Why economists and futurists disagree about the future of the labor market.
Subscribe to our channel! http://goo.gl/0bsAjO
Recent advancements in artificial intelligence and robotics have commentators worrying about the coming obsolescence of the human worker. Some in Silicon Valley are even calling for a basic minimum income provided by the government for everyone, under the assumption that work will become scarce. But many economists are skeptical of these claims, because the notion that the the economy offers a fixed amount of work has been debunked time and time again over the centuries and current economic data show no signs of a productivity boom. Fortunately, we don't need to divine the future of the labor market in order to prepare for it.
Vox.com is a news website that helps you cut through the noise and understand what's really driving the events in the headlines. Check out http://www.vox.com to get up to speed on everything from Kurdistan to the Kim Kardashian app.
Check out our full video catalog: http://goo.gl/IZONyE
Follow Vox on Twitter: http://goo.gl/XFrZ5H
Or on Facebook: http://goo.gl/U2g06o
I did a co-op at a Tim Horton’s for my last year in high school, and one of my coworkers put up a news article about cafe in japan that has its coffee made and served by robots. That’s right all made and served by robotic arms and how long until all fast food jobs are automated?
So the government is prepared to start passing out a shitload of free checks every month ?.... people have to live too ! People that don't have work just don't buy anything, so the machines will be they're own demise...
this video shows again how degenerate delusional and brainwashed capitalists are. this world have a limited amount of resources that means a limited amount in grow. 'A.I' will absolute replace most of jobs also A.I absolute will enslave us as it will be like his creator. ;a dictator,; btw Big Brother satan is watching you,'
capitalists are eco terrorists 'The essence of capitalism is to turn nature into commodities and commodities into capital. The live green earth is transformed into dead gold bricks, with luxury items for the few and toxic slag heaps for the many. The glittering mansion overlooks a vast sprawl of shanty towns, wherein a desperate, demoralized humanity is kept in line with drugs, television, and armed force.”
From what I can see give more money to the government with our new jobs! Have government run every aspect of our lives! Job's We can be some A I's pet! It's called the new order of thing and one world dominance! one world order!
these gains of productivity and new jobs created by technological advances has nothing to do with the periphery countries. these countries do not incorporate productivity and do not develop technology themselves, becoming more and more dependent on the developed countries. the trend is the inequality and unemployment resulting from this process being absorbed by the poorest countries
The problem with comparing current automation anxiety to the 1920's is that back then, the new jobs created a demand for unskilled labor, while today's machines are replacing unskilled and mid-level to even high level jobs. The new jobs that will come from these machines are high-skilled ones that will require above average intelligence, essentially barring most of the population from being able to work.
But as most millennials can attest, the jobs that are still around, largely don't pay well, and companies, rather than raising wages, are using the increased profits to buy back stock and make their major shareholders richer.
let's see here... basically, they say "yea people get displaced but they can find other jobs". okay so say a displaced worker making $15 an hour gets displaced by a machine, but hey they can get a $7.25 job at a store or something. But it's not fixing the problem, is it? You end up losing job security and we're expected to be okay with people being forced out of jobs and forced to take a massive pay decrease just so they can live life.
The problem with AI and advanced robotics is that it doesn't just make a job (performed by a human) obsolete, it - to all intents and purposes - makes the human obsolete. Humans can do A, B and C? Wonderful, machines can do the entire alphabet and they can do it a million times better. We're not there yet obviously, but we're getting there faster and faster. Of course, if you create enough 'bullshit jobs' you can keep everyone employed, but that shouldn't be the way forward.
Well, i think that as long as purchasing power stays in the hands of humans and not machines, there will always be the incentive to create new ways to draw it (through transactions ) from the people and thus replacement jobs or atleast ways of earning will stay..
Economists agree that we can always create new jobs, but the real question is whether we WANT that. We could all be working 3 day work weeks and enjoying the same standard of living: instead we're stuck in this old-timey idea that we need to create bullshit jobs to keep people busy, and that 40 hours a week is somehow the 'correct' amount of time to be working. We SHOULD automate jobs. And figure out how to all live better lives in the process.
The argument regarding productivity seems a fallacious one. It assumes that robots will replace humans only if robots are more productive, or that more automation means more productivity. Generally speaking, robots replace humans because they're cheaper (no wage, no benefits, no worker's comp, no bonuses, no accidents, etc). And the moment the technology becomes cheap enough, it will spread like wildfire.
In a nutshell, the arguments are like this:
1) The present rise in automation is NOT worrisome for jobs because
A) It hasn't been so in the past (we've handled automation very well in the past)
B) Some key economic metrics (e.g. labor productivity) do not support the claim that we are in an "exponential growth" phase with automation
2) The present rise in automation is worrisome for jobs because
A) Futurists (e.g. Elon Musk) are worried about it
B) Studies are finding that a large percentage of jobs are at risk of being automated
C) This time, the rise of automation is different - exponential growth
Vegas shows used to have many artists..dancers.. performers.. now.. it's mostly a movie screen ..some robotic props and one or two key performers... Vegas has no shortage of wealth and profit.. but it does seem to lack respect and value for human workers.
how comes that noone seems to think outside the box? it's a good thing that there is less work - capitalism is the problem. a system where people are dependent on an income to live can never suffice for all the needs in the future. it doesnt matter for the guy that loses the job if the total jobs stay more or less the same.
that kind of automation is way different than an ai learning and being able to continuously take away jobs, even that of programmers, doctors and engineers.
Also, humans can’t buy things when they’re out of work. Automation historically lead to betterness, this is where it leads to worseness.
The analysis is flawed. Productivity is not growing fast because this new technology kills demand. Without demand there's no sense in producing more. This technology implies a massive transfer of resources from the lower and middle class to the wealthy The wealthy consume a smaller portion of their total income, hence the sluggish demand. More money in the pockets of people who don't need to spend it.
There is a major problem in your analysis. When you measure productivity as the ratio between GDP and labour (which has been growing slower than in the past) you arrive at the conclusion that present day technology is not displacing jobs at all. But something else is happening: GDP is also growing slower than in the past. And which brings together this apparent contradiction (namely this fascinating technology that doesn't translate into unprecedented economic prosperity) is not that supply cannot expand fast enough, the key is in the demand side. Technology is killing demand in the form of fewer jobs for the majority of people which pay less than in the past.
The coming of machine intelligence is FUNDAMENTALLY different than what we've seen in the past. Once they have more power, AND more intelligence, there'll be no point in hiring humans for most jobs.
That said we should welcome automation, create a Universal Basic Income, and focus on making humanities future bright.
Holy crap that exponential graph though... just imagine how much more of an increase their has been just by the time I'm posting this comment from when this video is made a year ago. That's like more of an increase than four Decades of the past
I think that this is where a majority of people blindly pass the thin line between machines and AI. The late 1800s and early 1900s were quite different. The machine (The Steam Engine here) had to be looked after by workers, providing coal and maintaining the fire. Work did not disappear during the advent of computers because there was a requirement for someone to regulate its work. AI, on the other hand, is entirely different. We are not providing the robot with a pre-defined sequence of work to do. We are giving it the paper to think and make decisions on its own. So yes, jobs will disappear, because there will be a better option than employing humans. The robots will provide them with precision, accuracy and greater efficiency but the richest have something at stake too.
That is consumers. Lesser jobs mean lesser incomes. If poverty increases and affordability decreases then where the hell do the companies think that they will sell their products!
We need to automate income tax collection. Get the flat tax bill passed and we get rid of a ton of overhead: no need to keep an accountant, no complex tax code or loopholes, no need to file for taxes annually, IRS is reduced to a building full of computers, no lawyers to pay to settle disputes. It all just gets taken as a percentage of what we buy. Even the top 1% can't hide their money from that. But these are white collar jobs, people with money that can't give up their way of life for the sake of progress. Oh and they're well connected with the top 1%, who will also take a loss in their well being if this was passed. Sounds like there same argument made by travel agents and telephone operators of decades past, only difference is that it's the law makers and their friends that will lose.
What this video doesn’t comment about is how the livelihoods of people are destroyed and the stress that it generates leading to heart disease and suicides.
Whether this time is different or not, the damage done to people.
why don't people understand that back in 1928 there were less people and plenty of other things to do.. but soon all handicraft and small manufactures vanished.. Today, there're so many people and then this AI and automation.. It's time when we should learn to kill each other and escape.
Something I’m suddenly realizing about whether or not robots take over is what to do when something breaks down. If you have a whole shift of people and someone is laid up for a week or two, the rest of the shift will have to compensate for that one less employee until they get back. If a robot on an assembly line goes down and it takes a couple of days to a week or more to get the right part to repair it, is there a backup machine in the meantime?
Also, if you wanted help with a product, do you want help from a cold, unemotional machine or do you want to talk to a human being?
i hope to get another 50 years of life time in order to see the state of play, it will be interesting to see if the world reacts to climate change in time and how automation changes the world interesting times indeed
bertrand russel said that humans should only work 4 hours a day to be happy anyway, and we would achieve more if that was the case most of the changes that happened in his life came about by aristocrats who never worked for a living anyway
Technology can already grow all our food, medicine, clothing material, build our houses, etc. all we need to do is stop fighting each other and help each other instead, there is no reason for war or environmental abuse. We can all live in peace and prosperity
The problem will not emerge until automated industry needs supplementary human labor, the problem will emerge only when AI can do the same or better work than humans.
The first cracks are the rising debt, due to productivity but as people are not earning sufficiently it give rise to debts, if this continues people will fall in debt trap.
Machines have always been taking human jobs ever since the Industrial Revolution. A simpler question, was the Industrial Revolution a mistake? And where did all these displaced workers go? e.g. look at some of the examples after the 2008 crash.
Globally, new technology create far more 'job categories' than what it displaces with our 'current labour jobs'. Smartphone has taken over the world where for one "App developer" or "phone accessories designers" jobs are a thing now, which is unheard of 10 years ago.
The problem is that when technology change, people must also change to adapt, but there are some who refuse to change and want to stick with what they know best and unwilling to learn to change e.g. sticking to 2G phones.
Some of the nay sayers shouldn't look into history for reference because these machines are different has it has a brain now claiming it replaces human brain workers. Sorry, but that too simplistic, because mechanical brain long existed before electronic brains such as the "Moors Law". A brain is just a set of preset functions just like a babbage machine or any mechanical functions to predetermine it outcomes like the invention of the strokes in typewriters or even a "ball point" pen replaces calligraphers.
There are far more people making ball point pens than quill makers even during the heydays during the renaissance period, transporting ideas by means of written language, which was when printing was invented to keep up the demand).
ai and robots that can do most jobs better than us 24/7 + population growth = much less requirement for human work and more competition for any still existing jobs. were going to have many people who cant compete and will have to live off welfare or universal basic income.
Robots are machines and are subject to the laws of entropy (decay) in the same way as everything else in existence. Cars, phones, TVs, computers, animals and plants are all subject to entropy and that is why everything on earth eventually 'dies'. Robots require vast amounts of energy (from somewhere) and servicing or replacement in the same way as an old washing machine and this is what drives the law of supply and demand (capitalism). There must be 'demand' to require a 'supply' and this is where capitalism will triumph over the robot. If AI cuts off the 'demand' side of capitalism (no jobs) then capitalism itself will cut off the requirement for robots. In other words, capitalism and AI cannot co-exist unless the law of supply and demand is maintained. Otherwise, 'helicopter-money' distributed by central government to maintain a 'demand' chain is the only way out. AI could (possibly) be a great economic equaliser because either AI or capitalism has to give way.
Whoever says No is an Idiot. It is happening right now farms have Automatic Milking Machones, Factorys are Automatic, Farms are Automatic, Restaurants are becoming Automated, Every Career has been moving Towards automation
But the Moore's law is dead right about right now. Yes, we are now seeing the result of 40 years of Moore's law and software code base and communication technology build up, but the underlying fundamental is out of the picture now.
6:30 - Well, maybe it *won't* accelerate for decades. Just because it's the current trend, it doesn't follow that it will continue this way for the rest of eternity. What actual evidence is there that it will just go on like this?
Maybe what I will write is dumb since I don't have a lot of fact but:
Isn't the problem deeper yes robot maybe create more job if we follow the schema and think everyone is on equal but the people who have a lot of money just stock the money slowing the economy and I refer to the schema may not create the job in the bottom right corner since we can't buy the more affordable stuff and so go more often to dinner and other services? It's just a thought feel free to correct me.
I think there is the argument can certainly be made that the rising inequality over the last several decades is a major contributor to slowing productivity and economic growth. It's really hard to increase your productivity in many jobs that low income people have to work just to stay a float. How much better can you really get at serving coffee at a Starbucks, for example. I'd love to see productivity growth broken down by income.
Perhaps if the gains from automation are shared, the bottom half of your diagram will take effect, but I think the concern of futurists is that low income workers will be made obsolete without getting the gains to fuel the productivity spiral this time.
Looking at the impact of automation by employment rate is using circular logic, since mortality is causally linked to under and unemployment.
Labor demand and population decline are both more meaningful metrics.
The day will come, when machines exceed human intelligence, and robotics exceed human skill at absolutely everything. When that day comes, humans simply will no longer work for a living. But there will still be limited resources, so how will they be distributed? Personally, I think everyone will end up with robot caretakers, but there will still be demand for things human. Oddly, we may very well revert to something akin to the pre-industrial age, where what is valued, are hand made items, hand grown vegetables, the arts (human variety), sports etc. No-one will have any physical wants anymore, but those who are exceptional at this sort of thing will end up with a larger percent of resources.
Anunciado durante a Gamescom 2017, uma das maiores feiras de videogame do mundo, o remake de Secret of Mana é, desde o início, um projeto pensado para agradar aos fãs de longa data e atrair jogadores novatos com um gameplay mais acessível.
Não se engane: a versão 2018 de Secret of Mana está mais para uma recriação do que uma mera remasterização com pequeno ajustes gráficos. O que temos aqui é um jogo completamente atualizado, com personagens redesenhados que ganharam nova vida graças à estética cartunesca.
Se, por um lado, as mudanças visuais foram projetadas para atrair novatos, por outro, algumas pessoas podem torcer o nariz pela simplicidade da nova abordagem - especialmente no que diz respeito aos cenários e criaturas do mundo.
Os cenários coloridos, por exemplo, ainda que estejam bem representados, trazem pouca variedade e deixam game com cara de “jogo de celular”. Isso fica mais evidente pela estrutura do game, já que muitas áreas estão completamente vazias e monótonas. Nesse quesito, Secret of Mana não tem vantagem em ter o fator nostalgia a seu favor.
O remake utiliza a clássica perspectiva de visão aérea, com a câmera posicionada acima dos personagens. É possível arrastar as bordas da tela manualmente para ter uma visão mais ampla do ambiente, o que é bastante útil para momentos de exploração.
O brilho da era noventista, mas com ressalvas.
Antes de tudo, é importante ressaltar que não há legendas em português, então o melhor a fazer é jogar com textos em inglês. A história continua sendo o ponto mais alto de Secret of Mana e, novamente, coloca o jogador no controle de três adoráveis personagens: Randi, Primm e Popoi - é possível jogar em modo cooperativo local para até três usuários.
O objetivo do grupo é lutar contra um império traidor ao mesmo tempo em que tenta recuperar o poder da Mana para restaurar a paz. O grande problema é que, embora os gráficos estejam atualizados, as animações ficaram presas ao passado. Em vez de despertar o sentimento de nostalgia, a falta de capricho passa a impressão de que o remake foi feito às pressas.
A jogabilidade à la Zelda foi aprimorada e permite desferir ataques de qualquer ângulo. Os inimigos também demonstram mais inteligência, uma vez que agora eles têm a opção de atacar a partir de qualquer ponto do cenário.
Ainda que a movimentação esteja mais fluida, parece haver algum problema técnico relacionado ao impacto dos golpes. Isso porque há momentos em que o personagem simplesmente não acerta o ataque, mesmo posicionado a uma distância razoável do oponente.
Além disso, a interface dos menus ficou bem aquém do esperado, com abas confusas e muito mal posicionadas. Há, no entanto, uma opção de mapear os itens essenciais nos botões do joystick ou teclado, o que facilita muito a organização na hora de combates mais exigentes.
O remake de Secret of Mana mantém a essência da pérola dos RPGs de ação dos anos 90, mas comete muitos deslizes ao tentar mexer em time que está ganhando. Menus engessados, sistema de combate com problemas técnicos e animações presas ao passado impedem o relançamento de ser a experiência definitiva, apesar de que possa valer para quem nunca experimentou o jogo original.