Hacker News Reader

Comment by exit | Hacker News Reader

> Such has been the success of computer technology that whole swathes of industry (such as book printing, but there are many others) no longer need any workers at all. Everything is computer-controlled, computer-driven. Suddenly there are NO labour costs, so the former advantages of the Third World are being rapidly wiped out once again.

i don't follow how the article goes from this to looking forward to everyone being involved in a 3rd industrial revolution. the conclusion i would draw is that there is an unprecedented unemployment crisis looming.

View on HN

Yes, it does seem that there will be unprecedented unemployment crisis. However, who will buy all the goods that the robot produce?

Moreover, it does seem time and time again that people manages to find work. Some people say there's alway works to do.

Thus, it is imperative that entrepreneurs find new uses for the unemployed masses, educators to reacess how they teach, and so on, to ease the growing pain. Let face it, we don't want to get another Luddite rebellion.

> However, who will buy all the goods that the robot produce?

absolutely, that's part of the problem.

> Moreover, it does seem time and time again that people manages to find work. Some people say there's alway works to do.

the vast majority of unemployed people will not "find work". they will be "given work" by other people who are in a position to take advantage of them.

if the benefits of automation aren't socialized you can count on increasingly sadistic ways of "putting people to use".

the vast majority of unemployed people will not "find work". they will be "given work" by other people who are in a position to take advantage of them

I think you're basically right; it's already happening on a large scale with lower skilled jobs. Over the last few years lots of employers have switched to hiring people on short-term contracts and getting rid of them before they become entitled to redundancy pay.

About two years ago the benefits system was struggling to cope with this. A person would be claiming JSA, get a job and stop claiming, then get let go after a few months and replaced with another cheap unemployed person. They would then have to make a new JSA claim. I think the result was an increased load in new benefits claims and delays in processing them.

This way of conducting business is pretty bad imo - it just screws poor people. But there are some good things happening too - especially with trying to lower the cost of public sector employees (see the example on TV yesterday of forcefully retiring police officers with 30+ years service to reduce high salaries and pension contributions).

I think the police force example highlights a truth: once you hit about ten years work, your salary proportional to your skill keeps climbing steeply, but in reality your skill level doesn't really change that much any more.

>the vast majority of unemployed people will not "find work". they will be "given work" by other people who are in a position to take advantage of them.

That's of course, when only industrialization is the only factor. When you factor in all the other technological factors and social trends, the picture will begins to look different, if not radically so.

Please to elaborate on these "other technological factors and social trends." If there's too much panic on one side by those who are losing their jobs, there seems to be a great deal of hand waving and talk about "other factors" by those who are less affected by these "trends".

The Flynn effect trend seem to indicate that the population is getting smarter over time. However, it would probably only slow down the loss of jobs. Unless, IQ increase dramatically.

Than there's the emerging invisible economy in which everything is determined by supply & demand, but also contracts that are per se, not "enforceable", and where reputation matters. That where people can find jobs in spite of the structural deficiency in the wider economy that forbid the price floor for labor to drop to where it needs to be. They are happening now.

But there's the past record in which new jobs are created out of jobs being eliminated by robots. There are demands for humans to program them, probably repair them, and so on. It might happen again with this process of industrialization.

There's another factor: prosthetic that effect a superhuman attribute or merging of humans into machines. It seem to take forever right now, though. This could be simply be our linear point of views, but not the actual development rate.

But then again, whether or not we have jobs in the future is not determined by what arguments I make, but of the facts.

> Unless, IQ increase dramatically.

100 IQ is defined as the average in the population under study, therefore increase / decrease is impossible.

>100 IQ is defined as the average in the population under study, therefore increase / decrease is impossible.

By our standard, most people 100 years ago would be classified as retarded. Thus, what I meant by increase in IQ is in relative to past populations.

An errors? Perhaps, but that's nitpicking.

I would say that "smarter over time" is the wrong conclusion of the Flynn effect.

Indeed, the picture does look a little different... it looks like people will not be "given work," either.

"other factors and social trends" is completely abstract to me. can you give me concrete examples?

The alternative to being taken advantage of is not-working. If it's illegal even to be taken advantage of, it's illegal to work.

Strictly speaking, there is always more work to be done.

Well, if somebody offer you a job for a pitiful wages, along with food and shelter. Without it, you will die. Would you take it? Or would you not?

Is it really being "taken advantage of"?

Moreover, if the new economy mean you can afford more stuff, are you really being taken advantage of?

I find it presumptive for me to judge a relationship between a wealthy capitalist and the employee no matter how right I might be. For whatever reason, the employee agree with the capitalist to do X work and be compensated Y stuff.

What the use of having the right to self-determination if other people decides your boss shouldn't be allow to make a voluntary contract with you.

Perhaps, "fairness" is much higher than the principle of voluntarism?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com