Sign up to Gransnet Daily
Our free daily newsletter full of hot threads, competitions and discounts
Subscribe
A recent article by Bernard Marr in Forbes:
The 4th Industrial Revolution And A Jobless Future - A Good Thing?
It’s estimated that between 35 and 50 percent of jobs that exist today are at risk of being lost to automation.
Repetitive, blue collar type jobs might be first, but even professionals — including paralegals, diagnosticians, and customer service representatives — will be at risk.
This isn’t just science fiction, it’s happening now. Manufacturing are the first places we see robots and automation eliminating human jobs, but it’s hard to think of an industry that will be left unaffected as robots and AI become more affordable and widespread.
Rather than fight this advancement and wring our hands over the robots “stealing” our jobs, maybe it’s time to envision a jobless future.
Most people are in jobs they don’t particularly enjoy, with lots of mundane and repetitive tasks. Is it not our obligation to pass those jobs to machines?
From a business standpoint, any consultant would tell you that any task that can be systematized and automated should be. Many jobs are not jobs humans should waste their time doing.
The challenge is to rethink our economic model to ensure the people who will do something more interesting and enjoyable can afford to do so.
What would a jobless future look like?
All these technological advances that we are creating today — big data, artificial intelligence, robotics, the Internet of Things — represent a significant challenge to capitalism.
The more we automate and systematize, the more we see jobless growth and productivity. Taken to its logical extremes, we have a paradox of an exponentially growing number of products, manufactured more and more efficiently, but with rising unemployment and underemployment, falling real wages and stagnant living standards.
The 4th Industrial Revolution has started.
In other words, more products produced more cheaply and efficiently — but no one able to afford to buy them.
In fact, it’s already begun.
The rate of technological progress and worker productivity is on the rise, but wages are stagnating, factories are eliminating jobs, and researchers estimate that anywhere between 35 and 50 percent of jobs that exist now are in danger of being lost to automation.
But what if the prognosis weren’t all doom and gloom? What if all this automation were instead to provide so much luxury that we enter a post-work era, when humans are required to do very little labor and machines provide everything we need?
Fully Automated Luxury Communism describes an idea and ideology that in the (relatively near) future, machines could provide for all our basic needs. Humans would be required to do very little work on quality control and similar oversight, and have much of their time free to pursue other things. The result would be attainable luxury for everyone.
Robots, AI, machine learning, big data, etc. could make human labor redundant instead of creating even further inequalities. It could lead to a society where everyone lives in luxury and where machines produce everything while humans are free to pursue the creative explorations that robots and machines are incapable of: science, art, music, poetry, invention, and exploration.
How a jobless society must work
The trick, however, is subordinating the technology to global human needs rather than to profits.
Putting modern technology to work for the people is an excellent goal, and democratizing the advantages of our advances is already happening in some sectors. Bringing governments and nonprofit organizations onto the same technological footing as for-profit companies is a good step forward and could result in huge strides towards improving living conditions, decreasing crime, ending poverty and other problems.
I believe that if we can collectively turn our technology to the good of everyone, technology would not just be pruning away the jobs that are too mundane for humans to do, but also create new opportunities to replace the ones that were lost. Crucially: the jobs will be pruned regardless, but it is up to us to create the opportunities.
It’s the idea that the next Mozart, or Einstein, or Edison may be waiting — but because of inequalities like poor schooling, hunger, inadequate housing, etc., they may never reach their full potential.
If technology can provide an equal playing field for those children of the future, providing for all their needs, and that is done through the loss of the low-wage, monotonous, unfulfilling jobs we are clinging to today, then I say, destroy those jobs. Make way for the new generation and give them the tools they need to create incredible things.
Any comments?
That's a bit breathtaking, Ankers. those with disabilities might like those jobs
What particular 'disabilities' do you have in mind here?
Because I can tell you, as one who has worked on a production line, that about the only person who could contemplate the prospect of doing that day in day out for 40 years would be one with no brain cells. Are you saying that 'disabled' equals 'brain dead'?
Or are you just reverting to 'wind up merchant' mode, Ankers?
Those like Rosa Monkton's daughter.
Those like I see in my home town day in day out. They are able bodied, and are somewhat employed by Tesco and the fruit and veg shop to do a few hours[prob less than or up to the 16].
It doesnt have to be a full day you see.
Even those with ME. MS? The list is endless.
durhamjen, if I remember correctly, you really like robots
I must have missed that. DJ can you point me towards where you expressed that?
As I understand it Rosa Moncton said she thought her daughter who has Down Syndrome, should be allowed to work for less than the minimum wage as employers would always choose an "able bodied" applicant over one with learning disabilities.
I can understand her point of view insofar as I take it she means a sort of government subsidy (a bit like a work experience placement to encourage the employers. ) We have a similar situation where the 40 year-old daughter of our cousin who has Down syndrome is certainly capable of working, she is a talented artist but has had problems finding employment in a more sheltered and caring environment.
However, to go from that to a sweeping statement that the mindless repetitive tasks performed by machines woukd be suitable employment "for the disabled" beggars belief. It insults those with learning disabilities, patronises them and frankly IMHO does not belong on GRANSNET -a "caring" community (?)
Would life be better if robots did all the work?. This was on Radio 4 this morning. Interesting both from robotics, AI and UBI.
On another thread there was talk about cognitive dissonance This is an old YouTube clip but it says everything I feel about how and why people think 'work' is a good thing. I think reveiewing societies attitude to work will be necessary if we are to cope with robots and AI.
Disability discrimination. The Equality Act 2010 makes it unlawful to discriminate against employees (including workers) because of a mental or physical disability.
Fortunately employment protection for those with learning disabilities means that they cannot be shunted into repetitive unskilled work such as maizied described.
There will be a place for AI and for robots in our workplace, but this should not form part of the criteria.
durhamjen, if I remember correctly, you really like robots
I'm glad it wasn't just me that spotted that very odd comment MawBroon. What a strange thing to say. I can imagine someone seeing the worth of robots (or not) and the progress that they can bring (or not) but 'liking' robots ... I can't believe anyone said that to be honest.
^ It insults those with learning disabilities, ^
No it doesnt.
And it is attitudes like yours and others which stop them being able to work.
Which is not fair, not caring, not empathetic etc etc.
If they want to work, why shouldnt they? Why should they be discriminated against?
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4273056/Let-s-daughter-work-minimum-wage.html?ITO=1490
Why do you believe the must work Ankers?
they not the
www.gransnet.com/forums/science_nature_environment/a1216866-3D-bridge-made-by-robot
ah, her son used to work on robot arms.
That explains all.
Why do I believe those with learning disabilities must work?
I dont, but many want to. And why shouldnt they?
There is another thread where dj likes robots too. Though I cant be bothered to find it.
If anybody has read my post about our cousin's daughter, who has Down Syndrome you would see that far from trying to stop her having a job, our concern has been for her to find a *safe, caring environment" in which to work. She has found one, works in a studio hand painting beautiful silk scarves.
She is a highly intelligent and artistic young woman and certainly capable of more than "repetitive mindless tasks", but she needs to be with people/colleagues who are patient and sensitive to her needs.
So I think the comment it is attitudes like yours which stop them being able to work as well as being untrue and unjustified , is, in our personal circumstances, extremely offensive.
Perhaps I should have put "it is attitudes like yours which stop some being able to work".
Actually, my original statement does still hold true in my opinion, but the above is better.
Ankers how interesting that you - new I believe - remember Soontobe's post. On the page you link the only person who talks about 'liking' robots is you Soontobe.
I dont, but many want to. And why shouldnt they?
What is it that you feel only work can provide for people?
Maw how lovely that your cousin's daughter hasn't been limited by old fashioned ideas of a) what people with disabilities can do and b)what work is. I know I would feel a great deal of worth bringing beauty into the world.
Aren't we getting a bit diverted from the topic under discussion? Which is about the need to work being significantly diminished (or non existent) because of technological advances.
The big question for me is, if we're not 'earning' money by working how does the population get supplied with the life supporting resources we are accustomed to? Food, clothes, phones, furniture, hobbies etc. etc. This is a Brave New World, surely? (and no, I'm not referring to the novel of that name)
(P.S. I suggest not feeding trolls)
What is it that you feel only work can provide for people?
Structure. A purpose. Enjoyment. Social aspects. The list is endless.
A sense of belonging. Fresh air.
Why shouldnt they be allowed to work GracesGran? If they want too?
To deny them the chance to work if they want to, is cruel in my opinion.
Aren't we getting a bit diverted from the topic under discussion? Which is about the need to work being significantly diminished (or non existent) because of technological advances.
That is what is being discussed. But it is always the lower down in society who suffer first with so called advances.
Cant you see that?
If you read the link about Rosa Monkton's daughter, they want to work, at least some of them.
Let them!
Stop putting so many restrictions on the situation that they cannot.
Cruel and heartless.
I am not suggesting anyone should not be allowed to work Ankers but getting back to the topic, I did say earlier that I thought we needed to review what work means.
I am retired and I have all the things you are stating can only be proved by 'work'. I do not believe there is only on definition of this.
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »Get our top conversations, latest advice, fantastic competitions, and more, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter here.
