We’re heading into a jobless future, no matter what the government does
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
What we're witnessing is the dawning of a new era in which relying upon a job to earn a livelihood becomes extinct.
That's very different.
Instead of submitting to an employer to be productive members of society, we'll need to actually produce.
We'll all need to be entrepreneurs: creative problem-solvers who go out and get our own. Not necessarily venture-backed billionaire-destined heroes, but tradesmen solving small to midsize problems in our communities. Remember human life before the 401(k)? Enterprising souls who earned livings without mega-corporations?
All this technology we're developing now will be instrumental for that era. With Meteor, a tattoo-artist can (and has) create an enterprise-ready app. That's the epitome of productivity in a technology-driven society, and I think we'll see more of that as we move into this 'jobless' environment. AKA 'innovate or die'.
Problems to solve aren't going anywhere (technology always causes people to think there's "nothing left to do." there always is). The need to earn our keep isn't either (we'll always need food, shelter, and love).
This jobless future is exaggerated...but the effects aren't. We'll just need to be more enterprising and more creative in how we handle those effects.
Historically, you could always own the corner store, and always get business from at least your block. However the trends driving the "jobless future" will see local businesses absorbed into larger entities. The corner store will be replaced with instant delivery.
So you have to find a niche that is global, and when you find it, you'll instantly be bombarded by global competitors, and you'll have to grow or die.
In the "jobless future," individualism looks like etsy--super-niche artisan work for the status of owning something unique. Handmade luxury items can't replace an entire economy.
Notably, I don't think the corner store (in terms of local services) is going very far. Sure, retail has an enormous battle to fight. But that's just one front.
People will always depend on each another for one thing or another. Beyond retail, whether it's local products like food or local services like domestic contracting or professional services, I think the community will play an even more significant role than it does now in spite of a burgeoning global scene.
I've been deeply influenced by Charles Hugh Smith's writings on community. It's a term we tend to devalue, but it's one Smith thinks is a fundamental building block for the future. He's a bit extreme, as he tends to expect a large macro-disturbance, but his ideas are sound. Here's one piece:
http://www.oftwominds.com/blogsept13/community-economy9-13.h...
A lot of services can be automated, and actual retail -- well, once you have sufficiently economical self-driving vehicles and product picking robots, local automated delivery hubs from which products are dispersed to purchasers are a lot more likely than local retail shops -- they'll be "stores" in the sense of places that store things, but customers won't ever have to set foot in one; potentially, no one will go there except to service the robots.
...which is why evolution will have to regain control.
Governments are antinatural in their obsession with increasing the number of citizens - not healthy, prodctive, citizens, but SSNs.
Initially, living was for the fittest, not for everyone.
As someone extremely average, I will be among the first to go extinct. And I see no problem with this, as my disappearance will free up space and resources for those who are better.
While the disruptions in distribution mechanisms and increasing ease of deploying web-apps has provided the appearance of it being easy to launch your own business and make money, I'd argue that it might very well be a transitory period until bigger players with deeper pockets lock down profitable sectors.
I just can't see a long term steady-state where the market is spread so thinly that everyone can simultaneously be a business-owner serving some small collection of a few hundred customers, instead of aggregating into single, monolithic companies that serve thousands or millions.
As a business-owner, that's where you want to be, but there will be plenty of 'jobs' serving others that will scale linearly (whether that's in relation to people, time, etc) to keep people busy.
Examples: inspecting Uber cars, community development, specialized consulting.
Automated inspections aren't a particular radical application of automation, once automated its subject to the same factors that favor the biggest player in terms of relevant capital as other industries.
> community development
But where's the market?
> specialized consulting.
Lots of things that used to provide demand for specialized consulting have narrowed markets from advances in information technology (both delivery and processing); I'd expect that to continue as technology advances. There's probably some level at which this becomes are hard AI problem, though, sure.
OTOH, the market for specialized consulting is driven by the number of firms in other markets, so as other markets go winner-take-all the size of the market for "specialized consultants" narrows within the same overall economy. So, the market here looks largely winner-take-all as a second-order effect of the markets supported by consultants going that way.
That's interesting, because that's how the market was for thousands of years.
I guess this is well before my time, but was the effect of having a 401k really that profound? Your post suggests 401k's was (or at least one of) the cause of large corporations.
It does, however, create a mentality of dependence on relying on companies for employment and livelihood.
In this new environment, that's a toxic mentality to have...continued employment is not as good of a bet as it once was.
But yeah, in general, I think having a 401(k) was a profound idea. At no other time in history could you rely on the markets to subsidize the latter third of your life.
And at the rate markets are going now, I don't think we'll see that time again for a while (i.e., rapid booms + busts).
The 401k and similar defined-contribution arrangements largely -- and by design -- replaced the defined-benefit benefit pensions. So I don't think that historically this argument makes much sense, even if we accept the premise that having some connection between an employer and a retirement savings fosters a "mentality of dependence for employment and livelihood".
(Argue, I'd say that capitalism and the wage labor structure themselves do that, by design, and that any effect of the particular details of the common retirement programs are minor compared to the basic structure of the employee-employee relationship itself.)
> But yeah, in general, I think having a 401(k) was a profound idea.
The idea of the 401(k) was to provide a taxpayer subsidy to the financial services industry while allowing employers to appear to be providing for employees retirements, without actually incurring any obligations to retirees.
> But yeah, in general, I think having a 401(k) was a profound idea. At no other time in history could you rely on the markets to subsidize the latter third of your life.
You can't rely on that with the 401k system (as many people have discovered the hard way as a result of the market collapses since the 401k became the major retirement vehicle), either. I mean, you can, but not, generally, justifiably. Its just a capital investment, not a "subsidy" from the "markets" any more than any other capital holding is.
As a non-American, it does seem a bit odd that you can't have a 401(k) or some equivalent outside of your job - or can you? In Canada you can have an RRSP through your employer, where your contribution is made automatically through your paycheck, pre-tax. Or you can make contributions yourself to a private RRSP, and then claim the contribution on your taxes and get a refund.
That's call an IRA:
>At no other time in history could you rely on the markets to subsidize the latter third of your life.
So now saving for retirement is an act of benevolence on the part of the companies who receive the investment? Since that doesn't make sense, are you maybe referring to the small tax deferral provided by section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code?
Here's a link to describe what 401(k) is all about, for those who are curious.
http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/revisiting-keynes
Perhaps there is something more basic in our natural dispositions than either of these great economic thinkers is appreciating. We don't really want an excess of leisure to the extent that mass boredom results.
I'm reminded of two quotes by Pascal:
"The source of all man's unhappiness is his inability to sit alone in a room with his own thoughts."
"If a soldier or labourer complains of the hardship of his lot, set him to do nothing."
there's no shortage of food in europe.
"Drones will take the jobs of postmen and delivery people."
I can't take seriously an article that makes absolute statements like this.
Not only are drones not able to operate during certain inclement weather (and in certain geographic environments) but you can't deliver a refrigerator (as only 1 example) with a drone.
There was a time when people thought that everyone would be flying around in their own personal airplane so the devil is in the details of course being able to predict human behavior as well as technology is very important as well.
Also, some people just simply don't understand how a 'jobless'/basic-income future would look...and what they don't understand scares them.
Doesn't that violate the laws of thermodynamics?
Basic income is more about charging rents on the commons, and in the "jobless future" those rents are mainly in the form of taxes on capital ownership than on "the few who work". (Pretty much reversing the present status quo, where taxes fall heavier on those who work than those who hold capital.)
- As more work becomes automated, it is more likely the owners of productive capital who would bear the brunt of the tax burden, not the minority of full-time laborers.
- Many valid forms of productive work do not necessarily pay a salary (raising children being the most obvious example, but also community service, open source projects, or rolling the dice on a startup). These still create value for society in ways that our current economy measures poorly.
- In a basic income environment, there is no reason for a minimum wage to exist. This would open the doors to many jobs that would otherwise be cost-prohibitive, whether people do it for the extra income, or for the other intangibles of employment.
If it ever happens, I can see people eventually fighting for more, because it can't support a family of 4.
On top of this, it just creates a culture of dependence, which politicians love..because why would you vote against your own free handouts?
1. Many people have an innate desire to do something productive. I might get paid to sit at home and do nothing, but in all that spare time I have been tinkering with electronics and now I've just invented a new robotic vacuum cleaner. Now I have a business and I'm making big money.
2. How much money and time and resources do we spend forcing people to work when they don't want to? There are people whose entire job revolves around forcing people to work, ensuring they're doing adequate work, and distributing government money to them anyway because their income from their forced job doesn't cover the bills. Why bother?
3. There are many things that would motivate a person to find a job, or find a better job. Not being able to support their family is one of them. Give them enough money to get by and if they want more they have to work. There's your motivation.
4. We already have a culture of dependence. What's wrong with that? Everyone depends on everyone else in a well-functioning society.
Why do freeloaders bother people so much? You can get paid to not work right now. I've done it, I've been on unemployment and food stamps when I legitimately needed the help. That's why I have no problem supporting the next person who needs help too. It's not a culture of dependence, it's a culture of support. And for the few who just don't want to work... who cares?
Because -- as research has shown is generally true of humans -- your satisfaction function is driven significantly by relative affluence, not solely by absolute affluence.
> Minimum wage exists now and is raised every couple of years. You don't think the same thing will happen with basic income?
I'd expect it to generally rise with productivity, and consider that to be a generally desirable result.
> If it ever happens, I can see people eventually fighting for more, because it can't support a family of 4.
And why shouldn't they argue for more? At the same time, people would argue against it because of the taxes it would take, and the people whose narrow short-term economic self interest was driving the latter advocacy would have a lot more resources to use to promote their argument.
> why would you vote against your own free handouts?
For one thing, because someone convincingly makes the case that short-term increases will be unsustainable over an extended period and result in collapse.
Try not working. Boredom is unbearable. Most people would do some kind of work even if they have enough money to spend the rest of their lives doing nothing.
I'm not one such person, even though I'm much more of a consumer than a producer (I read 4-5 books a month, watch probably 15-20 hours of TV a month and 2-3 movies a month), but I know people that watch 4-5 hours a night! It doesn't even have to be good content. Instead of going "I've seen this movie/show, or it's not very good," turning it off and doing something productive, they watch the lest boring thing on, even if it's a movie they've seen 3 times, and it's halfway over. It boggles my mind.
Basic income proposals offer a very minimal income. Most people will want more. Do they want to visit far away places, or drive a nicer than minimal car, or live in a larger home. There are many motivations to continue to work even if one has access to a basic income.
And can only really (barring better production technology) only support that. If it targetted much more than minimal income now it would drive runaway inflation until the level at which the BI was set would represent only minimal income. The sustainable level of BI, in terms of the actual standard of living supported, is a function of productivity.
Others have mentioned that the economy will just create new, even more mindless, tasks for us to be paid for. I don't believe that because there is no incentive for companies to employ people for jobs machines can do cheaper.
For example, there might be an increase in housemaids. It's a fairly simple job, although some tasks might be too hard for a machine to do (eg. "Please feed the dog and make sure that it eats its pill").
Also, assuming that those with jobs would have a smaller work week, then there might be a rise in tourism and entertainment industries (people have got to do something in their free time). I'm not really sure what new jobs might appear in this area though.
Of course, this is assuming that we don't end in a dystopian future with 80% of the population unemployed, homeless and begging on the streets. I'm expecting that suply and demand will force these new jobs to appear and everything will work out in the end.
Education is basically already free, and free education is on the way to being as good as paid education. Information reproduction costs are near zero.
You are stuck in the pre-free-labor mindset.
Your point remains though -- basic income will raise its head more often whenever the specter of automation is invoked.