Even CNBC now admins that machines will replace labor

[Archbob]

Are you implying that humans (some/many/not all) would be killed off in the absence of a need for human manual labor?

Terminator 3 -- Rise of the machines

 

[El_Machinae]

Are you implying that humans (some/many/not all) would be killed off in the absence of a need for human manual labor?

I am considering (not implying) whether people will be able to generate labour that would allow them to earn sustenance. This is not the same thing as 'being killed off', certainly. It's just that they will not be able to provide a service that justifies giving them enough money to maintain food and shelter requirements.

We didn't shuttle horses to different uses, and keep them employed in ever-growing numbers. They literally were not capable of producing work that warranted keeping them around, in an economic sense.

 

[Kozmos]

I don't know how hard or easy law is, but when I was in the math/cs department, engineering versions of courses were always a lot lighter in scope and there was never any theoretical work, just application.. When I took economics I was forced to take the engineering faculty version - where you were treated like an idiot when shown graphs and formulas..

In my math classes what usually happened was the prof would prove a whole bunch of theorems on the board.. These theorems implied certain things, which lead to more theorems, conclusions, and mathematical systems. Only then would you see application, such as devising algorithms to traverse the mathematical systems you created.

So when the economics teacher treated an intersection of two lines as an idea worthy of endless repetition, and the engineering faculty students NEEDED this to understand what was going on.. and all the math people sitting in class are bored out of their minds.. you can sort of see why our entire faculty saw engineering as "application work for people dumber than us".. which a lot of was in good fun - there was a healthy competition between the faculties.. but.. yeah

I dated a law student once and still remain good friends with her so I can tell you have to digest a ridiculous amount of information and be to apply it to solve legal problems with a whole lot of AND, IF, OR, ELSE IF and so exceptions.

I think it depends on the faculty, the less prestigious ones dont ask you to prove theorems while the more elite one are truly brutal in their demands. Engineering is interesting to me as I personally think it has an interesting balance between raw knowledge of materials and mathematics/physics. It is however probably easier on some scale than dedicated Math and Physics studies.

 

[JollyRoger]

The point of law school is not to be able to understand law as the equivalent to a mathematical formula, but to be able to work effectively within the gray area that you will encounter in much of your work.

 

[Kozmos]

That too, she stressed that as well, thanks for filling in the blank.

 

[velosepappe]

Problem is that the corporations, the ones on the high end of the financial ladder need a decent size of the total populacy to be employed to keep the illusion that they are actually better than the ones on the bottom of the ladder. So IMO what happens when too much gets automatised? Lots of people lose their jobs, unable to pay for their consumption. Economic crises because not enough mony for the unemployed so no consumption. But what about the unempleyed themselves? Will they starve? Will they lose all will to survive because they are jobless? I'd rather think thay they try to get their own access to robot technology to prduce their own stuff, and in the meanwhile do it all manually. And while doing this they will come to the insight that the ones on top of the social ladder who thought they owned everything, actually dont own anything, because they are not needed. For sure, in some way or another they would need to get access to basic resources like metals and arable land, but they will find a way. And all will be well untill we suck our planet dry.

So I believe its actually in the rich peoples best interest to keep full employment if they want to keep the illusion of them being on top of the total ladder.

 

[Tahuti]

Should employment cease to be a viable source of income, the government always can intervene by issuing a basic income that is large enough to live on and funded from seignorage (aka Printing money): Considering all "hand" labor can be done by automation, it shouldn't lead to any considerable inflation.

 

[velosepappe]

Im afraid that it would mean total collapse of the economy as we know it like you formulate it, Kaiserguard. It would mean the few which we accept to be the owners of the automated industry to be the only ones to sustain the entire society. I dont think that many people on the top would be willing to donate the fruits of their possessions and that a lot of others would be willing to be totally dependent on the ones that have the infrastructure.

 

[Tahuti]

Im afraid that it would mean total collapse of the economy as we know it like you formulate it, Kaiserguard. It would mean the few which we accept to be the owners of the automated industry to be the only ones to sustain the entire society. I dont think that many people on the top would be willing to donate the fruits of their possessions and that a lot of others would be willing to be totally dependent on the ones that have the infrastructure.

As I said, the basic incomes won't be funded from taxes but printed directly by the government.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Should employment cease to be a viable source of income, the government always can intervene by issuing a basic income that is large enough to live on and funded from seignorage (aka Printing money)

Im afraid that it would mean total collapse of the economy as we know it like you formulate it, Kaiserguard. It would mean the few which we accept to be the owners of the automated industry to be the only ones to sustain the entire society.

Governments could do as Kaiserguard suggests, but would they? It would seem to depend on who controls the governments. As for ownership of industry, it's worth bearing in mind that "ownership" of the ultimate physical resource - land - has generally amounted to belonging to the club that won recent wars. In the age of automation, will "soldiers" be machines? If so, how will that impact the nature of government, and of control of factories and the economic value they create?

 

[amadeus]

I am considering (not implying) whether people will be able to generate labour that would allow them to earn sustenance. This is not the same thing as 'being killed off', certainly. It's just that they will not be able to provide a service that justifies giving them enough money to maintain food and shelter requirements.

We didn't shuttle horses to different uses, and keep them employed in ever-growing numbers. They literally were not capable of producing work that warranted keeping them around, in an economic sense.

You say that Ricardo's comparative advantage doesn't work in this case (at least, not for the horses.) Well, I don't think that's really true. Assume a sceanrio where there is only 5% employmment. How are the other 95% going to sustain themselves if they can't get their goods from the automated factories? They would make goods and trade amongst themselves.

 

[El_Machinae]

The 95% would need to have access to capital. If you look at a good example of a society with nearly no capital and 95% unemployment (refugee camps), you'll see nothing but widespread suffering.

I know it's very hard to imagine, but the idea that all your skills are essentially cheaply replaceable means that you will not be able to earn a living (especially if you lack capital). You'll get outcompeted in any endeavour, the price of your productivity is too high compared to the alternate. The people with the capital will have no reason to trade with people with limited capital. Heck, people with capital can just purchase away the capital of the unskilled for a temporary boost in living conditions.

How many people do you know whose only material assets are their skills?

Like I said, refugees have no capital and only skills. Their economies cannot be described as 'thriving'.