Hacker News Reader

Comment by InclinedPlane | Hacker News Reader

Automation.

Does NOT.

Destroy.

Jobs.

Is the economy smaller today than in 1911? Are there fewer jobs today? Are there less worthwhile jobs today? Exactly the opposite in every case. Automation may eliminate A job in the near-term but in the long-term it creates and enhances wealth. Ultimately every dollar spent makes its way from one person to another person.

Robots don't have bank accounts.

View on HN

Well, there is one fix to that:

Automation does not destroy skilled jobs.

Unskilled jobs, however, are hit by automation.

For theUS, the problem is how off-track our education system has gotten in terms of job preparedness.

We have lots of people who worked hard, got lots of student debt, and have no jobs. Which is actually still small (the unemployment rate for people with college degrees is what, 4-5%?). We have lots of unskilled labor who went through our public school system. That's a problem.

We need to bring trade schools back.

Also, did anyone else notice the use of the verb "hire" when talking about robots?

How does one define "skilled"? I suspect that the definition is something like "A job is skilled if it can't be automated". If we go with that definition then yes, by definition automation destroys unskilled jobs.

Roughly: you have to apprentice or go to school (trade school, college, what-evs) to do it.

Building on Donald Knuth's definition of an artist (someone who does work that cannot yet be automated, such as a programmer), it seems like today the most efficient economy is one that automates everything that can be automated, so that all of its population work as artists.

The argument that automation destroys jobs assumes that at least part of the population does not have the propensity to be artists. This is the crucial point that this whole debate rests on.

In other words, are there people who are so un-creative that everything they could produce can be automated? If there are, then such people will lose jobs due to automation and will not gain back any alternative jobs.

I think on a site like HN the debate is skewed because most of us are high IQ people who, so far, don't have any trouble competing with robots. If there were robots who could do everything I can do and do it cheaper than I, why would anybody hire me?

I think you've hit the nail on the head.

We're getting to where it's all about creativity.

The question here is -- which jobs will remain longest. Is that "high IQ" jobs? Computers are wonderful at solving well-defined "high IQ" problems, like playing chess or performing register allocation. And creativity is just an ability to generate original solutions to the problem. Computers are more than capable of doing that.

Can you imagine a future where most of the menial and factory tasks that are now jobs are performed by robots? In this case it certainly does eliminate jobs, with no guarantee that others will be created.

The wealth created goes to the company that made the robot, and the one that utilizes the robot. The people who used to have jobs get left out of the wealth transfer.

I'm not saying this is necessarily bad, just that it will happen and maybe we need a new economic model to deal with this future.

Companies become more dependent on automation in order to increase efficiency. In the near-term this leads to higher profits. However, because automation reduces overhead, competition will result in lower prices. The end result is that increased profits are only temporary, ultimately the main result is merely cheaper goods. And cheaper goods mean increased amounts of discretionary income. That money ultimately goes elsewhere, creating new jobs that didn't exist before or causing growth for old jobs that used to be niche.

Yes, I can imagine a future where most of the menial and factory jobs are performed by robots. Just as I can imagine a present where the majority of the population isn't farmers, or where "computers" are devices rather than people, or a present without elevator operators, switchboard operators, lamp lighters, or milkmen.

I can imagine a future in which robots are cheaper and more capable than a broad swath of humanity at everything. Jobs will be lost.

This is assuming that there is no price collusion and that capital costs of market entry are generally negligible.

Fine, but we're to the point, or almost there, where nearly every job that can be done by someone of IQ 85 or below will be automatable. Intelligent people will be in demand for a while.

But what about below average intelligence people? People who are sub-literate and can't jump from job to job, learning skills quickly? Diligent, hard working people who just can't outwork a robot?

What we do with homeless dogs? History says - convert them to eunuchs.

Job creation for the sake of jobs is wasteful. And these are crummy jobs being replaced by robots; just look at the suicide rates. Regardless, robots still need to be maintained, they increase energy consumption, and they lower costs. Workers will be needed. Just elsewhere.

The wealth goes to the people creating the robots and the people maintaining the robots.

Automation is a great thing. I'm still waiting for an economic model to be put into place where (decent) food, shelter, and health insurance are provided free of cost because of automation. The necessity of having a job is so ingrained into our culture, I want to see what it'd be like when it's entirely optional.

I'm still waiting for an economic model to be put into place where (decent) food, shelter, and health insurance are provided free of cost because of automation.

I think socialism might be the economic model you are looking for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Job creation for the sake of jobs is wasteful.

I used to think this (and still do) but it is important to make sure people have something that fills in their time otherwise you'll end up with all sorts of societal problems like drug abuse, vandalism etc. Some people get a bit weird if they have too much time on their hands.

Robots don't have bank accounts.

But those who manufacture, sell and buy them do. And they won't be very eager to share the returns of their investment with the rest of the society, at least a capitalist society like the ones we have today.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com