Libertine

Due to outsourcing to poor countries and automation more and more jobs in the western world will be lost. While right now those are mainly unskilled jobs, future technology will replace skilled jobs as well.
At this time we are still able to make up for this by expansion in the service industry, the amount of human work needed in that area is limited, and will face competition from automation in the future.

The work that can't easily be replaced by automation is either highly skilled/abstract (science, engineering, programming, etc), highly skilled/social (psychology, social work, etc.), highly skilled/creative (marketing, sales, etc) or highly limited in volume (art, music, acting, etc.). Obviously, there's a lot of overlap between these fields. However, most of it is either unsuitable for the majority of the population (who lack the necessary skills) or there isn't enough of it to make a real difference. Even worse, the amounts of jobs even in these areas will also fall due to automation, although not as deeply as unskilled jobs.

Due to this, in the nearby future (50-100 years, or even sooner), a large portion of the population will become unemployed. Not because they don't want to work, but because there aren't any (suitable) jobs available.

When faced with a very large amount of unemployed people (40%+) with no prospects of getting a job, governments will need to do something, both because voters will demand it and because uprisings will follow if nothing is done.

The only workable solutions will be the introduction of government-funded (and unnecessary) jobs or the introduction of a very generous welfare system (a very meager one will not be sufficient, because the government will be facing a very large amount of motivated people with no different future prospects who see luxury around them all day long). In order to make this possible, very high taxes on the wealthy will be necessary. In short, you'll have a socialist country.

__________________
/(bb|[^b]{2})/

goBigtime

I thought we already did this?

Libertine

Not on such a large scale. Can you imagine living in a country where 40% of the population has "filler jobs", that are only there to give them something to do and make them earn money?

__________________
/(bb|[^b]{2})/

TheLegacy

Is that what the army is for??

__________________

pimplink

This sounds just as (falsely) deterministic as Marx' arrogant prediction in Das Kapital that a global class war is inevitable because goods will eventually be produced to such an extent that the masses cannot afford them (ever lower wages, ever higher prices = class war). Yeah...

then the mass production revolution began... then higher productivity due to information automation ... then country segmentation of manufacturing... etc etc.


Human progress is unpredictable... yet only limited by our IMAGINATION.

__________________

sperbonzo

You must be really young....they were saying the same thing in the sixties about the turn of the century (now).

Believe me, people will always find a way to do something for personal profit. You may very well find that the "personal touch" will become a highly prized commodity in the service aspects of industry......creative skills will become more developed....etc,etc,etc.... "Experts" have been trying to perdict this for 50 years already and they keep on getting it wrong. I personally think that exactly the opposite will happen, and that with the internet encompassing more and more of the planet, there will actually be LESS socialism, more entrepeneurs that can reach a world wide market via the net, that the free market will prevail to a much GREATER extent than now.

rooster

i hate sociallism. It makes people lazy, stupid, and its inefficient.

And its un-american.

ADL Colin

Don't worry. Soon enough the robots will have all the jobs and will serve us. I guess that could be called a form of socialism. I'm down.

__________________

skype = "adultdatelink"

pimplink

Hmmmm.... actually, a better prediction would be that as societies become richer and highly stabilized, their populations DECREASE.

Of course, it will take far longer (due to political and social issues) for certain parts of the globe to reach this stage than others.

__________________

Libertine

You didn't quite read what I wrote, did you? I'm not saying the free market will disappear... it probably won't. However, the free market is based for a large part on efficiency. Automation brings efficiency, outsourcing to third world countries brings efficiency, getting rid of unneeded jobs brings efficiency. Obviously, this efficiency costs jobs.
For instance, within a few decades cleaning machines will be able to operate without human supervision. Another few decades, and these machines will be cheaper than human cleaners. Since the free market is based largely on efficiency, these human cleaners will get fired. Now, since they're not really skilled, they could do factory work... oh wait, machines will be doing that by then. How about farm work then? Oh, crap, the machines again. Etcetera. Jobs are disappearing as we speak, and there simply is a limit to the amount of non-skilled work that needs to be done.

Ofcourse, entrepeneurs, lawyers, scientists, marketing people, etc will still be needed, maybe even more of them, but not everyone has the capacities to do that kind of highly skilled, creative work.

__________________
/(bb|[^b]{2})/

12clicks

false logic.

as was already stated, this idea has been going around for a long time.

I remember when the carriage builders fortold of great unemployment because of that damned Henry Ford.

__________________

Libertine

Marx was stupid because he didn't realize the full potential of technological progress, and didn't realize that governments and companies would take steps to prevent revolution.
However, if you do take technological progress into account, and realize that almost nobody wants revolution, the events I talked about are most likely.

Human progress is quite predictable:
#1: it will almost certainly take place
#2: it will amost certainly increase efficiency

Since increased efficiency in the technological age comes down to automation and outsourcing to third world countries, this leads to a decrease in low-skilled jobs in the western world.

__________________
/(bb|[^b]{2})/

NetRodent

This seems more like an argument for sterilization and population control than for socialism.

Of course you're overlooking another side effect of machines doing the majority of grunt work, prices on goods and some services will fall. Also, you seem to assume that only the rich will own the "means of production" ie the robots. However, how much will a robot cost that is built by other robots, out of raw materials harvested by other robots, powered by energy coming from plants built and run by robots, etc.

__________________
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."
--H.L. Mencken

sperbonzo

You wanna' make a bet? Let's bet a thousand dollars that in, say 30 years, this will not even be CLOSE to what happens, and that none of your theories will come out the way you think. People have ALWAYS thought as you do, and they have ALWAYS underestimated peoples desire to control their own destiny and find a way to make their own living.


(by then a thousand probably wonlt buy a plane ticket! he he)

ADL Colin

The robots will be here long before China and India's populations start to decrease. ;-)

__________________

skype = "adultdatelink"

ADL Colin

Hmmm. I myself wouldn't call Marx stupid.

__________________

skype = "adultdatelink"

Libertine

Their mistake was to think all other industries would stay the same. However, the service industry expanded immensely.
But what will happen when automation also occurs in other industries, and continues to progress in the areas where it has already taken place? Do you honestly believe that the amount of low-skilled work that needs to be done in western countries is unlimited, and that it will remain economically viable to use humans for it - even though machines will become increasingly affordable?

__________________
/(bb|[^b]{2})/

pimplink

Sorry, but you're WRONG. Human progress is NOT linear. If it was there would not have been a "DARK AGE" between the Fall of Rome and The Renaissance. There would have been a continuous progression of economic and scientific innovation from the Islamic Golden Age or the Han Dynasty to the present. But there wasn't... and it can't be confidently stated that there would be.

Human cultures, politics, and sometimes natural disasters...coupled with a lack of imagination results in backsliding. Y

Think about it, its only been since the 1800's that Europeans were able to recreate the durability of ROMAN ERA cement. Moreover, in certain areas of the world, the WHEEL (basic human innovation) actually DISAPPEARED from use. Indeed, IRON PLOWS waned in usage during the Middle ages.

Human progress and innovation is not linear, it ebbs and flows.

__________________

Libertine

This actually isn't an argument for socialism. Frankly, I don't like the idea of socialism... I prefer people working themselves.

While prices on goods and some services will fall, the standard of luxury will most likely make up for that.
I don't assume only the rich will own robots... I think almost everyone in western countries will own them. I don't think many people will still be vacuuming by hand in 60 years
Ofcourse, the large industrial machines will only be owned by the companies that have a real use for them, but that goes without saying.

Individuals owning machines, though, only means these individuals will have to spend less time cleaning the house, making dinner, doing grocery-shopping, etc. It doesn't mean these individuals will also get jobs.

__________________
/(bb|[^b]{2})/

FATPad

The sky is falling.

__________________
<a href="http://www.adultcontent.co.uk">Adult Content UK - Great British Content</a>

Libertine

30 years is not nearly enough to make this happen. In 30 years, even household robots probably won't be all too common.

People have not ALWAYS thought as I do. They have for the past few hundred years. And, in my opinion, they were right. They just underestimated the time it would take.

__________________
/(bb|[^b]{2})/

Libertine

I would. His critiques on other philosophers often come down to "they are wrong because I am right", and his completely economic/materialistic interpretation of the whole of humanity is laughably simplistic.

__________________
/(bb|[^b]{2})/

Libertine

Who said anything about lineair? It probably is the most bumpy ride anyone can imagine, with loads of peaks and even more valleys.

However, that does not take away from the fact that progress has taken place, and probably will continue to do so. If you draw a line representing tech progress from the society of cavemen to modern society, the line might not be straight, but overall it is going upwards.

Ofcourse, WWIII would send us back straight to the stone age, but chances of that happening seem small at best.

__________________
/(bb|[^b]{2})/

maxjohan

In 10 000 years? that's what I want to know

what planet do you want to live on?

__________________
I went from 100 to 313,000 satoshis in 2 days! Lots of daily freerolls...

BRISK

I offer one word: Equilibrium

Think about it

__________________
I post on GFY so that when people ask me what I do,
I can tell them that I work with the mentally retarded.

EZRhino

NetRodent

You might be interested in reading some of Asimov's "Robot" books.

In the scenario you foresee, why would people need jobs in the traditional sense? People generally have jobs in order to buy the goods and services they need to live. With the nearly limitless supply of labor that mass automation that economic model changes dramatically. Most goods and services become practically valueless, their only worth being that of their raw materials and the energy used in production. When coupled with advances in energy production (particularly solar) and recycling, the cost of an object becomes practically nothing. In that scenario the only thing that will continue to hold value is the original source of the raw materials, in other words: land.

Thus people will have all their biological needs met for a pitance. Then when the majority of the earths population spends the majority of their day at leisure, the demand and value of entertainment, education and other mental needs will rise. However because the artists, teachers and philosophers biological needs are already met, money in today's sense might not be the currency of choice. I don't know what the currency will be but even when people's biologial needs are met, people will still hunger for power, popularity and sex.

__________________
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."
--H.L. Mencken

sperbonzo

"Hello, I'd like to by a new buick hover-car please?"

"No problem, that will cost you 35 sessions of cunnalingus and 400 missionary sessions sir. Of course, you will have to put up 14 sessions of 69 up front"

"But wait! What if I want to lease?"

mijoon

You are toooo fucking funny .

Bansheelinks

I think this threadstarter should go back to his cave and keep reading his tealeaves there........

or maybe he'll open a cow's bladder, look at it for awhile, and tell us all whats going to happen 50 years from now