Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Technological Unemployment News and Discussions

technological unemployment automation Luddites technism Venus Project robots basic income 4th Industrial Revolution unemployment artificial intelligence

  • Please log in to reply
287 replies to this topic

#281
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,215 posts

Here is something I recently posted in the Military & War News Discussion thread:

 

 

Jon Wolfsthal on the link between nuclear strategy and the nuclear modernization budget

 

https://www.tandfonl...02.2019.1555990

 

Jon Wolfsthal served as Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs and senior director at the National Security Council for arms control and nonproliferation. In regards to the issue raised in the article cited immediately above, it is interesting to note that Wolfsthal believes that “the United States does not yet, nor is it likely to any time soon, have the capability to defend the United States from strategic nuclear strikes.” The following are other excerpts from an interview with Wolfsthal published in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists.  

 

Quote

I firmly believe the United States has far more nuclear weapons than it needs.

 

That was the determination of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Obama. 

 

…if you adopt a very modest nuclear strategy, one that is geared only for deterring our adversaries from considering an attack on us or our allies, then all sorts of things are possible in changing the nuclear arsenal and major cost savings can be the result.

 

… And the savings for not replacing the current arsenal (of ground-based, long-range ballistic missiles) on procurement alone is over $100 billion. When you take in procurement and operation, the management, and personnel, you’re rapidly over $200 billion over the next 30 years.

 

…we don’t need to have the 12 Columbia-class nuclear submarines that are currently called for….I don’t see why we couldn’t live with 10 permanently. And again, if you change nuclear targeting requirements, you might be able to bring that number down to as low as five or six submarines, with each submarine costing upwards of $10 billion dollars to buy. 

 

  • starspawn0 likes this

The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#282
starspawn0

starspawn0

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 863 posts

Right, and the defense department's plans also have a consumer input.  Companies want prices to be predictable, and markets, expanding.  They -- and consumers -- don't want the price of oil to shoot way up (except oil companies maybe; they would settle for stable prices + increasing supply and demand); or political instability to wreck stock prices; or supply chains to be disrupted.  Investors in companies want to see their retirement savings rise; profit needs to increase. So, pressure is applied to keep the oil and other ingredients flowing, and to keep consumers abroad, expanding.  Bolton:
 
http://time.com/5516...las-government/
 

Perhaps most brazenly, Bolton appeared in an interview on Fox Business and disclosed that the U.S. government was in talks with American corporations on how to capitalize on Venezuela’s oil reserves, which are proven to be the world’s largest.

“We’re in conversation with major American companies now,” he said. “I think we’re trying to get to the same end result here. … It will make a big difference to the United States economically if we could have American oil companies really invest in and produce the oil capabilities in Venezuela.”


The same was true in Iraq.


  • caltrek likes this

#283
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,215 posts

I guess I am a bit of an agnostic on this whole question. I do see the danger of a possible dystopia in which a hand full of ultra-wealthy control the means of production with massive unemployment resulting; and little or no government action to address the problem through such measures as a Uniform Basic Income distribution scheme. However, I also see historic trends in which technology simply shits the nature of the work environment rather than destroying jobs on a wholesale basis. While the article cited below may be naively optimistic in some respects, it does raise some interesting points worthy of consideration in this debate.

 

https://www.counterp...-jobs-industry/

 

Extract:

(Counterpunch) Replacing human labor with technology is a very old story. It’s called “productivity growth.” We’ve been seeing it pretty much as long as we have had a capitalist economy. In fact, this is what allows for sustained improvements in living standards. If we had not seen massive productivity growth in agriculture, then the bulk of the country would still be working on farms, otherwise we would be going hungry.

 

However, thanks to massive improvement in technology, less than 2 percent of our workforce is now employed in agriculture. And, we can still export large amounts of food.

If the robots taking our jobs industry were around a hundred years ago, it would be warning about gas powered tractors eliminating the need for farm labor. We would be hearing serous sounding discussion on our radio shows (we will steal radios from the 1919 future) with leading experts warning about how pretty soon there would be no work for anyone. They would tell us we have to prepare for this dark future by fundamentally reorganizing society.

 

Okay, that story is about as wrong as could possibly be the case, but if anyone buys the robots taking our jobs line, then they better try to figure out why this time is different. After all, what difference does it make if a worker loses their job to a big tractor or they lose their job to a robot?

 

Getting Serious About Robots and Productivity Growth

 

The basic story of robots taking our jobs is one of a massive increase in productivity growth. Instead of people driving taxis and trucks, stocking store shelves, and working checkout counters, all this work and more will be dealt with by robots. 


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#284
starspawn0

starspawn0

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 863 posts
https://www.axios.co...11af9ec1d7.html
 

Workers who lost their jobs in the wave of manufacturing layoffs in the early 1980s, for instance, were still earning 15%-20% less in their new work 20 years later, according to the Aspen report.

"The individuals impacted by automation in manufacturing over the last 40 years — they did not get the exact same job at the same pay," Fitzpayne said. "They experienced profound difficulty finding a new job. If they found one, they took lower pay and lower benefits."


  • Yuli Ban likes this

#285
Alislaws

Alislaws

    Democratic Socialist Materialist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,844 posts
  • LocationLondon

 

I guess I am a bit of an agnostic on this whole question. I do see the danger of a possible dystopia in which a hand full of ultra-wealthy control the means of production with massive unemployment resulting; and little or no government action to address the problem through such measures as a Uniform Basic Income distribution scheme. However, I also see historic trends in which technology simply shits the nature of the work environment rather than destroying jobs on a wholesale basis. While the article cited below may be naively optimistic in some respects, it does raise some interesting points worthy of consideration in this debate.

 

https://www.counterp...-jobs-industry/

 

Extract:

(Counterpunch) Replacing human labor with technology is a very old story. It’s called “productivity growth.” We’ve been seeing it pretty much as long as we have had a capitalist economy. In fact, this is what allows for sustained improvements in living standards. If we had not seen massive productivity growth in agriculture, then the bulk of the country would still be working on farms, otherwise we would be going hungry.

 

However, thanks to massive improvement in technology, less than 2 percent of our workforce is now employed in agriculture. And, we can still export large amounts of food.

If the robots taking our jobs industry were around a hundred years ago, it would be warning about gas powered tractors eliminating the need for farm labor. We would be hearing serous sounding discussion on our radio shows (we will steal radios from the 1919 future) with leading experts warning about how pretty soon there would be no work for anyone. They would tell us we have to prepare for this dark future by fundamentally reorganizing society.

 

Okay, that story is about as wrong as could possibly be the case, but if anyone buys the robots taking our jobs line, then they better try to figure out why this time is different. After all, what difference does it make if a worker loses their job to a big tractor or they lose their job to a robot?

 

Getting Serious About Robots and Productivity Growth

 

The basic story of robots taking our jobs is one of a massive increase in productivity growth. Instead of people driving taxis and trucks, stocking store shelves, and working checkout counters, all this work and more will be dealt with by robots. 

 

I find a lot to disagree with in that article. 

 

A) "robots haven't taken the jobs yet, as you can see USA productivity is increasing slowly" Fair enough... "therefore robots are no threat to jobs"... Um... you made a big leap there!

B) author seemingly has no understanding of why the automation of cognitive labour is different from the automation of physical labour. 

 

C) Author points to agriculture and says "you see, a few hundred years ago we needed 90% of people to work in agriculture, now we need just 2% so robots(or improved productivity) are no threat to jobs!" which seems good evidence of the reverse?

 

 

 

Instead of people driving taxis and trucks, stocking store shelves, and working checkout counters, all this work and more will be dealt with by robots. There are three problems with this story:

1) It has not been happening;

2) No one involved in designing policy expects to happen;

3) It would likely mean more rapid wage growth and improved living standards if it did happen.

1) No one has made a fully autonomous driverless car yet, so obviously no one has lost their job to a driverless car yet, in no way proves it won't happen. 

2) fucking terrifying. 

3) A) Why would wages increase with higher demand for jobs and lower numbers of jobs available? Lots of competition for each role = lower wages

B) Maybe improved living standards for the majority due to cheaper transport, but not for the newly unemployed who's only marketable skill was driving. 

 

He says a lot more about the lack of visible automation job losses, (while still failing to address the cognitive vs annual labour issue), and then says some stuff about how IF it happened it would be fine because we would just change our capital ownership structure and copyright/patent law to stop the increase in inequality, which seems absurdly naïve. 



#286
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,308 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

p03e8dU.png


  • Erowind likes this

And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#287
wjfox

wjfox

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,143 posts
  • LocationLondon
Exclusive: Amazon rolls out machines that pack orders and replace jobs
 
MAY 13, 2019 / 11:08 AM / UPDATED 4 HOURS AGO
 
Amazon.com Inc is rolling out machines to automate a job held by thousands of its workers: boxing up customer orders.
 
The company started adding technology to a handful of warehouses in recent years, which scans goods coming down a conveyor belt and envelopes them seconds later in boxes custom-built for each item, two people who worked on the project told Reuters.
 
Amazon has considered installing two machines at dozens more warehouses, removing at least 24 roles at each one, these people said. These facilities typically employ more than 2,000 people.
 
That would amount to more than 1,300 cuts across 55 U.S. fulfillment centers for standard-sized inventory. Amazon would expect to recover the costs in under two years, at $1 million per machine plus operational expenses, they said.
 
The plan, previously unreported, shows how Amazon is pushing to reduce labor and boost profits as automation of the most common warehouse task – picking up an item – is still beyond its reach. The changes are not finalized because vetting technology before a major deployment can take a long time.
 


#288
Alislaws

Alislaws

    Democratic Socialist Materialist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,844 posts
  • LocationLondon

Well, this is the obvious and inevitable response to all the "Amazon treats it's workers badly" news stories. 

 

I'm never sure what those articles mean to do, if we all stop buying from amazon, those abused people will probably lose their jobs. If they had other options they'd be working elsewhere, so that would be a disaster for them. 

 

If amazon raises prices to pay workers better, or to hire more workers to take some of the pressure off then they lose sales and then need less warehouses so people lose jobs again. 

 

If we all keep buying amazon products they will automate those jobs eventually and everyone loses their jobs. 

 

I think the only good way to approach the problem is to force amazon to treat its workers well, even if it means smaller profits, or to ensure there are good jobs available for people so they can quit jobs that abuse them. but that would be government interference/regulation, or it would be government investment and subsidies neither of which can happen in the USA under this Govt. 


  • wjfox and Yuli Ban like this





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: technological unemployment, automation, Luddites, technism, Venus Project, robots, basic income, 4th Industrial Revolution, unemployment, artificial intelligence

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users