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 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.
This vid confuses robotics/machines and AI, sure machines/robotics create new jobs while destroying old ones, but AI (which is simulating human intelligence) is destroying but not even creating enough new jobs to keep up with population growth, it all really depends on how far AI can simulate human intelligence
If you wonder about the Conference Board, that is one of the sources of information mentioned in this clip:
The information at 07:13 is misleading, since it depicts the growth of labor productivity estimated from a 5 year rolling average. This is
a highly non-intuitive measure. It is also dependent of other factors such as overproduction.
Senior researchers in AI/pattern recognition have difficulty in finding a n y job that won´t be possible to automate in the near future.
people should be HAPPY jobs are being taken by robots, we live in a society of eat, work, sleep, repeat. imagine eat,enjoyment/hobbies/happiness,sleep. its scary such a concept is forbidden in our capitalistic world.
As pointed out in the second machine age; the criteria of breaking down any job and teaching a machine is breaking things down into their smaller components. To compare old automation and machine learning to new the author used Chess vs GO; Chess has 10^120 total games, generally in chess pros know why they do things. The computer learned to be the best by assessing all past games and accessing that database. GO has 2.08 × 10^170 total games, this is beyond any comprehension, even pro-GO players do not know why they do what they do, its intuition. In GO's case the computer learned to be the best by ?? Google knows how. The point here is that the system can eventually learn to do anything.
Automated labor by robots is a good thing. How many shitty jobs are out there? And what humans can do instead when there is no need to work in factories, stores and cleaning services? There are some occupations that robot won't replace us like in art of any forms, psychology, health care, surgery, designing, engineering and there are probably many more. Human is still the head of the robots and will make all the decisions for robot's labor.
First of all, we will have new jobs that are better and more interesting, most likely less physical as well. How many people are sick and tired over their current jobs. Second, when productivity is higher and prices are lower, we won't need to work as much to earn. Since everything will be affordable easily, the standard of life will imrpove.
There can not be new jobs that are not automated if humans can not do the job better or cheaper. The creation of machines that can do literally everything better and cheaper than any human is not something that can be extrapolated from past automation. Basically if the robot owners share the wealth, utopia. If they rule with an iron fist, dystopia.
David Graeber's Bullshit Jobs is a big explanation for why former automation hasn't caused job loss: the bureaucracy and administrative sectors have bloated, and a large chunk of those are, as he said, 'bullshit jobs'. A lot of jobs aren't as directly connected to what we might call 'productivity' as they used to be
Well Youtube created an industry. This video is a result of that industry. I don't think robots will be able to make videos for a while. But, who knows, as said in this video, in 2004 it was believed that speech recognition (similar to human levels) was very far away and now a software can do it, only 14 years later. So maybe we will have automated video making "robots" and they will control the content and we will become brainwashed and dominated. Hell maybe robots will read YouTube comments at a great speed (past and present ones) and almost instantaneously deduce many patterns in human behavior. Then robots will be the product of a new kind of evolution by technological selection. Lol, I am trying to make a joke, but it could really happen...
wouldn't it be awesome if every chores and work is done by the robot so we humans can just chill and live in peace and harmony and think about how to grow sustainably? or We can think about the future and how can we better human civilization and develop all the parts of the world equally without the need of capitalism but rather like Human Voluntarism?
this is absolute bullshit. Hours worked has gone down for everything. The amount of man power to make a ton of steel is less than what it was in 1960 time keepers are replaced with an app. Blockbuster video was replaced with a vending machine. technological unemployment is coming and most people don't even know it.
In his discussion on slavery Aristotle said that when the shuttle wove by itself and the plectrum played by itself chief workmen would not need helpers nor masters slaves. At the time he wrote, he believed that he was establishing the eternal validity of slavery; but for us today he was in reality justifying the existence of the machine. Work, it is true, is the constant form of man's interaction with his environment, if by work one means the sum total of exertions necessary to maintain life; and the lack of work usually means an impairment of function and a breakdown in organic relationship that leads to substitute forms of work, such as invalidism and neurosis. But work in the form of unwilling drudgery or of that sedentary routine which... the Athenians so properly despised—work in these forms is the true province of machines. Instead of reducing human beings to work-mechanisms, we can now transfer the main part of burden to automatic machines. This potentially... is perhaps the largest justification of the mechanical developments of the last thousand years. - Lewis Mumford
Does Technology Create or Destroy Jobs?Published on August 28, 2014 by David Richins
In Tim Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Charlie's father loses his job as an assembly worker at the toothpaste factory after management purchases a new robot. But had Mr. Bucket been a worker-owner of the toothpaste company rather than just an employee, he could have benefited from the new technology.
We generally welcome technological advances and recognize the potential for innovation to improve our lives. But according to a report from Oxford University, 45% of American jobs could be taken over by computers within the next twenty years. Should we be worried?
Douglas Rushkoff on CNN writes:
"New technologies are wreaking havoc on employment figures -- from EZpasses ousting toll collectors to Google-controlled self-driving automobiles rendering taxicab drivers obsolete. Every new computer program is basically doing some task that a person used to do. But the computer usually does it faster, more accurately, for less money, and without any health insurance costs."
Indeed, this seems like a reason to be concerned.
Throughout history, many people and groups have resisted industrialization and the growth of technology. The term Luddite is used to describe people who oppose the use of new technology to replace jobs. This word originated in 19th century England, when a group of textile artisans protested the use of labor-saving machinery.
Economists have labeled this sentiment - the belief that technology destroys jobs - the Luddite Fallacy. They say that as technology increases efficiency, greater profits allow for more investment and therefore more jobs in the long-run.
Of course in practice, workers are greatly inconvenienced by losing their jobs, and transitioning to new employment can be difficult.
The labor-evicting effects of technology, however, were not the only reason for opposing industrialization. Distributists and agrarians called attention to the fact that many people who were once self-reliant and living on their own farms now found themselves in a heightened state of vulnerability. In addition, the sense of quality and craftsmanship resulting from artisan labor was now being replaced by a flood of shoddy, mass-produced goods.
Is Unemployment a Bad Thing?
Politicians pride themselves on their ability to create jobs, but what if jobs weren't necessary? According to Aristotle, we work so that we can have leisure. Leisure in this context does not mean relaxation. It describes the activities we would engage in if we didn't have to work for money. These might include learning, family life, worship, the arts, and community service.
We all have a human need for work, but that need is independent of our need for money. If we didn't have to work for money, we would be free to engage in work that is more meaningful and important.
For many thousands of years, humans spent most of their time just trying to survive. As they began to use tools to move beyond mere subsistence living, their time was freed up for other pursuits.
So why then, should we resist technologies that could extend that freedom even further?
The Real Issue is Ownership
The technology problem exposes a flaw in the capitalist system. Capitalism, as it is currently practiced, tends to separate capital and labor. Companies provide the capital (i.e. the buildings, machines, tools, etc.) and employees provide the labor. Most people support themselves financially through employment, as opposed to business ownership or investment income.
The problem with this is that it creates a entire class of non-owners. When disruption strikes, employees suffer the consequences. They have no choice but to continually strive to make themselves useful. But despite their best efforts, many workers find that they are indeed replaceable.
When capital and labor are separate, profits tend to be prioritized over people. The less expensive option will always win, even if it means eliminating jobs or shipping them overseas. But when capital and labor are united in worker-owned enterprises, then new technologies can be applied wisely and in ways that benefit the community.
Socialism is not the answer. While capitalism concentrates power in the hands of a few individuals, socialism concentrates power in the state. The solution is to find ways to broaden ownership of capital as widely as possible so that everyone has access to a second stream of income besides wage labor. Achieving this is, in my opinion, the most important social and economic task facing us in the 21st century.
Without ownership, technology threatens our livelihood. With ownership, technology has the potential to make our lives better off.
When capital (aka technology) is successfully employed, it makes our lives easier because now we can work less. However, we only benefit from this if we are owners of that capital and receive a portion of the profit that it creates.
So when people argue about the merits of labor-saving technology, they are really exposing the vulnerability of the traditional employment contract.
The problem is the pace of innovation, not job creation. It is going faster and faster, especially with AI. Given adequate time to adjust, people displaced can change careers or have multiple jobs etc but the time needed to adapt is getting smaller by the day and humans still have the same limitations. "The Singularity" as hyped as it is, could also be interpreted as humans not adapting to change fast enough to benefit from technology advances or to even be harmed by it. Given that definition, one could say its already here for many people.
Another pressing issue on my mind is the lack of social opportunities. I don't think the working class will have time to meet new people when they work in factory jobs. People may or may not gather in cities but instead be in remote areas connected to remote networks which will take away all their time and energy to relax, or simply have sex.
The economists are pointing out that even though use of machines led to lose of jobs, it also created new job . They have used histoty and job growth statistics as an evidence to their argument.
In my view, the jobs that were created were something machines couldn't do. In a few decades (probably 4-8) we will have very powerful AI(artificial intelligence) which when combined with automation could perform almost 90 percent of what humans could do.
So who would one choose for work - a robot which is efficient and highly cost effective or a human?
Not robots directly, but the fact that is only possible to create value out of labor. Technology in the process of value creation only exists to enhance profits, but when the automation comes it's effects are automatically destroyed by the decreasing prices. That outcome is the real issue, the old developing countries currently experimenting falling wages for years are good examples of that fact.
Thank you for putting together these videos — Vox is doing a fantastic job beating mainstream media, by providing better content supported by more facts & historical figures. And the visuals are top-notch!
- As automation increases in complexity and efficiency, the carrying capacity for human jobs in the fields effected by them decreases. The largest case studies for these are agriculture and manufacturing.
Agriculture went from over 90% of the population to less than 1% producing all of humanities food. Manufacturing went from over 76% of the population to 8.8%. At present 78% of the population in the USA is in the service industry and several large branches of those are prime targets for automation, transportation, retail, and several specialized positions (Finances, Legal, and general health care) come to mind.
Every time there has been a major shift there has been the creation of massive disposable populations in any country that rapidly shifts. These cases being - The boom of orphans and working poor in the UK during the industrial revolution. The French revolution during the same time period. The rapid industrialization of Russia/the USSR during ww1 into the 1970's. China's rapid industrialization. We're witnessing the pattern repeat itself in India at the moment.
Yes, productivity increases, but the carrying capacity for human centered jobs does unequivocally decrease as technology makes 1 worker capable of doing the work of hundreds.
No matter the belief, an infinitely expanding/expandable market has never existed, markets do have a maximum carrying capacity. We will hit a point within the next several decades where there will either be another creation of a mass disposable population again, either due to increasing levels of greed, or out of simple displacement. Again, as automation increases, the carrying capacity for the fields it targets decreases for human jobs.
The most interesting part of those shifts is their major impacts often happen within a single generation of humans. We do have precedent and without some level of preparation, the same problems will arise.
i wish I was born around the 1950s to 1970s because that time seemed so peaceful and fun but now its all about robots replacing us the thing is we don't know whats gonna happen there is something bigger than humans and robots and all that stuff and its life I like to believe that life cant always be bad that it has to balance itself out someway so sure AI may replace us but you have to consider the factors that people like to protest and there has to be some people listening if more and more people are affected the more likely that its gonna change and that's where the good part comes in, that it will change because there is no point in having AI controlling cashiers if no one will be able to buy anything
I think the point with the new NN/ML/AI is that we can more quickly create machines to do good human work, so that the process of continually learning and adapting to a new job, then another, is getting very stressful, especially for older workers.
Also, the lower "new jobs" in the diagram are often less meaningful(-feeling) ones, because they are things that we simply didn't find worth doing before, but now we make more so why not. (And a lot of those jobs are just creating and catering to the endlessly absurd whims of the mega rich)
"Income disparity" is another way to say " eugenics. " Those who aren't being targeted don't see that and disclaim it because that would call their morality and consciousness into question. In other words that would disrupt their lives. No matter "other" lives being disrupted, destroyed and found irrelevant.
Future AI software could be able to automatically control a whole company. Now, imagine if an AI would manage that company's investments in a most profitable, rational and a logical way, at a lightning speed
5:52 I can't remember where but I heard that basically our computer processing power getting to the point of being so small that basically it's reaching their physicaly limits. They're being affected by quantum mechanics or something?? Can someone with deeper knowledge clarify whether that is right or not? And this the reason they are developing quantum computing because QC's processing speed is mind bogglingly faster than anything around rn?
> be Vox
> get question --> "will AI and automation take over human jobs?"
> should I ask the people who build these machines/systems?
> nah economists would no moar!
> ask economist
"yeah im not worried about it..."
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.