Hacker News Reader

"If you are a low skilled worker at this point in the U.S., you're likely to be either not conscientious, or dumb."

This shows a lot of ignorance of the economics and sociology of poverty in America and elsewhere, including poor educational opportunities that are not created by laziness or stupidity by the students. The statement detracts from your other well-made points.

In the long-term, as machines become able to do more jobs better than humans, people will simply not be willing to pay any price for an error-prone human to do a worse job than a cheap machine

Actually I think they would. Being an employer of a human would be a sign of prestige for the wealthy.

Just imagine you're at a future cocktail party and your host unveils his pretty human waitresses. He's obviously wealthy to afford a real human instead of using robots like everyone else

Reality is that this has gone backwards. In poor countries, moderately wealthy people still employ household staff in the way that the European upper classes did 5 generations ago. Drivers, maids, gardeners, cooks. In most nova rich and even old money countries this is pretty uncommon. Wealth disparity (wealthy person can hire poor person with a small fraction of her income) doesn't seem to increase the instances of such things.

This is a development that fascinates me as well. Upper middle class families no longer employing a host of household help (i.e. the Mary Poppins household) seems like an effect of increased productivity and job opportunity.

It is difficult to overstate the increase in opportunity over the last hundred years for women in particular. Back then, there were so very few avenues to the middle class for even an extraordinary single woman. Today, Mary Poppins would probably go to a fine college and be able to land a job as a pharmaceutical sales representative at the very least.

Oh, it does - visit any Hollywood party :)

The point is, for a large class of servants, you need both immense wealth disparity and a large class of insanely rich people. We've increased a) and in the process, b) has gotten smaller.

Don't get me wrong, many people are rich - but only a few are rich enough that they can afford servants. This might change if the job situation gets worse, increasing the disparity so that more rich people now qualify as insanely rich.

Ok, so a person who by fate grows up poor in a rural area is dumb, because the government allows farmers and industry to systematically ship in a lower class of labor to exploit?

The US discriminates against poor people. The fully-loaded cost of a US citizen is too high because the do-gooders require all sorts of expensive benefits and mandates. If a farmer pays a US citizen $12/hour to pick tomatoes, he also pays another $8/hr for code-compliant housing, workers compensation and unemployment insurance.

But, simultaneously, the government turns a blind eye if you ship in some Mexicans or Latin Americans and treat them like slaves.

Collectively, we share this psychosis where society wants to provide all of these great benefits and human rights for citizens, while treating this other class of person as something less than human.

This is the #1 reason to stop illegal immigration and provide for a reasonable level of legal immigration. We create an underclass that either doesn't have legal rights or feels that they don't have legal recourse, and so they are ripe to be exploited.

  If you are at the bottom of the American labor heap, you 
  have never faced competition from machines, globalization, 
  and immigration like you have now.

That's begging the central question. The biggest leaps were made long ago. The invention of electricity, the steam engine and the combustion engine, those enabled automation on a scale that was truly never seen before. Then there was slavery: that's competition from globalization/immigration if there ever was. China, India and the other low wage countries are getting higher standards of living fast, so their wages go up and their competitiveness down.

I strongly question the assertion that we are currently losing lowskilled jobs to automation or competition at a faster pace than in the past.

Of course, the pace of loss is not that important - if there's sustained net loss, sooner or later, we will reach zero.

Also, I'd argue the biggest leap is computer technology, and it's having a lot of impact still. My guess is bio-engineering is next. If that happens (and it's a big if, in my book), there will be even more impact.

So, going back to the point, my original assertion was we're slowly running out of low-skills jobs. That's backed up by pretty much any look at employment figures. Manual labor has been wiped out to an insane extent (agriculture is what, 3% of the labor force now?). And the service industry is next, IMHO. Retail is slowly bleeding to death, for example.

What happens when machines and outsourcing eliminate the need for most American doctors, lawyers, drivers, teachers, and other skilled professions. We can't have a prostitution-based economy.

It might take a long time to reach that possibility since public facing automations usually require a human near the robot for the comfort of the other humans using the service. Think: pilots on airplanes (mostly not necessary), trains drivers (not necessary at all), human ticket dispensers (not necessary at all). Just thinking out loud.

I think a well done cyborg prostitute could make prostitution more mass market. No way to make it illegal, guilt free and 100% sanitizeable. And lets be honest, a for pay 15min intercourse just doesn't benefit that much from the human touch. Plus you can make em look like manga characters or whatever. Big opportunity ahead.