Because it is more efficient, and it will inevitably happen because its better in every way except the "but people aren't doing it!" angle. It does not take AI sentience to move boxes or see dirt on a floor through dictionary lookup and fuzzy logic processing.
Writing (and later, indexing) automated and enhanced memory.
Calculators automated computation.
Computers have automated a lot.
You can say these have only automated specific pieces of "human mind" functionality - but I assert that this is not really different from how a tractor only automates specific pieces of "human muscle" functionality.
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21594264-previous-tec...
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/10/why-work...
Right. Employers and employees agree to mutual employment terms without coercion. That is the world we live in. Also, consumers make rational choices to maximize their happiness, advertising exists to inform people of products and give them more information to rationally make decisions, and competition between rival corporations drives down prices and makes everything better for consumers. Employees can negotiate better wages because if they don't like it at one job, they can leave and find another employer who will face no repercussions for hiring them.
When things like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides or this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Dhaka_fire happen, it's not exploitation. It's just employers and employees mutually agreeing to the terms of employment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_r...
tl;dr is USA has higher per capita suicide rate then China.
Summary: the happiest places tend to have the highest suicide rates.
What is that for the US?
Still waiting on what the per capita rate of that for the US is.
Supposing jobs are all fully automated, we will have two categories of good in the world - robots and consumer goods. Presumably the rich own the robots and direct the robots to produce consumer goods which are sold to the non-rich.
Why is this "misery" for the rest of the world? If we redistributed, then people would now own some shares of Robot Production, Inc. How does that eliminate "misery"?
Our current economic system does not work in an age of increasing automation. The gains in wealth are being further concentrated in the hands of a few.
There is an answer to this dilemma -in the form of a guaranteed living income for all - but we seem to be rapidly moving in the opposite direction.
That's a good question. If the rich are not producing goods for the non-rich, then they must be privately interacting with their robots. That's economically equivalent to the rich and the robots not existing at all.
So what stops the non-rich from forming their own perfect inequality-free economy?
I can see why they might have law enforcement (or robots) vigorously police the borders of their mansions, but that's a different question. And there is no point having law enforcement exploit the non-poor (e.g., slavery) since robots do the job just as well.
Because they will see the confiscation of land and resources by the non-rich (a necessary step to establishing a new economy from which they won't be excluded) as a threat to themselves.
Remember we are dealing here with irrational, imperfectly-informed people, not with perfectly-informed, perfectly-rational frictionless spherical humanoids in uniform economic motion.
This is why you don't understand the criticism you receive, and why others do not understand you.
Nor do you explain why redistribution is necessary. Assuming the masses can control law enforcement well enough to impose redistribution, why can't the masses also simply prevent the rich from harming them and form their own economy? Let me guess - more finely tuned irrationality?
It seems like your alleged irrationalities conspire in odd ways to make your very specific policy prescription the only possible solution. [edit: my mistake on this paragraph, I did indeed confuse you with another poster.]
Perhaps you're confused?
This does not prevent the non-rich from building non-robotic production methods like 1800s era factories.
Essentially this hypothetical is a scenario where the rich have "gone Galt" (stopped producing useful things for the rest of the world). Your fear of the rich abandoning the rest of us to our own devices is very Randian.
That, and as has been said elsewhere, I highly doubt the elites just go to an island. Ownership of land is a tremendous wealth, and while the elites have captured it they will not relinquish it willingly.
So the rich may swoop in, use robots to produce goods for their own consumption, and then leave. But how does this prevent non-rich humans from producing goods for other non-rich humans? The rich have no incentive to compete with those human producers, since the consumers have nothing of value to buy with.
You seem to be suggesting that the rich will direct their robots to fulfill the needs of non-rich humans for no personal gain. Is that correct?
I am in no way saying the rich will use robots for the social commons. They will use robots to maximize their power in the world. Just like today, controlling the market is controlling discourse, and if the elites ascend beyond market scarcity they will still want to control the market of the poor should one emerge.
Natural resources (including land) are not going to be fabricated. They may be synthesized through nanotechnology at some point, but you still need raw materials, and it is unlikely even post-scarcity it will be more economical to endothermically manufacture abundant elemental metals found on Earth than by just sending a fleet of robots to harvest it.
Without resources, the poor cannot create. Without land, they cannot farm or mine or harvest. The rich already own the vast majority of both, and have absolutely no incentive to relinquish that ownership even if they no longer need it, because demonstrably today the vast majority of the rich already do not need their wealth and power, but want it.
Certain monkeys have markets, the primary goods being food and sex. When are we wealthy humans going to "usurp" monkey markets and try to gain "power"? When are we, the wealthy humans, going to start spitefully consuming garbage, wild fruits and insects simply because monkeys also want these resources? When will we, the wealthy humans, claim all the forests and kick the monkeys out?
You've postulated a world where non-rich humans are as economically useless to the rich as monkeys are to modern day humans. In the real world, we don't generally engage in any of the behaviors you describe.
Who says we have to spitefully "usurp" the monkey markets? Don't we do enough damage by casually destroying their habitats and driving their species into endangered status or even extinct?
Same goes for wealthy people. You don't have to ascribe an utterly destructive mentality to them in order to explain the harms of what they do. All it takes is simple pride; the pride they have for the companies they've grown, the profits they've amassed, and the technologies they've developed. To then say we want to take those things away and redistribute them to the public for the greater good is to make that person into our public enemy. Why wouldn't they do everything in their power to hang on?
Is it really your belief that after the rich go galt, the non-rich have no possible way to survive except by robbing them? That's a surprisingly Randian view.
Extrapolate this idea across a vast array of industries and you begin to see a pattern: huge numbers of jobs which have been replaced by automation. Where will all of these people go? Who will they work for?
Now imagine a time much further into the future. Unemployment has skyrocketed. Millions of people are starving and they can't afford the apples they used to pick for a living. So what? They decide to "invade" the orchard and steal the apples for themselves! Ahh, but drones come to the rescue again! Machine-gun wielding aerial drones patrol the orchard day and night, efficiently defending the property from any and all would-be thieves.
How does this prevent the former apple-pickers from growing their own apples? On whose land do you expect them to grow?
As long as the non-rich don't interfere with the drones harvesting apples for consumption by the rich, why would the rich care what they do?
Further, you seem to think the rich own most land. They may own most parcels of currently valuable land (e.g. Manhattan) weighted by land value, but that's not remotely the same thing. There are large amounts of land in the world which are currently laying fallow because there is no current use for them. E.g., Detroit is more or less abandoned (but well suited for industry), as are large amounts of flyover country which were formerly used for farming.
How do you expect the non-rich to get land area, energy and materials to produce anything at all?
This scenario being described here is exactly the scenario described in Atlas Shrugged - the rich (and their robots) all retire to Galt's Gulch and the rest of the world goes to hell. It's surprising to see so many Ayn Rand fans in one comment thread.
And to be elite is to be superior to peers. A huge part of the ethos of power is that you need the powerless to prove your position.
The rich and powerful already own tremendous vast swathes of the world under the control of governments recognizing private property rights. (adjusted for land value, because I'm mostly talking about owning inner cities, but they also own the industrial complexes and megafarms). Again, supply and demand sets in, and when you use real estate as an investment and asset and are constricting its supply in most parts of the world as a source of revenue and profit, you aren't going to give that away any more than you will give away the robots.
The property market is as bad as the labor market in how concentrated power is becoming. And property is not competitive at all since its a fixed resource and the value of it is only relative to its location which cannot be reproduced or innovated upon. Easily, at least.
When you discuss rich people owning inner cities, those inner cities have value because people want to live in them and have resources to trade for the right to live there. In this hypothetical dystopia, no one will have any resources to trade for living space, so those inner cities will become valueless. (Or perhaps the rich will enjoy walking through uninhabited cities.)
There is plenty more land available at low cost in other locations - Detroit, Kansas, etc. What prevents the non-rich folks from building their own industrial complexes and inner cities in those locations? The rich and their robots can entirely occupy the abandoned city of Manhattan, but what prevents non-rich people from buying up $5,000 houses in Detroit and building a new utopia there?
How will those rich people sell consumer goods if the poor don't have money?
> Our current economic system does not work in an age of increasing automation. The gains in wealth are being further concentrated in the hands of a few.
Absolutely true. I'd like to think that you and I are both as clueless as the agrarian citizens at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. And maybe we are. But something about this wave of automation seems quantitatively different than the last one—as though there's no new economic sectors to replace those that are being automated away
> There is an answer to this dilemma -in the form of a guaranteed living income for all - but we seem to be rapidly moving in the opposite direction.
I like to frame that as a negative income tax, rather than a guaranteed income. It seems like less of a "government program", which might help it sell. The beauty of a negative income tax is that it can be easily† adjusted as needed to suit an evolving economy. It's not a separate program that is established and lives on. If (US) brackets are [10, 15, 25, 28, 33] (i think?), the new brackets could be [-50, -10, 0, 10, ...], with a 20k starter. So if you do absolutely nothing, you get 20k. If you make an additional 5k a year on the side, you'd be "taxed" at -50 on that and end up with 27.5k. At some level as your earnings increase, the subsidy fades off and is replaced with taxes.
†Technically-speaking, maybe not politically. But then again, this whole thing is a pipe-dream at present.
Before, it was always "I'd like to build houses / learn to plumb / build widgets in a factory, but I need food, so I'm tilling land".
Now its "I'd like to do pretty much anything, but nobody will pay me to do it, because the robots are better at everything I can do".
Unless your labor is intellectual, your function in society as a bag of meat with limbs and a bunch of neurons that make you very easy to program instructions into is going the way of the horse in the early 20th century.
But how will the poor have any money if they have to pay money to the rich in order to afford basic necessities.
Also, if they had money they wouldn't be poor, now would they?
Another way to look at it is, just look at what happens at extremes -- really poor in developing countries. Well, lucky for the rich and powerful, it turns out the poor have kidneys, muscles, blood, the can work for the rich, they can sell their bodies to the rich.
So have no fear, the rich will figure out a way to take advantage of the poor even after the poor don't have any pieces of green paper or stamped metal circles left.
Not a conspiracy theorist; I only say that because that's what I'd advocate for if I were rich at that time.
According to the article's own data, rising real wages have occurred during a time of increasing population and an increasing share of the population being working-age, and slowed as population growth slowed. But the article goes on to argue
> A smaller workforce though should raise demand for workers
but doesn't this contradict the very evidence cited in the article?
I don't see how any of these follow from the observations noted in the article.
If I need a new wallet I can buy a cheap one which was mass-produced in a factory for ten bucks, or I can buy a nice one which was also mass-produced in a factory for two hundred bucks, but if I want one that was lovingly hand-crafted by an artisan over a period of a week and a half I've gotta pay a week and a half's skilled wages, and there aren't that many people with the money and the desire to surround themselves with pointless proof-of-work.
Return?
At no point in human history have more people been wealthier than today, even as a percent of the population. Today, the artisans are already the rich who need not fend for their survival. Never has there been a time where the major of people need not sweat their brow to eat the next day, at least according to the economics of their time.
The rich have always enjoyed the luxury to pursue whatever interested them, including culture. And like I said, despite the doom and gloom, we have more rich people today than ever. Its just we also have way more poor working class who are getting worse with no correction in sight or reason.
What are the implications on job hopping? In theory my market value should go up every year even if all other factors remain constant.
If one is in an a "routine" job (as defined by Autor), one should be thinking very carefully about the next few decades. Upskilling, becoming autodidacts, and most importantly agitating for political change will be things that this group needs to engage in (the former two to stay relevant; the latter to keep eating.)
You won't build a widget factory if nobody can afford widgets. The negative effects of deflation outpace the potential negotiating power of having lower workforce participation.