Ethical Question of the Future: Employment verses Automation

[Gil Hamilton]

Last time I posed one about genetic engineering. This time, it's robotics/artifical intelligence.

We all know about how factories and such places are becoming more and more automated. For instance, the Bulk Mail Center up in Warrendale PA, has in the last 25 years filled with automated equipment that only needs people to fix it when it jams and breaks down, other than that, it doesn't need people to do it's job. The trend appears to be that machines are becoming more and more automatic and "smarter" at their work, needing less and less human oversight and maintaince. There are machines that can diagnose problems and even limitedly fix themselves now. Presumably, with as technology in artifical intelligence and other tech fields progress, down the road, there will be machines that not only can do their job, but can diagnose and fix themselves completely, or there could be "doctor" machines that could respond to broken down machines and fix them without a human operator. Even more, you could have flexible logic "brains" for your machines, so they can respond to new problems with in limits and learn from them. Theoretically, you could have a huge factory with only a handful of people working in it, when in the past the same factory could have hundreds or thousands of workers.

Now let's say that it's 2100. In the future, robotics and artifical intelligence has progressed pretty far. Now society has developed the technology to have factories that for assembling cars, for instance, that are completely automatic, to the point where raw materials are dumped in one end and it executes a programmed function that spits out processed materials for the car (like the frame and engine, et cetera) on the other, directly into a factory that assembles the car itself. It's machines are largely self-repairing, though a few human workers are employed in the factory to fix what the machines can't wrap their "brains" around, and the whole thing is connected to a powerplant, which is similarly automated.

Likewise, most industry has developed along these lines. Farming, construction, material production... everything can be completely automated within reason. Hell, they even could have automated checkout counters and stockclerks, with robots to put items on the shelves for people to buy, and resturants. Most human employees are part of the administration and business end of it, developing ideas and telling the machines what to build and sell the product, but not involved in the product. The technology for all of this exists and it's really efficent, much more so than if the jobs were done by human laborers.

The question is, not whether the technology would work, let's assume for the sake of argument that it does. The hard question is, what happens to all the human workers that would be displaced by total automation of industry? Should people purposely pass laws that prevent industry from becoming completely automated, despite being vastly more efficent, so that millions of jobs are saved for human workers?

This is a hard question, since on one hand, the theoretical automated industry is vastly more efficent, but on the other, it seems wrong to eliminate millions of jobs that people need.

[Montcalm]

One more step toward the extinction of the human race.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

I was thinking that people could have a robot/automated part of the factory doing their work "represent" them. They are still officialy employed at the place and being payed, but their work is done by the robot. That way, the workers get paid while they sit on their butts because a robot is doing their work, and more jobs may actually be created by mechanics need to to fix the machines. Either that or millions are thrust into poverty while the owners get filthy rich.

[Joe]

They've been saying this shit for over 150 years now and I'm still waiting for the massive amounts of workers made destitute on account of automation to pop up. I see no reason to take seriously these arguments now.

[Newtonian Fury]

Now let's say that it's 2100.
...
The hard question is, what happens to all the human workers that would be displaced by total automation of industry? Should people purposely pass laws that prevent industry from becoming completely automated, despite being vastly more efficent, so that millions of jobs are saved for human workers?

So, 97 years to the future?

That's a lot of time in between. During this time, people will start to realize that getting a good education is even more essential than before. Anyone with less than a college education won't have much of a chance to make it in the world. Educational standards will go up, and people will work even harder at getting to college. There will be slackers, but even these slackers will be much better students than the slackers of today. As a result of having such sophisticated technology existing so commonly, people will be forced to use their minds. Unskilled work will be generally nonexistant.

The people who don't change are the only ones to be screwed by technology. If those people aren't willing to study hard and learn new techniques, they don't deserve to be coddled by society. Automated technology will only help the people as a whole. There's no good reason for societies to get screwed over just for a group of people not willing to work hard in school when they were younger.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

They've been saying this shit for over 150 years now and I'm still waiting for the massive amounts of workers made destitute on account of automation to pop up. I see no reason to take seriously these arguments now.

Yes, that's true. Just about every generation since the start of the Industrial Revolution has had Luddites claiming that technology would be the ruin of the working man. Except that they've been proven wrong every damned generation. In the future, yes, technology will get more efficient at tasks such as mass-production, and robots will do more of the jobs people aren't quite willing to take. But there will always be the equivalent of working at McDonalds in the future. There will always be some low-desireability job that it will be cheaper to hire people for than automating the whole process.

[TrailerParkJawa]

Your making the assumption that as technology replaces workers, the economy does not create new, although different, job in its place. This has been happening.

The big threat I see down the road is will there be enough jobs for the middle class? Automation is not my worry.

[Joe]

The big threat I see down the road is will there be enough jobs for the middle class? Automation is not my worry.

I think so. I mean, 40 years ago, would anyone have predicted computer tech to be as vibrant of a job market as it is today (well, maybe not NOW)? The U.S. economy has been all over the place; agriculture, manufacturing, tech, and service.

[TrailerParkJawa]

The big threat I see down the road is will there be enough jobs for the middle class? Automation is not my worry.

I think so. I mean, 40 years ago, would anyone have predicted computer tech to be as vibrant of a job market as it is today (well, maybe not NOW)? The U.S. economy has been all over the place; agriculture, manufacturing, tech, and service.

The big question is whats next? Im scared a lot of the computer and engineering work will end up in India and China in the next 40 years. Problem is the world 40 years from now, will probably be as different to us and the world 40 years ago is.

[Joe]

I honestly don't know what's next. I doubt anyone in the late 18th century could have predicted how huge manufacturing would become in America, except maybe Hamilton, just the same as how no one in the mid 20th century could have envisioned how huge tech would be today. It reminds me of that whole "creative destruction" concept they tell you about in business school.

[kojikun]

youd think nitram wouldve shown up by now

[JodoForce]

Unemployment rates are already going up globally though aren't they? I mean 10, 20 years ago Japan and HK were practically 0% unemployment... now there's no such places in the world anymore

[Alex Moon]

The big threat I see down the road is will there be enough jobs for the middle class? Automation is not my worry.

I think so. I mean, 40 years ago, would anyone have predicted computer tech to be as vibrant of a job market as it is today (well, maybe not NOW)? The U.S. economy has been all over the place; agriculture, manufacturing, tech, and service.

The big question is whats next? Im scared a lot of the computer and engineering work will end up in India and China in the next 40 years. Problem is the world 40 years from now, will probably be as different to us and the world 40 years ago is.

One theory that I've heard is that in the near future the jobs that will be paying well are the jobs that require hands on work, such as electricians, plumbers, doctors, that kind of stuff. A lot of the information type jobs such as programming are being sent to places like India, where the labor is cheaper.

[Alex Moon]

One thing to remember is that even with the advances in automation, that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone will need those advances. The local grociery store in town has started using automated check outs, for example, but every other store in town uses good old fashioned cashiers. You can automate a McDonalds all you want, but you're still probably going to be seeing waiters at any reasonably upscale restaurant, not to mention cooks and whatnot.

[UltraViolence83]

The question is, not whether the technology would work, let's assume for the sake of argument that it does. The hard question is, what happens to all the human workers that would be displaced by total automation of industry? Should people purposely pass laws that prevent industry from becoming completely automated, despite being vastly more efficent, so that millions of jobs are saved for human workers?

This is a hard question, since on one hand, the theoretical automated industry is vastly more efficent, but on the other, it seems wrong to eliminate millions of jobs that people need.

You're damn right there'll be laws passed. If there is no way people can work, or at least if there are some jobs as you say there are (but then the machines'll be upgraded to cover those areas, too) then people can't adapt because there will be simply no more need for them. Theoretically (read: THEORECTICALLY) any occupation can be done by a machine, so eventually there wouldn't even be any administrators to run the factories. No labor union (or self-respecting capitalist) would sit down and take it. Any politician wishing to not commit career suicide will champion the anti-automation bills.

I would also like to point out that the very labor laws that give us higher qualities of work themselves aren't very efficent by their inherent nature. I'm sure many of our grand-fathers here worked brutal 14-hour shifts for minimum wage at best. They didn't like it and formed unions. Now, what's more efficent: decreasing the company's overhead costs by having only 2 or 3 shifts of workers in a day, paying them poorly, and not coughing up benefits and contracts, and thus they can sell their products cheaper to consumers; or doing what the labor unions say and cause prices to fly high? Sure the standard of living is much better thanks to those laws, but hey, if we weren't so lazy in the first place we could have just beared it and have been able to buy many more things because they're cheaper this way.

Now I don't want anyone telling me that I'm wrong because automation "benefits society." Even if it would, the simple truth is that people wouldn't give a fuck anyway, and would rather hold on to the possiblity of work rather than strive for a cultural model that rivals the UFP. People just want to get paid and raise a family, and that is what society is all about in the first place.

[UltraViolence83]

Now before anyone cries out "Luddite! Luddite!" let me say that I'm not against the idea of automation, but total automation.

[JodoForce]

In theory there will be a day when machines can do all the work for us. An interim situation--one that even now we may be entering--is where we still need people to work, but we don't need ALL the people to work. If we follow the current economic model, employers will need to employ fewer and fewer people; competition for jobs will become ever more fierce and people will settle for lower and lower pay and benefits, unions notwithstanding. As unemployed people flood the labor pool unions will become ineffective--there is always someone else willing to snap up the job no matter how poor the pay. Laws will not help either as the parliament is inevitably dominated by representatives of businessmen.

The only possible way out of this using the current economic model is to increase social security payments up to a point where working is optional. However, social security payments are uppoer-bound by the lowest-paid jobs, which will be VERY low-paid in the future, thus this will not come to pass.

Really, I see no hope.

The main problem is that those who do not find work would basically be living on charity and human nature being what it is I don't see that this charity would ever extend far.

The comments about creating a new job is a cop-out because when machines become smarter than us and cheaper to maintain, there would be NO work where humans would do better than machines.

I don't oppose automation because I don't see how any amount of opposition would prevent it from happening. At some level I'm still hoping that we'll find some way around the problems mentioned above but overall I really don't see it happening.

[Darth Wong]

You're damn right there'll be laws passed. If there is no way people can work, or at least if there are some jobs as you say there are (but then the machines'll be upgraded to cover those areas, too) then people can't adapt because there will be simply no more need for them. Theoretically (read: THEORECTICALLY) any occupation can be done by a machine, so eventually there wouldn't even be any administrators to run the factories.

That is only true if machines gain true human intelligence, which is a questionable assertion. If nothing else, they still won't know what people want.

No labor union (or self-respecting capitalist) would sit down and take it. Any politician wishing to not commit career suicide will champion the anti-automation bills.

The predictable stupidity, self-interest, and short-sightedness of labour unions and politicians is a piss-poor basis for an argument.

I would also like to point out that the very labor laws that give us higher qualities of work themselves aren't very efficent by their inherent nature. I'm sure many of our grand-fathers here worked brutal 14-hour shifts for minimum wage at best. They didn't like it and formed unions.

It is widespread belief that unions solved the labour problem. However, that is more correlation than cause; there were other social changes in the intervening time period, not to mention automation. Rail at automation if you like, but there is just as much reason to credit automation with reduction in inhumane working hours as there is to credit unions.

Now, what's more efficent: decreasing the company's overhead costs by having only 2 or 3 shifts of workers in a day, paying them poorly, and not coughing up benefits and contracts, and thus they can sell their products cheaper to consumers; or doing what the labor unions say and cause prices to fly high?

The former, because the latter causes the company to go out of business.

Sure the standard of living is much better thanks to those laws, but hey, if we weren't so lazy in the first place we could have just beared it and have been able to buy many more things because they're cheaper this way.

If you have a good education and useful skills, you don't need a union to protect your job. You have something to offer the company which they can't get anywhere else without paying some other, similarly minded individual who will also ask for reasonable compensation. With labour legislation in place (thanks to VOTERS, not unions), the only people who truly need unions are the people whose job skills are easy to replace, and who greedily demand unreasonable salaries and benefits.

Now I don't want anyone telling me that I'm wrong because automation "benefits society." Even if it would, the simple truth is that people wouldn't give a fuck anyway, and would rather hold on to the possiblity of work rather than strive for a cultural model that rivals the UFP. People just want to get paid and raise a family, and that is what society is all about in the first place.

People want to be comfortable, and without automation, we'd still be working insane hours just to make things. Moreover, we'd be primitive and some more technologically advanced society would have had us for breakfast. You are obviously incapable of thinking outside a very narrow box.

[UltraViolence83]

That is only true if machines gain true human intelligence, which is a questionable assertion. If nothing else, they still won't know what people want.

Yes, human level is the kind of automation I oppose. The thread stated that we assume it is possible/plausible.

The predictable stupidity, self-interest, and short-sightedness of labour unions and politicians is a piss-poor basis for an argument.

How so? The things that [aspire to] dominate society can't be overlooked because they are wrong or stupid. The fact is that they exist, and can and will influence the scene whether we like it or not. Look at the YECs. Anyone on this board who isn't a fundie doesn't like them at all, but we all know they affect education in America. Anyone denying them the dignity of being paid attention to are themselves in a state of denial if they think that YECism is too stupid to acknowledge, fear and attack. I'm not a fan of most labor unions due to their laziness and greed...But I mean they're going to influence any big changes in labor, and even counter them. I don't like avalanches, either, but I could tell you that they'll influence the surrounding countryside and anyone caught underneath them.

It is widespread belief that unions solved the labour problem. However, that is more correlation than cause; there were other social changes in the intervening time period, not to mention automation. Rail at automation if you like, but there is just as much reason to credit automation with reduction in inhumane working hours as there is to credit unions.

Very true. Again, I don't attack automation as a whole; only someone living in a cave for the past 100 years would think that automation hasn't improved the overall standard of living. My argument is against human-level AI automation.

The former, because the latter causes the company to go out of business.

Odd, I could have sworn that workers are treated much better than they were a hundred years ago, and many recieve benefits that cut into the company's profits. We're not Ferengi here. We have labor laws to protect us from the heartless company heads.

People want to be comfortable, and without automation, we'd still be working insane hours just to make things. Moreover, we'd be primitive and some more technologically advanced society would have had us for breakfast. You are obviously incapable of thinking outside a very narrow box.

I know I get a bit overzealous while arguing for something, which leads to people understandably misinterpreting me.

*sigh* I'll reiterate: My argument is based on the total sweeping changes that certain people advocate i.e., compelete automation. No builders, no repairmen, no engineers. All done by computers. In all likelihood I do not see this as happening. If it does, the views I expressed are what I feel would happen, not that I support them, nor oppose them. If the increasing automation works out like it has the past 150 years, by all means it won't meet much adversity to spell its doom and will improve our lives. Like I said in another thread, if it works out great like in Star Wars, go for it. I really don't care if it does or doesn't work out; just pointing out what I feel would happen with the conditions offered.



PS: Speaking of YECs, does anyone like my new avatar?

[UltraViolence83]

*snip*

Oh, if it ends up like that, we'll all be Federation style communists.

There is a way out:

LONG LIVE THE WORKER'S REVOLUTION!

*Grabs EMP gun and heads for the nearest computer brain*

[NapoleonGH]

well i would note about this example that historically increases in technology, and even in automation have created more jobs for humans than they have taken, and have probably been the strongest force for greater and increased education in the world today. Greater technology = more jobs for humans but it is more skilled/educated jobs and fewer unskilled jobs (well at least in the post industrial revolution period, the industrial revolution did the opposite). So i really dont see it is catostrophic if we further automate

[UltraViolence83]

If it creates more jobs for people, then GREAT! We just have to be wary of the new kinds of automation, though...And make sure the Commies don't take over.


Fucking Pinkos.

[SyntaxVorlon]

It may be creating more jobs for people but remember large communities are already being sucked into poverty by a constricting blue collar job market. Entire towns in the midwest will shut down as automated factories take over for workers. What workers have the skills necessary or have money enough to get the skills to become maintainance workers will be employed but that workforce will be far smaller than the original factory workforce. It may end up mirroring what happened during the depression, because of fiscal shortness and a need to compete, farm companies started to use tractor machinery to up production but also displaced hundreds of thousands. Read the Grapes of Wrath.
Durran, how many stories of large numbers of midwest factory workers and farmers moving into the tech economy and reaping the rewards? Most of the Dot Com boom was restricted to metropolitan areas and southern California. The rest of the brick and mortar economy was slipping away as Amazon.com raved about how they expected to eventually turn a profit so everybody should start buying stock.

[AdmiralKanos]

It may be creating more jobs for people but remember large communities are already being sucked into poverty by a constricting blue collar job market.

Maybe they should have stayed in school. People have had 40 years to notice the growing trend toward automation.

Entire towns in the midwest will shut down as automated factories take over for workers. What workers have the skills necessary or have money enough to get the skills to become maintainance workers will be employed but that workforce will be far smaller than the original factory workforce.

They could have always gone and gotten skills retraining. They could have continued to educate themselves as they worked, rather than treating their job as a static concept. Instead, they seem bent on holding back human progress in order to compensate for their shortsightedness.

It may end up mirroring what happened during the depression, because of fiscal shortness and a need to compete, farm companies started to use tractor machinery to up production but also displaced hundreds of thousands. Read the Grapes of Wrath.

Unfortunate but necessary. It's not as if we should have continued to till fields the old-fashioned way when a superior method was available. The social safety nets that were created and that right-wingers are now intent on destroying were supposed to prevent a recurrence of the Great Depression.

Durran, how many stories of large numbers of midwest factory workers and farmers moving into the tech economy and reaping the rewards? Most of the Dot Com boom was restricted to metropolitan areas and southern California. The rest of the brick and mortar economy was slipping away as Amazon.com raved about how they expected to eventually turn a profit so everybody should start buying stock.

The dot-com boom was overrated, but the general trend of automation and movement toward a skilled workforce continues and should continue. An economy based on unskilled labour is begging for displacement to third-world nations. Why the hell would anyone pay some midwest person $30,000 per year to make tennis shoes when he can get some third-world person to do it for a dollar a day?

[kojikun]

Maybe they should have stayed in school. People have had 40 years to notice the growing trend toward automation.

I think you mean the last 200 years. Industrialisation has automated a great many repetetive processes since the early 19th century. That is, afterall, when Luddites first came about.