I’d happily work less for proportionately less pay but I can afford to

If the increased productivity comes with growth then you shouldn’t have to. In theory you should be able to work less for the same pay as you are still producing the same amount (just in less time, this is what productivity is).

However the issue is that we are all greedy gits. We would rather take work the same and earn more even though as a collective this isn’t good for us. Hence why we need the legislation to save us from our own greed.

There is a big flaw in this theory though and that is global competitiveness. That is why the EU is good as we can force sensible labour laws across a large number of people but we still struggle to compete with China and the US where the culture is to work like dogs. And again our own greed means we buy all their lovely cheap goods and services like sheep.

Here’s another point though – are our jobs becoming more interesting?

Get a degree, work in a call centre. Er, no!

EU is good? Have you seen productivity levels and UN across Europe?

Legislate to enshrine lower levels of productivity in the face of global competition??. That will be an interesting one to watch. We have had an indirect version of that already via the € and the results have been extremely ugly.

Think about online and mobile banking instead of going into a branch.

The financial services sector certainly has shrunk since ATMs became widespread and they fired all the ledger clerks.

Oh, wait…

But if we all worked a 4 day week we could employ an extra 20% of people reducing the expenditure in benefits and having an extra day on the bike. Overall output would be maintained.

That assumes the labour market isn’t constrained.

Also worth noting, that the rise of the robots makes the poor better off, as costs reduce. The cost of food over time has reduced significantly and likewise electronics, cars etc.

Indeed robots/tech are a classic double-edged sword. They improve living standards (markedly IMO) while increasing the threat that some work/types of job will be displaced. The answer is not Luddism or sacrificing living standards, it’s more about education and skills and freeing markets not constraining them.

Legislate to enshrine lower levels of productivity in the face of global competition??.

Why would you do that?

Productivity is a measure of stuff made over time, not per person. You can work less and still increase productivity.

The only way we can compete globally is by being more productive and that means working smarter. We will never be better than a low cost economy at working longer (and why would we want to anyway?).

The answer is not Luddism or sacrificing living standards, it’s more about education and skills and freeing markets not constraining them.

A free market for labour? Might sound compelling but that will just lead to people having to work longer and longer just to complete in the global market.

It is a constrained labour market that will enable the many to reap the rewards of afforded by the machines in the form of productivity gains. Some people are letting the side down (China I’m looking at you) but the answer isn’t “if you can’t beat them, joing them”, it is to show them a better way.

There was an interesting talk about this on ted talks.

What will happen is that either:

A) Robotics will have to be curtailed within the work environment.

B) Everyone will be given a basic state wage linked to national growth, that is paid for by the few still in work that earn a fortune. Otherwise the whole capitalistic system will cave in on intself as the masses need to be able to spend money, to keep demand up and cash flowing.

The other option is massive financial insability with the rich hiding themselves behind walls and sophisticated security systems. They’ll probably find a malthusian way to justify such an existence.

Why would you do that?

Sorry, could have misread what you were saying, I though that was what you were implying by legislation!!

The only way we can compete globally is by being more productive and that means working smarter. We will never be better than a low cost economy at working longer (and why would we want to anyway?).

True but our productivity record is not a good one! But that does not get away from the fact that if you seek higher wages without an increase in productivity, you end up with fewer people employed but earning more. It’s a classic trade off.

Today’s FT article below is not a bad take IMO (for those with access to the mouthpiece of unbridled capitalism!!)

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fc1001e0-f888-11e3-815f-00144feabdc0.html

Anyway, toddle-pip, have some profits to maximise now.

The raise of the robots is not only thrust forward by captialism but also limited by it.

If robots put too many people out of work, as is the worry of the OP…

Who exactly will be buying the goods/using the services provided by the them?

B) Everyone will be given a basic state wage linked to national growth, that is paid for by the few still in work that earn a fortune. Otherwise the whole capitalistic system will cave in on intself as the masses need to be able to spend money, to keep demand up and cash flowing.

Do you have a link? Sounds interesting.

I’d bet they covered it but what scenario b) is missing on the face of it is the option to take the tiny bit of work that is remaining and divide it up equally between everyone by limiting the amount of work one person is allowed to do. So everyone does a little bit of work and gets paid hansomely for it.

It’s been a while since I’ve heard the “we can’t pay better wages because it will cause inflation” argument

Wasn’t even close to my point or even the discussion we are having. Just goes to show you are having your own Citizen Smith type argument in your head all the time 🙂

Mods, can we change Ernie’s member tag to ‘comrade’ please?

Here we go

https://www.ted.com/talk/andrew_mcafee_are_droids_taking_our_jobs

I’d bet they covered it but what scenario b) is missing on the face of it is the option to take the tiny bit of work that is remaining and divide it up equally between everyone by limiting the amount of work one person is allowed to do. So everyone does a little bit of work and get’s paid hansomely for it.

You can bet that the Daily Mail/Arbeit Macht Frei types will see to it that we end up with option c though.

This planet is going to look like a cross between Idiocracy and Elysium in 50 years, just with androids in door ways…”Welcome to costa, I love you”.

Sorry, could have misread what you were saying, I though that was what you were implying by legislation!!

Legistlation could limit the amount of time one person could work for. E.g. a 30 hour week. However that doesn’t limit the amount of work done in that time or the number of people that can be employed for 30 hours. So you wouldn’t legislate to reduce productivity, but you could/should legislate to control how the productivity gains are shared out.

The aim is to increase GDP per hour worked, not GDP as an absolute measure.

What is important to us as individuals is quality of life, not absolute wealth.

The other option is massive financial instability with the rich hiding themselves behind walls and sophisticated security systems.

That sounds like the most likely option to me.

J, we have that already. Fortunately I chose to make myself exempt as do all my colleagues. Prefer that to be individual choice that legislated though.

BTW I was talking about free-er, not free markets in labour.

That sounds like the most likely option to me.

Yeah doesn’t take genius to deduce that, does it. It’s going to be one hilariously tragic joke.

Someone should start a nuclear holocaust soon, so that when some advanced civilisation finds our remains they can study us at the pinnacle of our achievments instead of what’s coming.

Tom_W1987 – Your link was wonky. This should be the correct one.

I’m starting to wonder whether Battlestar Galctica is some sort of prophetic documentary.

Fortunately I chose to make myself exempt as do all my colleagues. Prefer that to be individual choice that legislated though.

But it’s an illusion of choice. You have to work harder and harder to be competitive. But that competition is a race to the bottom.

No I choose to.

On that point, time to get back to it.

It’s going to be one hilariously tragic joke.

I suppose it’s possible that the combination of massive wealth, endless leisure time and (before very long) almost indefinite lifespans among the richest people in the world might produce an amazing cultural and scientific age.

They may well build spacecraft and pyramids, create works of art that exist in media and forms that we cannot imagine, attain higher levels of consciousness than humans currently understand and learn to speak the language of owls.

If all that happened, it would be seen as a golden age of human history.

MSP – Member
I remember watching programs as a kid in the 70’s (tomorrows world type stuff). That predicted how automation would reduce working hours free up leisure time and make everyone life so much better. Unfortunately it has been used to consolidate wealth into the hands of the few, increase working hours for many…

And if we hadn’t allowed the Unions to be dismantled we could be pushing for shorter working hours in the week to keep employment levels up. Even the wealthy would benefit.

At the end of the day, robots don’t buy consumer goods.

Lots of jobs are made up.

Just bring in a bit of regulation that says robots must have a weekly test of some sort and all of a sudden you have a one new human job for every robot and a little bit of wealth redistributed!

How many of us actually do necessary jobs now?

They may well build spacecraft and pyramids, create works of art that exist in media and forms that we cannot imagine, attain higher levels of consciousness than humans currently understand and learn to speak the language of owls.

As opposed to an age fraught with huge social division, climate change and Elysium style mass poverty?

Ohh but look but someone wired a microchip into their brain and gave themselves an IQ of 250, and like….Haliburton started drilling Mars….and some dude built a giant cock extension in the form of a 22nd century pyramid to the moon.

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO humans, **** yeah!

IanW – Member
…How many of us actually do necessary jobs now?

Office workers. Surely you don’t think gravity is the only thing keeping those chairs pinned to the floor… 🙂

The other option is massive financial instability with the rich hiding themselves behind walls and sophisticated security systems.

Sounds like South Africa…..

Why are we debating about where we are heading with automation? We are already there. Compare our working life to that of 200 years ago. Look around you, this is your answer.

We may be able to travel somewhat further, but I doubt we will much, as long as we have a significant capitalist element. People are always inventing new stuff for us to work on. The fewer people there are to work the mundane jobs, the more there will be available to invent cooler stuff (or support those inventing it).

For example, I work in IT. That’s only possible because people invented computers, and people are always inventing new things to do with computers. Not everyone’s cut out to be a software engineer, of course, but they are the PMs, the salespeople, the resource managers, the trainers, the office admins, the canteen staff, security guards and all sorts. Because I get sent around the country we run two cars, so we need twice as many tyres and services and extra fuel. And so on.

There hasn’t been a long term crisis of employment since the industrial revolution. Every time a door has closed another has eventually opened.

When we find a way reduce the cost of food production, energy and manufacturing to near zero, and when population stabilises, then maybe we will approach the Star-trek model where you can not work and still live.

At the end of the day, robots don’t buy consumer goods.

Absolutely and I think that’s where capitalism is missing a trick. Put money in people’s pockets and they will spend it. Pay peanuts or put them out of work and the market shrinks.

Absolutely and I think that’s where capitalism is missing a trick. Put money in people’s pockets and they will spend it. Pay peanuts or put them out of work and the market shrinks.

Missing what trick? People are earning more than ever. Stuff you want (but don’t need) gets cheaper by the day.

The fewer people there are to work the mundane jobs, the more there will be available to invent cooler stuff (or support those inventing it).

The problem with that is that the IQ of your average person isn’t condusive to inventing cool new stuff.

Most people will simply be driven in to mundane jobs where the cost of a robot is the same or more expensive than a human. It will be middle class professionals that cost a company a fortune to employ that will be hit. Statisticians? Who needs those if a computer understands data and it’s application instead of simply knowing how to run a t-test. Doctors? Who needs those when a computer can colate significant amounts of data and make a more accurate diagnosis with lower error rates than a human counterpart.

All you need is a sub 100 IQ IT moron on the other end watching the machine and pressing the odd button now and you’re sorted.

Missing what trick? People are earning more than ever. Stuff you want (but don’t need) gets cheaper by the day.

That MIT economist I linked to seems to think that it’s going to go the way slowoldman describes capitalism.

The problem with that is that the IQ of your average person isn’t condusive to inventing cool new stuff.

Hence the ‘support’ clause. And people before talking about education.

It will be middle class professionals that cost a company a fortune to employ that will be hit.

Hmm, they are the ones who will be able to find (and have found) new roles. Computers already do the stats, now we just employ people to deploy those computers, and design the models. It then becomes cheaper to actually use statistical models, so more companies do it, so more work. I think MORE peopel are now employed in this kind of work, not fewer.

Computers already do the stats

They compute the stats, they don’t understand them. When someone programs some software that understands statistics, statisticians are well and truly ****.

Hence the ‘support’ clause. And people before talking about education.

Education doesn’t really improve baseline IQ, or creativity for that matter.

I think MORE peopel are now employed in this kind of work, not fewer.

Nope, if the systems are designed fluidly enough it wouldn’t need any data entry clerks (this could be done directly by people on the ground….ie scientists in the field), it wouldn’t need the statisticians…..all it would need is one fat bumbling IT nerd and hundreds of people would be out of buisness if a piece of software could understand statistics and it’s application within a company.

When someone programs some software that understands statistics, statisticians are well and truly ****

No, they’ll go away and develop new things to understand that the computers still can’t.

Education doesn’t really improve baseline IQ, or creativity for that matter.

It improves application of IQ, and I’d suggest it does increase creativity a lot. Because creativity in a given application is based on knowledge.

No, they’ll go away and develop new things to understand that the computers still can’t.

Like what, a new statistical approach? Sure, but all that takes is one programmer/statistician back home at the software developers HQ to patch it in.

and I’d suggest it does increase creativity a lot.

HAH!

No sorry, I don’t think your average person has the capability to be some kind of self-employed artistic entrepreneur. What will happen is that educated people who are made redundant will simply be competing with the working classes for the same jobs, a few of the middle class types will have the where with all to develop their own buisnesses….no one else will though….society will end up just looking like South Africa.

Why are we debating about where we are heading with automation? We are already there.

Automation yes but when if/when we can create entities that can be creative that work without moaning and don’t need much of a break then why employ people? People can maintain, create build the artificial people for a while but then you have machines that do that too.

At the bottom we have people who are unable to find work as the work these unskilled people used to do is done in automated factories or similar. I think the lowest skill level required to be employed will increase over time so that more and more are unemployable. At some point the costs of looking after these unemployable people becomes too great for the nation and national debt keeps increasing.

We just have to hope that there’s a limit to the intelligence level of these artificial machines; can we ever really create an artificial conscious being?

At the bottom we have people who are unable to find work as the work these unskilled people used to do is done in automated factories or similar. I think the lowest skill level required to be employed will increase over time so that more and more are unemployable. At some point the costs of looking after these unemployable people becomes too great for the nation and national debt keeps increasing.

Yeah we havn’t even solved the employment problems resulting from the mines shutting down, how are we going to solve future employment problems generated by automation if we can’t even do that?

That’s not how it’s currently being played out. New advances in technology are making new things possible. Big data for example. As IT consultants, we’re not engaged in making database applications any more, those are now easily implemented in a few days using off-the-peg software. We spend our time (at least in my job) talking to businesses about what they want to do using the off-the-peg software and helping them do it. And there’s no shortage of new applications.

When we make stuff easy, we won’t just limit ourselves to the same stuff done more easily. It’ll allow us to build on that stuff and make even more hard stuff out of the easy stuff.

It used to be impossible to process huge volumes of data cheaply. Then the boffins at Intel and Seagate and whatnot made computing power cheap. Someone then invented a technique, and someone else created a super simple bit of software for processing lots of data. Now suddenly we can do things that were never possible before, and it’s THOSE things that we are spending our time on.

As previously mentioned – given most of us are still in work despite 200 years of increased automation, surely we must be effective at finding new stuff to do?

When someone invented the steel framed building, did we just build all our buildings in half the time and give builders 3 day weeks? No, we just built bigger and more.

At the end of the day, robots don’t buy consumer goods.

Only because consumer goods buying robots haven’t been developed. Robot built consumer goods, bought by robots, and recycled by robots, would allow “the market” to operate without any human involvement.

And let’s face it the needs of humans are constantly at odds with the needs of the market, and we all know how important the needs of the market are.

If it wasn’t for interfering humans the market would work just fine.

.

People are earning more than ever.

That’s not true. As percentage of GDP wages have fallen over the last 35 years. Cheaper manufactured goods is not an indication that wages have risen.

I develop Expert Systems and Molgrips is right, once you automate A, you don’t just sit back and relax, you start thinking about B which you never had time to do when A was the issue and then when you sort B, you move onto C. So automation, in SW, just leads to an ever expanding remit – it never ends….

I also put people out of jobs as I basically write code that does Human jobs better than humans and thus make ‘specialists’ redundant as my code is better than they are….