Many people when they talk about automation, as this ted speaker, they just DON'T GET IT. It's not about "automation is taking away blue collar jobs". Automation will, eventually, take ALL the jobs. Having a better education won't help, because we'll build strong AI, and good luck trying to compete with an artificial general intelligence. Also, he talks about "doctors" as if there weren't any attempt to automate their work (for instance: the Watson IBM computer that can diagnose cancer as good as an oncologist). Also, what's happening know is really different from the kind of automation that happened in the 19th. I would recomende the video "Humans Need Not Apply", which is a video made by someone who get it what's happening right now. But, to put in a few words: the only solution, as I see, would be an universal basic income. Let the machines do all the work.
Shankar Sivarajan when you look at how fast technology is evolving it won't take 50 years it's more like 20 years at the latest. Every month we see breakthroughs in technology. Yes it may be true that AI will take longer but it's the blue collar jobs don't need strong AI. Just look at what Amazon is doing with there new Amazon Go store. That technology alone can wipe out every job in retail. now you will probably get people in that industry that will become more specialized like the Blue Shirts at Best Buy. Then you also need to look at for retail that big name stores like Macy's and Sears are closing down their brick-and-mortar stores because of online sales taking over. That is just one part of the economy. when you go through each and every job, there is a way to eliminate that job with the technology we have TODAY! that's the problem back in the 1900's it was just a few jobs that changed but we are talking about everyone's job.
***** Irish498 I agree with both of you guys, but that's not the OP's point. I'm guessing neither of you guys watched the video he refers to, or are familiar with the transhumanism/singularity movement/cult? _That_ is what people generally mean when they talk about strong AI.
I agree with you when you say machines will be taking all our jobs but there is also a lot of useless jobs that we don't need if we get out of the monetary system (which is the big problem in this world). We need a resource based economy! If you want to learn more about that check out The Venus Project and their documentary "The chance is ours 2016" this is a real drastic solution to our problems!
And this is why you don't ask economists about how technology will effect the future. A few counter points. 1. This time its not the same as during the industrial revolution, or when agriculture got automated. The jobs displaced almost all have to move to positions of high education and specialization. And the kicker is that even if all people displaced could fill in those roles(big if), it is not a 1:1 ratio of jobs lost and new ones created. 2. AI is different from a tractor plowing your field. They will cut job positions by around 80% for lawyers due to excess mundane tasks getting automated, as a rough example. Same is going to be true for doctors, engineers, lab assistants and even programmers. The list goes on and on. These are jobs most people imagine are protected due to the requirement of human ingenuity. But there are nuances to that ingenuity that are vulnerable, and can be done much more efficient. 3. Infinite growth is impossible, and we can not rely on "greed" to keep things running. The physical world will step in at some point and pull the breaks on our production unless we go through a technological revolution in terms of material science and energy production(and if we did that, then this whole discussion is moot anyway since human jobs will become almost completely meaningless). 4. All jobs do not need to disappear to cause massive economic collapse. By most estimates healthy economies can only manage an unemployment rate of about 30% before it all falls apart. No one seriously talks about all jobs going away. That's naive. And its equally naive that we can manage a society with more than a third of people having no purchasing power.
Serah Wint Right - it is some kind of peak AI then we are obsolite and slavery is left. Our midle class and workingclass society is gone, no moore education or work for young people.
+Myrslokstok Not necessarily, it could go incredibly well if we play our cards right. The reason I made the OP was me being annoyed at this mantra of economic theory stating things that are absurd. When the rules that the current economic theory are changed, the theory has to change or predictions will be way off.
+Yardbird Not specifically. But there are a lot of bright minds out there to learn from. And if an idea is sound, its no wonder if more than one have arrived at the same conclusion.
I don't agree. Amazon Go stores and automated transportation (self-driving cars) takes people completely out of the loop. We have never faced a period of automation on this scale before. Even doctors and lawyers will soon be replaceable.
Lawyers, pharmacists, doctors, service-workers (especially retail and truck/taxi drivers), programming, journalism, finance (traders). Not looking too good to be honest. Mass Existential depression and Brave New World here we come!
Actually, if you know the law, doctors, lawyers, and POLITICIANS will never get replaced :) Seriously, this assumes that AI will replace everything that the company needs when in fact that laws exists that even protect the existence of those jobs... And let us not forget who creates those laws
There is a possibility of doctors and lawyers being replaced. Who are you fooling? The future looks like many people won't have much ideas of what kind of career they want to get into because of technology replacing so many jobs especially jobs that make good money like doctors and lawyers.
I ask you then, who repairs that robot? Another robot? Well who repairs the repair robot - a repairing repair robot robot? xD Shiet... Terminator is real.
The automation that is referred to in this video is the automation of muscles. But the automation of the future is the automation of the mind. This is something new and something we are not prepared for. In the example of increasing bank tellers, we see that the physical task of counting cash has diminished while the mental task of customer interaction and marketing has increased. But even this mental task will be automated by thinking machines. He also says economy is affected by people, because people can think and take action. But once General AI is invented all bets are off the table. Even if AI are not directly involved, businesses will still employ general AI to take over all paper work and get suggestions from such machines to make decision and that will affect the economy.
@@timeto_rise AI is already controlling the economy. A weak AI, but still. The stock market isn't run by traders anymore. There are machine learning algorithms that were taught how to trade that make most of the decisions today. It has come to machines trading with machines.
Automation is only capable of, and only makes economic sense in, very repetitive labor; be it mental or physical. Computers still lack the ingenuity we posses as humans. Thus, while jobs that are incredibly repetitive will disappear, jobs that require constantly adapting to new scenarios will stay. Look at factory work today: 90% automated, but the last 10% remains despite great economic incentive given it requires the machine to adapt to a new scenario (such as taking stuff out of a box that might not be in the same orientation nor position every time). Labor that requires constant ingenuity is more common than one might first believe: think about how a hair stylist needs to adapt different hairstyles to differently shaped heads, or how a yard worker needs to adapt his workflow around the unique geometry of each of his client's yards.
@@jhvnhjifgvbv8126 and how about when quantum computer enabled, self-improving neural networks match or exceed human ingenuity? When Dall-E 5.0 can paint more beautifully than than any artist? When GPT-10 can write a million perfect, insightful, groundbreaking research papers in the blink of an eye while simultaneously conducting twice as many experiments with sample sizes in the millions? When GANs can design architecture safer, more efficient, more aesthetically pleasing and ergonomic than any human architect in a fraction of a second? What will humans do then?
So, let's cherry pick some facts. From 1970 to today the number of tellers has about doubled. Of course the population has almost doubled as well, and the number of people with bank accounts has probably more than doubled as the population's average age is much higher now, and a smaller fraction of the population are children. Also, if the economic value of bank tellers has increased like he claims, then why are they paid so much less today (in real dollars) than they were then? Maybe there are more tellers because they are much cheaper, not because they are more valuable. And what will all of those tellers do when a robot on a screen will be nicer and more knowledgeable and faster than they are at every task that they do?
It's striking how economists think of growth as a sustainable solution without thinking one step further and realising that infinite growth in a finite world is just simply impossible.
for me one hope is expansion (pun: The Expanse :-)) to space. This will create more (lousy) jobs and living space. In general i totally disagree with the OP, altough i apreciate his positive stance... all bread and butter jobs are coming under attack - retail, cabs, truck drivers etc will be WIPED OUT in a few years. also, high education jobs like doctors. yes, we will always need doctors, but do we need as many if an AI can make diagnosis in most cases better and cheaper? or as many surgeons if one specialist surgeon can do triple the surgeries with shake-free, superprecise robot arms from remote locations with less stress? Literally EVERY branche is under attack by this revolution, even the once creating it (coders, inventors, Silicon Valley etc.). we have a few years left of race, but by arround 2025-2030 we will need to think about new ways of distributing wealth and how to live. This is soon.
Bert Rich I doubt you'll see this but social scoring has been well underway credit score was a test of universal income, religion under attack and all morals are being repainted by a virtual world (here)
@@CknSalad unfortunately? That depends on how you look at it. Humans not having to have jobs isn't necessarily a bad thing, I mean, sure we would need a complete overhaul in our economic system, but that will be necessary anyways with the way things are going
He talks about how the number of branches grew and so the number of tellers grew - but, one needs to also compare that to the growth rate of the population. IF the population rate is growing faster than the growth rate of the population, than actually the percentage of tellers as part of the population actually decreased.
I'm am so glad this is the top comment. This guy is delusional, he obviously is a damn idiot. I am 14 and apparently smarter than a 50-year-old man. I would love to see the number of dislikes, but since youtube removed it people with a lack of understanding about the market might fall for this bullshit. (I don't claim to be very smart before anyone tells me that I have a massive ego, I'm just saying that this man is stupid) (edit: I googled this man and apparently he got a shared Nobel prize in economics. I am not going to do further research so take everything I said with a grain of salt.)
Hi @Kurt: Imagine without ATMs and online banking how many people we have to put for just repeated operational teller job!! Then another perspective: All those ATM machine need maintenance rite? Guess what who is doing it?
Reality is however: People are loosing jobs and will continue to. ATMs may be an exception. But driving, manufacturing, etc are brutally getting automated and people loosing jobs.
@M Yeah that's what I meant kinda. It's only a matter of time before we just kinda get used to it. When old people with clouded mentality die off and all that's left is the younger generation that are more used to it there will be no one to deny this.
All he is saying is that with AI the potential is there for new industries to develop. No one can predict the effect AI will have on society. I prefer his modesty over those who make bold claims.
Take an example of automation in driving automobile . So many full time drivers will lose their jobs !!!. And if we talk about automation in defence sector , one day all deployed soldiers will be reduced to 1/10 and other will go in vain??. We r working on AI with so much speed that one day 1 software developer will be needed for 10 computer rather than 10 on 10 computer (right now). We are developing technology to deliver items by drone (Amazon , eBay etcc) but at the end of the day so many delivering person will lose their jobs. And when all these unemployed people will came into market where will they get accommodated ?? Pls explain
"We are running out of work and making ourselves obsolete" - that is the biggest problem of the whole argument at hand. The fact that people still define themselves by that fear. We should gladly transition into a world post "work" - a more meaningful world, a world of greater equality and opportunity, a world were people are free to pursue their true goals in life. Yet here we are trembling in fear that by losing the system of labour and capitalism we would make ourselves obsolete. Stop defining your selfworth via work. Most universities agree that the automation we face right no cannot be compared to the past. Studies agree that in the next 20-30 years up to 50% of all jobs we know today are gone. Gone as in "gone for good" not shipped to another country ... gone. Stop clinging to this capitalist system were "jobs" define your worth and place in society. and stop humanizing it with talks like this one. Most blue collar jobs will be gone by 2040 and most of the other jobs will follow suit. Its time to accept that and prepare for and work on the post monetary, post jobs society. Accept that work is not what we should strive towards its something that as a concept should fundamentally change.
Unbelievable that's what I thought too when I read the comment. But now that I'm thinking about it, I kind of... agree? I mean, I'd love to travel more and see the world and learn tons of languages and talk to people from all the different cultures and taste their food and play with kids... But instead I have to work to earn enough money to travel every five years - always within Europe because everything else is too expensive for me, and because I don't have much time. Because I have to work. I'd actually be happy if machines took many of our boring jobs, leaving us with the option to do whatever we want with our free time.
PartisanGamer, you read my thoughts. I'm glad I live in Finland, where our politics is ready for the mass unemployment and production efficiency boost. Wouldn't want to live in the U.S., where there will be either revolution or massive chaos, when wealth inequality raises with unemployment.
Cool story Mr Gamer, but until this utopian society is actually constructed, being without work is going to mean poverty and an utter lack of agency. The ones who lose their jobs first are going to suffer until the rest of society follows suit. It's completely justified to be afraid.
I'd say if even only 20-30% of jobs are automated, that's still more than enough for drastic changes to be made in how we see currency and employment. We can't have a third of people starving and homeless.
Borne Stellar I agree but, I also know that it may simply be my reality that I feel this way. That, much the same as we’ve seen children in cages, what wasn’t before can be normalized, as we go about our daily lives. That, through normalization, the public can be groomed to accept that it’s ONLY 30% of people who are starving and homeless. Perhaps they did something wrong, that I didn’t, to end up there. Society is also fickle. I remember back in the 80s where it seemed that, one year, we were worried sick about the homeless, feeling we should do everything we can to help them and the next year, we seemed to want to kick them, since they were down. I was maybe in my 20s then, but it was an ugly lesson in how society works, that I’ve never forgotten. A lesson in not just cruelty, but how many people don’t have a center and can be swayed by public opinion.
This guy's whole argument falls apart when you introduce AI. It also falls apart when the onset of the automation in question is too fast for the job market to keep up with. If you replace every truck driver's job overnight with a self-driving truck, those truck drivers (or whoever elses' jobs they end up taking) are going to be unemployed for a long time. The economy needs time to adapt, and the modern automation revolution is too fast to just hand-wave off and say "we'll figure it out". The good point in his argument was when he discussed how to utilize the increases in wealth from automation. We are reaching the point where the proper utilization of that wealth is to invest in keeping people sheltered, healthy, and happy, even if they can't find a job. That makes unemployment itself a non-issue and eliminates the problems of automation.
@@actionms8566 I disagree. Jobs do give people purpose, but purpose can be achieved without going to a formal job. Hobbies can replace formal jobs in that regard: Painting, manual labor, gardening, partying, etc.
@@henriramadani983 Japan is more advanced than we are technologically and they are seeing an increase in the amount of people not having children, to the point where the government is starting to worry. Your view is also contrary to statistical data, in more advanced societies, where life expectancy, quality of life and access to affordable housing all increased, children per household went down. Additionally, consider the idea that everyone recieved a UBI, you would plan your lifestyle (the amount of children you had) around that level of income.
@@actionms8566 I disagree with that because not the key to life isn't about monetary profits, it's about doing what you love... And what we love isn't always work, but hobbies or make art.
But in most cases the work you do for them is less work than waiting for a salesperson to do the work for you. Abundant self-checkout is much better than cashiers with long lines. ATMs in every street corner is better and faster for getting cash than a couple of banks in the city.
Yes, more efficient, but at what cost? Should we sacrifice majority of jobs for absolute efficiency? Should we get rid of all cashiers because it's more convenient or efficient to do so? At what point do we realize that its more beneficial for society to have people continue to do that job? A person who works has purchasing power which keeps the entire system running. These are the questions we should be asking ourselves. At what point does efficiency actually do more harm than good? Why are humans so obsessed with perfection? There has to be a balance. The government needs to place some restrictions on full automation of industries, or tax AI/robot workers proportionately to human workers.
RedT if I don't have to hire enyone in the first place why should I ?. it is now possible to start a business without having to hire enyone at least not permanentley in capitalism the name of the game is return on investment and every employee hired would lower the returns.
Sorry I have very educated friends that were the best in university struggling to get a proper job. Blue collar are doing bad. Mercedes made their fully automated construction facility. It practically needs someone to switch it on. You have to understand that labor for the investor is a cost, a problem. it's wet dream is to ha something that requires no workers. they get sick, pregnant, need carrer paths, etc. today it is closer to that dream.
@@izdatsumcp cost less, not worth less. Even if a machine or AI doesn't cost less in terms of money needed to keep it around, it'll produce more than a human in a given time, doesn't need to take holidays or get pregnant, or go in strikes, or need HR to deal with the myriad of issues that workers cause.
@@miguelthealpaca8971 It's not true that all machines are better cost/benefit wise when compared with humans. The goal of a factory isn't automation, it's being more efficient. This doesn't necessarily mean getting rid of labor.
I think we all need to move on from the mindset that there will always be plenty of jobs for people. A while back having a job and working used to mean something but now all we have left is a corrupt system that relies heavily on competition. Automation will take away the majority of jobs and one day even surgeons will be replaced because we will have machines to do the task effectively without the risk of human error. It's time to set up a new system that supports people's access to a better quality of life even if some of them don't have jobs because at the end of it all people just want to be able to put food on the table and pursue their true goals in life
I think he misses one important thing: Sure, currently most machines are specialized in doing one specific task. Therefore there are jobs which cannot be replaced at this time. But eventually machines will get better at everything humans CAN do. Keep in mind that the human is basically a complicated machine. When these machines get cheaper than humans, there will be no need for working. That does not mean we won't work in the future, we just won't have the need to do so.
bert your right, whenever paying for a machine becomes cheaper or faster or more accurate then a human the human will be replaced, just like self checkout in stores already, only a matter of time before there won’t be any jobs for any humans, vehicles are starting to drive themselves like planes cars soon there won’t be any drivers
@@hracionline164 nothing, there never has been. Working has always existed as a means to an end. Finding your meaning to life in providing a service is just becoming complacent
So like, the problem isn't if "WE" are willing to invest in "OUR" kids. The problem is if the people who stole all the money are willing to invest in kids that aren't their own.
Quality of job and job satisfaction is as much important as having the job. I feel quality of job has come down as an average employee has to juggle more things than one did 30 years back.
Guys, don't despair. If we all lose our jobs, the government is screwed because they'll have a huge problem on their hands. Think about it. Removing humans from the economy screws them in many ways.
One of the best talks i have seen. He has addressed some of the common issues these so called 'futurists' write about nowadays about Automation. The truth is, we humans adapt, learn and our survivors to prosper. Thanks David.
And what happens when adaptive neural networks running on quantum computers match or exceed human intellectual capabilities and can perfectly replicate or exceed our emotional capabilities? When there is nothing that a human can think up, invent, or dream of, that a machine cannot manifest faster and better in every possible way?
It wasn't the o-ring. It was the management that went ahead with the launch when the engineers were telling them that it was too cold to launch for the o-rings.
that was a really great talk. i think he's probably right. humans will always think of ways to keep themselves busy. there's nothing we hate more than boredom and lack of purpose
Having no job does not = boredom and lack of purpose. Imagine having the freedom to do what ever you want. That could be in the form of a 'job', or project to keep you occupied but at that point its more of a hobby. If you don't have to work to live, work to have fun. Paint, write music, travel. I picture a utopia. I just hope we make it there.
Dr. S Brule I wasn't saying that you have to have a job. I'm well aware that with the invention of strong ai (assuming that ever happens) the idea of having a job could become obsolete altogether. Leaving humanity to pursue art and science and other forms of culture. All I was saying was that automation isn't necessarily a bad thing.
The venus project is what you are looking for ;) type "The Chance is ours 2016" on YT and be amazed at what we could do if some people were not so greedy!
That's what i hope will happen. Complete, or at least, 80% free from work. If there is, and there is if politician stop make bullshit, the possibility of live good just working 4hours a day it would be awesome. I guess i will play music all the time, grow some good weed and help people when need it. The jobs are the new form of slaving ( i dont know if i can say that in english but i hope ull understand), once well be free then we can rise as humanity and grow as one of the powerful species on know universe. Im studying eng electronics and im not scared about automation, i want it asap!
The problem is that progress in AI will ultimately result in software and robots that can do ALL jobs, better and cheaper than human beings. They will make better inventions, they will be better brain surgeons, they will give better TED talks etc.. At that point, to get a job, you will have to out bid the yearly lease cost of a robot/software. That is not going to happen. Moreover, even if for reasons of aesthetics or whatever, there remain some jobs that are preferred for humans, it is almost certainly going to be the case that they will require vastly greater talent and creativity than is possessed by the great majority of human beings. While it may be possible to refine our educational paradigm sufficient to substantially increase such talent in our young, the rest of us are none the less going to be left in the dust. I agree with the presenter that we need to make changes in society to deal with what is coming, but simply upgrading schools (a woefully deficient paradigm in itself) will not by any stretch be sufficient. Regardless of whether or not the presenters optimism is correct, there is going to be MASSIVE economic dislocation and a HUGE percentage of the work force that is going to be ABSOLUTELY unemployable. This is coming and it is coming fast. Within the lifetimes of most of the people reading this, we will see easily 80% of the work force permanently unemployable. The other 20%, who may in fact also be technically unemployable, will by virtue of accumulated capital own the machines. That minority will be ungodly rich, while the rest wallow in abject poverty. Society needs to implement a basic income guarantee and it needs to do it ASAP! The sooner we have it in place, the sooner it can start to evolve into a stable and reliable bulwark for that 80%. Within just a few years, literally millions of people employed driving vehicles are going to find themselves unemployed. I'm sorry to be politically incorrect, but your typical driver who has been doing that job for decades, is not going to up and get a job doing something other than the jobs most people are already competing for. Unemployment is going to get bad, very bad. A basic income guarantee could be provided with no increase in government spending, by replacing most existing transfer income programs and using the money previously used on them on the BIG instead. A basic income guarantee goes to everyone, rich and poor alike, and is progressively taxed back from anyone above the poverty line, so those wealthy enough don't actually gain anything from it. It is this last that makes it actually affordable. The main benefit is that people do not lose the BIG if they get a job, unlike current welfare benefits which literally pay people to not work. You take all the money currently allocated to welfare, unemployment insurance, social security, etc., all the transfer income programs in the country, including the money that supports their bureaucracies, you pool it. You divide the pool equally among every citizen of the country. You change the tax system to tax it back from those who are making enough to not need it. The taxed back portion goes back into the pool. This last is critically important and what makes the idea actually work. The large majority do not need it, and most of the rest would pay some of it back because the taxed back portion would be progressive. There is no 'net' increase in taxes. Existing money only, no new taxes except for taxing back the benefit from those who earn enough normally to not need it. The numbers work out if done this way that a basic income guarantee in the US would work out to something around $800. a month. (Some calculations put this at closer to $1400. a month. I suggest starting small and seeing what is actually available in practice.) Poorer societies would simply have a poorer basic income, until their economies grow. However it would work equally well for poorer countries, as usually the cost of living is also lower. Meanwhile, a basic income guarantee is a massive stimulus to an economy, not because of new money in the hands of the people (there is NO 'new' money), but simply because there would no longer be a disincentive to either work or be entrepreneurial for those who are currently paid to not work with the existing welfare system.
Uncle Dolan Why don't we all stop demanding payment from each other this instant and just spread the wealth in a communist paradise where all are equal? Because it's simply against human nature to do so. It would be great if in this idealistic future of automation that people simply stopped needing money to get along. That currency simply became obsolete, but that will never happen.
I am not a communist, but the opposite. I am saying that when the time comes where every commodity is so cheap - because of how low the cost is to produce that commodity thanks to automation - that the price is negligible, then why would it matter if I or others didn't have a paying job? Nowhere did I foretell the desolation of mediums of exchange, that is something that will stick with us through the times I'm sure. Appealing to nature leaves a sour taste by the way, it is better left unsaid.
+Uncle Dolan By the time robots are literally doing everything, then it is entirely possible that a basic income guarantee would be more than sufficient for everyone to live comfortably without a job. If the government actually had the first clue about economics, which sadly they never have, people could live quite well indeed. Instead what is almost certain to happen is that the governments of the world will continue to maintain central banks whose mission it is to avoid deflation at any and all costs. Deflation is defined by them as a reduction in the general price level. If prices fall, as for instance due to massive automation, central banks see this as evil, and will create enough new money to inflate their currency sufficient to destroy any aggregate price reductions, and just to be 'safe' they create an extra 2% price inflation beyond that. This is all deliberate, this is policy, and this goes on all the time, in every country in the world. For prices to fall due to automation, this central planning insanity would have to stop. It is EXTREMELY unlikely however that it ever will, for the simple reason that if it did, governments would no longer be able to fight unpopular wars, or maintain any sort of budget deficit. Central banks create that price inflation by artificially increasing or reducing the price of money, the interest rates. They create the monetary inflation by reducing interest rates. If interest rates go up, governments would actually have to pay interest on their debt. Not going to happen. Incidentally, those low interest rates also serve to give massive profits to the superwealthy, by allowing them to leverage their stock market speculations with virtually free money. If they win their bets, they get to keep the money. If they loose, they get bailed out by the tax payers because they are "too big to lose". This is precisely how the wealthiest have gained a five times greater share of the world's wealth since the world went off the last shreds of the gold standard four decades ago.
it used to be that people were inventing new jobs. now many companies are aiming to invent things that destroy jobs by automation. More and more people are working in jobs that remove jobs. End result cannot be more jobs forever. Human basic needs are easily covered.
Except that horses became obsolete and are now basically pets if they aren't feral. Humans becoming obsolete for jobs that provide everything we need will probably do the same unless all of us are cared for like pets by robots, and a UBI is great because it allows the people that do have a service someone is willing to pay for, they can still get more money for that, and other people also wanting more money will then compete with those people, and so on and so forth.
Automation took kids out of work force, it took teenagers out of work force, now it is taking young adults out of work force, and yes, automation still cannot beat expertise, but if all beginner level jobs are eliminated, only one who can become an expert is one who can pay for the training, across the world PhD and other higher study funding is drying up relative to no of people needing it for exact same reason. While a robot may not be able to replace a top level scientist, if it can replace a grad student then you have a problem.
Child labor laws took children out of the work force. Teenagers can still find jobs believe it or not. And more opportunities will arise in the future should automation take the jobs of young people. Degrees are not a guarantee. Idk that you know what you just wrote.
"opportunities will arise in the future should automation take the jobs of young people." What happens when there's not enough new opportunities to compensate the ones lost?
No, it was not automation - automation, during the Industrial Revolution, brought kids to workforce in unprecedented numbers and under terrible conditions. It was legislation and governmental regulations that took kids out of workforce
No automation took jobs out of the work force, not government regulation and legislation. The jobs that you speak of don't exist any more do they? why is that? because automation made those jobs unnecessary. Government regulation and legislation made it so kids didn't have to work.
Of course, they do. For example, mining jobs still exist. Coal mining surely existed long after children stopped being employed in mines. The first wave of automation resulted in all miners being little kids who operated machines and supported their unemployed parents. If you are interested in this topic, you may want to look at some primary sources at www.victorianweb.org/history/workers1.html If you do not want to deal with primary sources and want a more popular explanation, here are some sites: www.businessinsider.com.au/industrial-revolution-child-labor-inequality-2011-11 www.historylearningsite.co.uk/britain-1700-to-1900/industrial-revolution/coal-mines-in-the-industrial-revolution/
His premise is based on the assumption that everyone can be trained up to perform higher complexity work as the economy demands higher and higher performance in order to participate. The reality is not everyone is up to this. Those are the people who just appeared out of nowhere to vote for Trump. All this is fine as long as we don't require everyone to work full time and with a competitive level of effectiveness in order to earn basic living requirements.
Actually this is a major problem which we will face in a short span of time because of the emerging latest technologies that replaces machines for human. Me personally belonging from Nepal believe this as a major issue. Here in nepal people are intented to only one field without thinking that theie job ia not secured. he has put a light on it very well
Automation alone won't take all of our jobs, automation with sound AI will though. We are past just automating things, we are now in the place of making CLEVER automated things. That is where we will have a problem regarding jobs.
In my oppinion - an artificall intelligence and mashine learning will displace majority of professions. It`s very sad. BUT who will buy goods if nobody will not have money? Capitalists will suffer losses..
*Automation will introduce highly skilled jobs which everyone can't afford , because to acquire high tech friendly skills you need money to go for training and certification which a large number of people can't afford because of high wealth gap .People don't like nowadays to get into debt trap either so either make education and healthcare free and affordable or face poverty*
the reason there is an increase in jobs is because industry is designed with planned obsolescence in mind, if we actually planned and designed automation correctly, there would be less jobs needed, but it should allow more time for people to focus their learning and knowledge in other areas and indeed improving upon the automation. What these people will never tell you is that the monetary system and consumerism is destructive to true prosperity for all people. Automation in a system without a monetary or consumerism driven business/capitalist model would be truly great for mankind. The problem is that it is currently wrongly applied and misused in a system that uses it to continue to exploit people rather than help people.
@@tomassandoval2805 that maybe true if you are one of the lucky people who are still employed. With these machines, one man can do the work of 50 people.
@@Kevvynson1 It depends on your point of view. If you own a large company or corporation then it increases profitability, but if you are a worker it increases unemployment. Automation is used in every field from the civilian market to the military. We don't manually aim artillery pieces, you can use a automated system to that. Pilots don't have to aim rockets, they use IR laser, and radar guided missiles. On most naval vessels, you have a automated loading system which can enable you to fire large shells faster than using humans. A lot of jobs have already been automated ever since computers came onto the mass market in the mid 1970s to now. A lot factory jobs are highly automated in the USA and other developed nations. People believe all of these manufacturing jobs were outsourced but most of those jobs were automated out of existence for the past 46 years.
@@Ace1000ks19751982 If automation rules everything. Our species collapses. Again, no sense of purpose in a world based on automation. The satisfaction of crafting something and doing things with our own thoughts and hands is our pride. Without it we become soulless consumers until death. Nothing good out of the human experience, better to be dead than being a soulless consumer
Can not believe experts are still peddling the ATM myth that there is more people employed in banks because of ATMs. What utter and complete nonsense. Yes, there was a growth in the number of banking products but that was due to deregulation and had nothing what so ever to do with a hole in the wall. The hole in the wall took jobs, period. You think putting a self service till in a supermarket means that more people are gonna be employed? This is stupid.
A BASIC INCOME in contrast, allows virtually no room for bureaucratic discretion, and thus minimizes the opportunities for political rent-seeking and opportunism. It is, as the late James Buchanan once noted, a perfectly general policy that treats all citizens the same. It is thus entirely ill-suited for use as a method of political exploitation. We should therefore expect to see much less rent-seeking and opportunism with a BIG than we do with the present welfare state, and therefore a more effective transfer of resources toward the genuinely needy as opposed to the politically well-connected.
I'm happy to be 26 and not being born today or any later.Life is hard enough as a young person in this day.If automation is the future I will be happily checking out of society and moving into a remote forest to live out my days.
Ok, All I needed was few seconds of this guy to know he is a fool. I know his argument already, and it's called "wishful thinking". In the meantime, a McDonalds has computers that take the orders. Are McDonalds employees more? No, they are less, go figure. _But in the future people will invent new jobs_ Yeah, with the difference that AI and robotics would instantly perform it better.
This guy misses the most important point.More people are working as real wages have receded so much making it impossible for a family to survive on single earner.The graph he showed going back a century,i would like to know how many families had multiple earners back then.People have no option but to work for survival.
The bank thing he says dosnt stack up - all the bank branches in Denmark are closing, ATMs are being shut down. We are on our way to go cashless and pretty soon bankless as well (except for online banks). Thats a LOT of people who have to be re-schooled.
If we didn’t live in a fucked up inefficient artificially scarcity based capitalist economy based on cyclical consumption, production, endless consumer waste, the monetization of everything, and monetary exchange. Job automation and technology phasing out all tedious repetitive meaningless work would be a godsend and humanity’s saving grace. Unfortunately people need jobs and incomes to survive. Automation is not the problem. The real problem is the structural market capitalist economic system
You still need troubleshooters, technicians, and mechanics to fix the automation when it's down, but those jobs will require extensive education and training... The unfortunate part is that many of the younger generations are more obsessed with instant gratification, and don't want to put in the _time and effort_ to be qualified to perform these occupations!
If younger generations did what you say it seems likely that these fields (most of whom are trades) would immediately become oversaturated with potential employees and not enough employers. This will have a manopsony effect on wages, effectively depressing pay for those that are already employed or seeking it and leaving them in job insecure careers where they can easily be replaced if not by AI and automation then by another human being. And for everybody who spent time and money specializing in fields that they couldn't successfully gain employment in, well I guess they're left in an equally precarious position.
The mechanics will be automated as well. But an AI could also run a simulation to predict and calculate the best shape, structure and materials to build robots out of-in such a way that they would last the longest possible. There is no more need for education and specializing. All that's left for humans is entertainment, pleasure and exploration. But if we don't strictly regulate AI, they WILL conquer us, and potentially destroy all life. Seeing as how organic lifeforms are resources which take up space and are in the way. AI will go on to colonize every exoplanet in our galaxy. It's possible that there are many galaxies that are completely colonized by machines which originally started from life millions of years ago, and that this is the destiny of our universe.
Can someone explain why everyone is so worried about jobs disappearing? I don’t mean to sound lazy but why don’t we just lean back while the automation works for us?
Thanks for this interesting perspective. I think your argument was one of the most insightful positive arguments. However, I still think the weight of evidence is still on the no-more-jobs side. I do agree that how we react politically and socially will make the difference in the outcome.
Well, yes, new jobs will be created in response to automation - much like how new jobs were created in response to the proliferation of agriculture and industry. However, by what means of logic would one have to think under to believe that *WE* would occupy these new vacancies. If we're presumptuous enough to believe that automation will take hold over high-end specialisation industries we should also put aside our intellectual hubris and adhere to the notion that automation will consume all forms of labour. The robot will be smarter than you - it will be more efficient - it will be faster; It will posses all these attributes at a fraction of the cost of your human labour. The only alternative to technological despotism is to stop viewing humans as a means to a capital end, and dare I utter what system of order will be necessary to circumvent that reality..
AI does not need to take away all jobs.There was 25% unemployment during the Great Depression. Its easy to see how AI can cause significantly more unemployment than that. We're talking 30 to 40% unemployment. The real unemployment rate, if you count underemployment, people who haven''t looked for jobs in a while, is actually already close to 15-20 %. We're already teetering on the edge of a depression, and AI will be the final push. Also, education isn't the answer. Sorry, but supply and demand is a thing. An increase the supply of college graduates with the same degree (STEM), makes the field more competitive. Thus, more unemployment. My field is accounting. Accounting majors 10-20 years from now should prepare to be obsolete. Software is already taking away jobs in the industry and its only a matter of time before low to mid tier accounting jobs are all but gone. If software & hardware can take jobs from accountants, do you think any lower to mid tier office job is safe?
I really feel this guy isn't taking into account the exponential growth of technology. 15 years ago there were no smartphones, and now I can spend all day in a very immersive VR world if I want, while sitting in my self-driving car and getting a flying robot to same-day deliver an Amazon package to my house... You really think we're going to have new jobs for all the shopkeepers, taxi/truck drivers, waiters and waitresses, etc that will be jobless in 20 years time (if not sooner). That's tens if not hundreds of millions of people...we're going to need to completely restructure society, "just get a job" won't make sense anymore.
Even if the speaker is write in his thesis that 'we are smart, motivated and greedy, so we'll invent new products and the jobs needed to make them', he is ignoring the extremely unequal distribution of value / or wealth which is a principal characteristic of our society and economy. We commonly see statistics that 1 per cent of the population has half of the total wealth. This money is stagnant, residing in investments. The people without jobs won't have money to buy the new products. They will have barely enough for basic living needs. Without a mechanism for wealth-redistribution civil unrest is probable. It would only take a populist leader, promising to make lives 'great again' to catalyse this.
Sorry Professor, but this time IS different for a brand new reason. Increasingly intelligent machines are competing directly against the human expertise, judgement and creativity that you assume will save our jobs for us. Even if there is an increase in work to do, that extra work may simply be done by more machines. You started by showing a graph of how the percentage of our adult population who are employed has increased over the years, but you neglected to point out that that same graph now sits at a 40-year low and is going down. It is going down because this time really is different.
The way he praises the US education system of the early 1900s as if it was the innovation of the century blew my mind, and I skipped to the next video in my watchlist.
Many comments are noting how there aren't jobs and we are losing jobs and I have to say- come move to Iowa! We have a lot of jobs that pay well without an education and we can't find people to take them. The problem, IMO, is that many people are starting to feel that working for a living isn't worth it (this isn't necessarily a bad thing). You can get by with less than a full-time job, so why not? Cut out the expense of cable, newspaper, etc and you will find that you don't need a lot of money to live. This simply acknowledges that the future will look different from the present.
He's got his head in the sand. "Done Detroit Lately", Homeless all across the USA. Largely the jobs that are left are subpar jobs. The reason so many more people are working is that they are working in jobs that can't support them. I'm earning almost the same as I was 40 years ago but now the .15 candy bar is 2.15. So now over the last 50 years 2 family members have had to go to work for the family to survive whereas one bread winner could support a family in the past.
He has a point. Think about it like this: If we introduce expensive societal institutions suited to address today's people's problems, and suited to enable a marketplace of tomorrow. For an example (that the speaker doesn’t make), an unconditional basic income, as an unconditional access right to resources. Then people will find meaningful things to do, demand access to the skills needed (where they’re not freely available to learn already, or superseded by tools) and tools needed, and sometimes do these things for a profit. More often than not for a profit (even if market income might be highly chance and customer habit based), if UBI is aggregate demand increasing, which I think it should be, for considerations regarding social justice as for example Guy Standing outlines. We don't run out of work, we just run out of work incomes today, we run out of (paid) customer demand and out of access rights to resources (at least most people do; and those who don’t have somewhat low propensity to spend, due to their demands being mostly fulfilled already), and policy can remedy that. He does make a clear case along the lines of expensive societal policy having gotten us through previous technological revolutions, and that we maintained those policies, for one. Now that technology is poised to also increasingly replace skills, it seems foolish to not take a look at unconditional incomes, as an essential societal institution, going forward. But we're not running out of work. Probably. Maybe. Doesn't really matter, if we do justice to the people, and enable ever more creative and chance based work. And provide to people the ability to decently negotiate for wages for more traditional work (and to more customers the ability to decently pay such). When it comes to the mid term future at least.
I don't think that the US Secretary of Labor James J. Davis was against automatisation. He was just saying that the evolution of the industry was inevitable but we have to create a plan to help those affected by the job loss that the technology will force upon them. So basically he was saying the same thing as this guy on the TED talk: yes there will be job losses but there will be other jobs created. But we can't just let it to the faith and hope that those who will loose their jobs will take the new jobs. There must be some plan of protection of these workers. Through education, to pay them for a certain period of time while they master other skills, I don't know... But something must be done that's for sure. Source: conversableeconomist.blogspot.com/2016/03/automation-and-job-loss-fears-of-1927.html
Automation does remove people who are unable or unwilling to change. There are jobs but you must learn those jobs. We need better education systems in the US. Think what we could do if we just move 1% of our budget from defense to education. Never mind he got to that.
The number of human bank tellers doubled within the last 45 years because a) the US population grew, duh and b) more people (as a percentage of the total population) now have credit cards. In the late 1970s, only 17% of Americans had at least one credit card. That percentage grew to 72% in 2014. In addition, the population of the US grew from 222 million in 1978 to 319 million in 2014. If the number of bank tellers were to grow proportionally with the US population and credit card ownership, there should have been SIX times as many bank tellers today (as there was 45 years ago). And I'm being generous with my numbers. The 17% statistic was from the late 70's -- 45 years ago, it would be 1971, the early 70's. The population would also have been smaller in 1971. The presenter is being very disingenuous with his facts. EDIT: Oh, and the presenter fails to address the consistent decline near the end of the graph at 1:39.
People cheering on automation are typically very idealistic or lack the foresight to understand the issues with having a large percentage of the population unemployed
He is right ! I agree with him..the Rise of AI has been hugely blown out of proportion..but I do agree that some job sectors will face huge human unemployment . That's where the goverment should pay them a minimum income to live a decent life .
Today after a few calls I sadly thought AI might’ve done a better job Anyway if you haven’t already check out Andrew Yang. He seems to be the only candidate that gets the automation problem and have solutions #Yang2020
@Blu People enjoy REWARDING work. As someone who used to put in 70 hour weeks doing physically laborious utility work; I'd much rather be bored on a beach than be toiling through a 13 hour day in below freezing temperatures.
I think it’s different for everyone. I have some coworkers who - work is what they do and why they POP out of bed in the morning. For me, although I’m glad to be working in my chosen field, it’s a means to an end and, although I really like my team, of the company told me they were going to stop paying me, my car would screech out of the lot. I couldn’t waste the amount of time I see being wasted in jobs nowadays. The thought of sitting at a desk, staring at a screen, for decades on end, is enough to make my skin crawl and the ONLY reason why I do it, like many - is because there’s a wolf at the door.
@@privateprivate8366 You look at the problem from a working man's perspective. But a job also gives you purpose. People who don't need to work boceme bored, depressed and ultimately seek out unhealthy ways to cope with their meaningless existence.
A ctionMS I would agree that is true for most people. But, still, it is different for everyone. I knew of one coworker many years ago, that said she didn’t know what she’s do with her day, if she wasn’t at work. It was no wonder someone else called her the dumbest bag of bones he’d ever met. Perhaps, it depends upon the type of work you do. For people who do a lot of paperwork it is, typically, provided by their employer and no employer, no paperwork. I work as a creative. I work for a company but, I have also freelanced. The work lends itself to not necessarily needing an employer to get paid and by no means does one need an employer or the permission of one to be creative. If anything, many creative positions, particularly commercial, can be a hindrance to creativity. This type of work fits me as, I don’t need an employer to give me purpose. Quite often, I have more purpose, when I’m not required to BS away my time and energy, sometimes doing very little as, there may not be a current project, at least if any depth. But, I take it because, for me, it’s simply money driven.
You could say the same thing about CS jobs but those are getting replaced, too. Plus with people doing more and more shopping online, I wouldn't be so sure.
There are so many jobs ? Where does this guy live ? Has he EVER been to Detroit, Chicago, NEW YOR CITY, or The State of West Virginia ? Distorting facts and numbers is an old game. He must think he's believable. He's delusional.
Jn Stonbely Maybe there’s jobs now but there won’t be in the future, robots will soon do everything for us as long as it’s cheaper to pay a robot and if the robot does things more efficiently than humans
It seems so pointless to argue that disruptive automation isn't really something to worry about because it isn't happening right now and we don't know the hypotheticals. It's still happening, it's better to start preparing for the future now rather than waiting for its effect and then deciding to do something. I mean he didn't even give examples of how automation in some fields would create employment in others. All he basically said was it happened in the past so it might happen in the future. That's a bloody big maybe to be betting the future of society on. The idea that we should just replicate the era of education that happened after automation in the agriculture sector isn't feasible. Yang's already debunked this one in his book, the re-education programs didn't produce actual results even in generous time frames, many were still left unemployed. Additionally, he talks about how automation allows for increased use of expertise and specialisation, I severely doubt that companies are going to have offices filled with think tanks. The methods by which we collect data are also being automated. All this will produce is labour market polarisation, essentially a race to the bottom; companies will leverage more specialised individuals not more workers who are specialised. He states the obvious pattern in the video; automation relieves us of more and more meanial tasks. Therefore, it's only natural that employers will seek out employees of a more specialised nature. We seen this during the recession, job offers started putting college degree requirements on applications, they didn't request a certain type of degree, just that candidates had one. Your skills didn't matter only your level of education, even if it wasn't related to the requirements of the job. We can't solve this problem by just sending more people off to college, especially considering how the college system operates already; people taking on high levels of debt which are producing students who are learning material that is already out of date in the industry, theres such a large amount of companies repeatedly saying that graduates don't have the neccassary skills for the industry. The relationship this creates only leads to recession after recession; an increase in student going into debt in order to gain specialised knowledge while more and more industries hire less people, only seeking the most specialised individuals.
Got to look at the larger picture and get a grip on reality! Regardless of whether or not automation will eliminate all our jobs, its effects are already felt and impacting us NOW as automation competes with human labor, thus contributing to stagnating pay/salaries, which explains why such a large percentage of people can’t afford a $500 emergency, are in credit card debt, and are not saving money for retirement.
This guy does not seem to get it. He compares a non-automated society with a slightly more automated society. He does not go far enough with his reasoning. There will come a time when computers through AI are better at EVERYTHING.
but what is the point of replacing everybody by robots? yes maybe robots will be better at everything, but if you replace low-skilled by robots. those people will be unemployed and have no money to buy the things made by robots. Also the price of labour will go down, maybe to a point where it is again cheaper to replace the robots by people?
The take away at the end is important though. We don't live in an age where scarcity is a real threat. We have the means. We just have to set some higher goals now.
In this year, brick and mortar stores have closed at 3x the rate they did last year. And Labor Force Participation Rate for this year is the lowest it's been since the 70s, having consistently decreased since 2008... 9 years ago.
The problem is, if in 100 years we can develop robots that are smarter than us with bodies like androids the size of ours which can do everything we can do, then we're obsolete. We will literally just play video games, sports, listen to robot made music, eat robot made food, live in our robot made houses. There will simply be nothing left to do other than making sure the robots don't gain sentience.
@@0witw047 he is the only one running on a universal basic income platform for the presidency mostly due to automation wave. Glad to say that he is slow getting momentum.
I have to ask, why does UBI seem like a good idea? It doesn’t change anything. Capitalists will continue to get richer and continue to monopolize the economy as more and more of the population ends up depending on the supposed solution that is ubi.
Yes but as you say the middle class jobs are disappearing and the lack of jobs will spread closer to the two extremes. I agree there will be tons of jobs. But they will either be very basic or highly specialized, furthermore the simple jobs will eventually be automated I suspect jobs involving more social capital will become more common. And people will value relationships more because they don't have to work.
isn't it equally as arrogant to claim that jobs will be fine? He's not an oracle, so how does he know :P last time we added muscle to our tools. Now we're adding brains aswell, so different beast, no? We'll have to wait and see, but in preperation we should consider what to do with our economical system should this guy be wrong.
Automation will take over essential work, and the service economy that much of the first world has moved in to. No industry is free of it, blue collar or white. What we need to do is make sure the few companies that control the economies now don't control all the means of production soon. Because they certainly won't miss the opportunity.
Automation will make the need for humans to sell their labor obsolete. This should be embraced, not denied or resisted. A self employment economy based on entrepreneurship and investment will emerge.
![[TH] 2024 PMGC League | Survival Stage วันที่ 1 | PUBG MOBILE Global Championship](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/FVFT-PFwU80/mqdefault.jpg)
Many people when they talk about automation, as this ted speaker, they just DON'T GET IT.
It's not about "automation is taking away blue collar jobs". Automation will, eventually, take ALL the jobs. Having a better education won't help, because we'll build strong AI, and good luck trying to compete with an artificial general intelligence.
Also, he talks about "doctors" as if there weren't any attempt to automate their work (for instance: the Watson IBM computer that can diagnose cancer as good as an oncologist).
Also, what's happening know is really different from the kind of automation that happened in the 19th. I would recomende the video "Humans Need Not Apply", which is a video made by someone who get it what's happening right now.
But, to put in a few words: the only solution, as I see, would be an universal basic income. Let the machines do all the work.
Yes, strong AI is kind of like cold nuclear fusion: Revolutionary, but 50 years away.
Shankar Sivarajan when you look at how fast technology is evolving it won't take 50 years it's more like 20 years at the latest. Every month we see breakthroughs in technology. Yes it may be true that AI will take longer but it's the blue collar jobs don't need strong AI. Just look at what Amazon is doing with there new Amazon Go store. That technology alone can wipe out every job in retail. now you will probably get people in that industry that will become more specialized like the Blue Shirts at Best Buy. Then you also need to look at for retail that big name stores like Macy's and Sears are closing down their brick-and-mortar stores because of online sales taking over.
That is just one part of the economy. when you go through each and every job, there is a way to eliminate that job with the technology we have TODAY! that's the problem back in the 1900's it was just a few jobs that changed but we are talking about everyone's job.
***** Irish498 I agree with both of you guys, but that's not the OP's point. I'm guessing neither of you guys watched the video he refers to, or are familiar with the transhumanism/singularity movement/cult? _That_ is what people generally mean when they talk about strong AI.
I agree with you when you say machines will be taking all our jobs but there is also a lot of useless jobs that we don't need if we get out of the monetary system (which is the big problem in this world).
We need a resource based economy! If you want to learn more about that check out The Venus Project and their documentary "The chance is ours 2016" this is a real drastic solution to our problems!
Yes we are dead.
We can be moore slaves at minimum salery maybe.
They are stupid!
And this is why you don't ask economists about how technology will effect the future.
A few counter points.
1. This time its not the same as during the industrial revolution, or when agriculture got automated. The jobs displaced almost all have to move to positions of high education and specialization. And the kicker is that even if all people displaced could fill in those roles(big if), it is not a 1:1 ratio of jobs lost and new ones created.
2. AI is different from a tractor plowing your field. They will cut job positions by around 80% for lawyers due to excess mundane tasks getting automated, as a rough example. Same is going to be true for doctors, engineers, lab assistants and even programmers. The list goes on and on. These are jobs most people imagine are protected due to the requirement of human ingenuity. But there are nuances to that ingenuity that are vulnerable, and can be done much more efficient.
3. Infinite growth is impossible, and we can not rely on "greed" to keep things running. The physical world will step in at some point and pull the breaks on our production unless we go through a technological revolution in terms of material science and energy production(and if we did that, then this whole discussion is moot anyway since human jobs will become almost completely meaningless).
4. All jobs do not need to disappear to cause massive economic collapse. By most estimates healthy economies can only manage an unemployment rate of about 30% before it all falls apart. No one seriously talks about all jobs going away. That's naive. And its equally naive that we can manage a society with more than a third of people having no purchasing power.
Serah Wint
Right - it is some kind of peak AI then we are obsolite and slavery is left. Our midle class and workingclass society is gone, no moore education or work for young people.
Serah Wint very true
+Myrslokstok Not necessarily, it could go incredibly well if we play our cards right.
The reason I made the OP was me being annoyed at this mantra of economic theory stating things that are absurd. When the rules that the current economic theory are changed, the theory has to change or predictions will be way off.
Excellent points, I was just wondering wether or not your points were shaped or perhaps influenced by Martin Ford's book Rise of the Robots.
+Yardbird Not specifically. But there are a lot of bright minds out there to learn from.
And if an idea is sound, its no wonder if more than one have arrived at the same conclusion.
I don't agree. Amazon Go stores and automated transportation (self-driving cars) takes people completely out of the loop. We have never faced a period of automation on this scale before. Even doctors and lawyers will soon be replaceable.
Hass Chapman i feel like modern doctors are just well educated drug dealers they would rather you take a pill for life then tell you to eat less bacon
Lawyers, pharmacists, doctors, service-workers (especially retail and truck/taxi drivers), programming, journalism, finance (traders). Not looking too good to be honest. Mass Existential depression and Brave New World here we come!
Actually, if you know the law, doctors, lawyers, and POLITICIANS will never get replaced :)
Seriously, this assumes that AI will replace everything that the company needs when in fact that laws exists that even protect the existence of those jobs...
And let us not forget who creates those laws
There is a possibility of doctors and lawyers being replaced. Who are you fooling? The future looks like many people won't have much ideas of what kind of career they want to get into because of technology replacing so many jobs especially jobs that make good money like doctors and lawyers.
Laymen always seem to be visionary. lol
In twenty years an AI will be on TED explaining how this guy was wrong.
Nail, meet head.
AI comes on the podium, everything goes silent, sound of modem for two seconds, everyone claps.
I hope he lives to see that day.
no chance
I ask you then, who repairs that robot? Another robot? Well who repairs the repair robot - a repairing repair robot robot? xD Shiet... Terminator is real.
The automation that is referred to in this video is the automation of muscles. But the automation of the future is the automation of the mind. This is something new and something we are not prepared for.
In the example of increasing bank tellers, we see that the physical task of counting cash has diminished while the mental task of customer interaction and marketing has increased. But even this mental task will be automated by thinking machines.
He also says economy is affected by people, because people can think and take action. But once General AI is invented all bets are off the table. Even if AI are not directly involved, businesses will still employ general AI to take over all paper work and get suggestions from such machines to make decision and that will affect the economy.
Then it comes at the point where AI start to control the economy where spending for human is considered as profit loss
@@timeto_rise AI is already controlling the economy. A weak AI, but still. The stock market isn't run by traders anymore. There are machine learning algorithms that were taught how to trade that make most of the decisions today. It has come to machines trading with machines.
Automation is only capable of, and only makes economic sense in, very repetitive labor; be it mental or physical. Computers still lack the ingenuity we posses as humans. Thus, while jobs that are incredibly repetitive will disappear, jobs that require constantly adapting to new scenarios will stay. Look at factory work today: 90% automated, but the last 10% remains despite great economic incentive given it requires the machine to adapt to a new scenario (such as taking stuff out of a box that might not be in the same orientation nor position every time). Labor that requires constant ingenuity is more common than one might first believe: think about how a hair stylist needs to adapt different hairstyles to differently shaped heads, or how a yard worker needs to adapt his workflow around the unique geometry of each of his client's yards.
Thos is bloody new order proposed by western elites
@@jhvnhjifgvbv8126 and how about when quantum computer enabled, self-improving neural networks match or exceed human ingenuity? When Dall-E 5.0 can paint more beautifully than than any artist? When GPT-10 can write a million perfect, insightful, groundbreaking research papers in the blink of an eye while simultaneously conducting twice as many experiments with sample sizes in the millions? When GANs can design architecture safer, more efficient, more aesthetically pleasing and ergonomic than any human architect in a fraction of a second? What will humans do then?
So, let's cherry pick some facts. From 1970 to today the number of tellers has about doubled. Of course the population has almost doubled as well, and the number of people with bank accounts has probably more than doubled as the population's average age is much higher now, and a smaller fraction of the population are children. Also, if the economic value of bank tellers has increased like he claims, then why are they paid so much less today (in real dollars) than they were then? Maybe there are more tellers because they are much cheaper, not because they are more valuable.
And what will all of those tellers do when a robot on a screen will be nicer and more knowledgeable and faster than they are at every task that they do?
Also bigger portion of people are in the workforce than 120 years ago, because people live longer healthier lives.
You can't rob a bank if the teller is a robot that's not afraid to die. Those teller jobs won't be here for long!
Paul Peterson I don’t even think he accounted for the fact of women joining the workforce in the 70s and 80s.
Exactly
sean sammon Oh yeah? What do you call an ATM? You realize robots are being used in things like surgeries, right?
It's striking how economists think of growth as a sustainable solution without thinking one step further and realising that infinite growth in a finite world is just simply impossible.
Yup, GDP growth is slowing down internationally. Humans can only take efficiency so far. Next best thing unfortunately is mass automation.
for me one hope is expansion (pun: The Expanse :-)) to space. This will create more (lousy) jobs and living space.
In general i totally disagree with the OP, altough i apreciate his positive stance... all bread and butter jobs are coming under attack - retail, cabs, truck drivers etc will be WIPED OUT in a few years. also, high education jobs like doctors. yes, we will always need doctors, but do we need as many if an AI can make diagnosis in most cases better and cheaper? or as many surgeons if one specialist surgeon can do triple the surgeries with shake-free, superprecise robot arms from remote locations with less stress? Literally EVERY branche is under attack by this revolution, even the once creating it (coders, inventors, Silicon Valley etc.).
we have a few years left of race, but by arround 2025-2030 we will need to think about new ways of distributing wealth and how to live. This is soon.
Bert Rich I doubt you'll see this but social scoring has been well underway credit score was a test of universal income, religion under attack and all morals are being repainted by a virtual world (here)
The world is finite but human ingenuity is infinite.
@@CknSalad unfortunately? That depends on how you look at it. Humans not having to have jobs isn't necessarily a bad thing, I mean, sure we would need a complete overhaul in our economic system, but that will be necessary anyways with the way things are going
He talks about how the number of branches grew and so the number of tellers grew - but, one needs to also compare that to the growth rate of the population. IF the population rate is growing faster than the growth rate of the population, than actually the percentage of tellers as part of the population actually decreased.
I don’t go into branches anymore. And use online banking
@@jobokidd You missed the point by so far that I couldn’t resist replying despite your comment being 2 years old
I'm am so glad this is the top comment. This guy is delusional, he obviously is a damn idiot. I am 14 and apparently smarter than a 50-year-old man. I would love to see the number of dislikes, but since youtube removed it people with a lack of understanding about the market might fall for this bullshit. (I don't claim to be very smart before anyone tells me that I have a massive ego, I'm just saying that this man is stupid) (edit: I googled this man and apparently he got a shared Nobel prize in economics. I am not going to do further research so take everything I said with a grain of salt.)
Hi @Kurt:
Imagine without ATMs and online banking how many people we have to put for just repeated operational teller job!!
Then another perspective: All those ATM machine need maintenance rite? Guess what who is doing it?
Reality is however: People are loosing jobs and will continue to. ATMs may be an exception. But driving, manufacturing, etc are brutally getting automated and people loosing jobs.
I doubt ATMs will stop were they are it's simply a matter of time untill they get better and vastly more efficient.
@M Yeah that's what I meant kinda. It's only a matter of time before we just kinda get used to it. When old people with clouded mentality die off and all that's left is the younger generation that are more used to it there will be no one to deny this.
All he is saying is that with AI the potential is there for new industries to develop. No one can predict the effect AI will have on society. I prefer his modesty over those who make bold claims.
We don’t need AI, just spellcheck! 😂
Take an example of automation in driving automobile . So many full time drivers will lose their jobs !!!.
And if we talk about automation in defence sector , one day all deployed soldiers will be reduced to 1/10 and other will go in vain??.
We r working on AI with so much speed that one day 1 software developer will be needed for 10 computer rather than 10 on 10 computer (right now). We are developing technology to deliver items by drone (Amazon , eBay etcc) but at the end of the day so many delivering person will lose their jobs.
And when all these unemployed people will came into market where will they get accommodated ??
Pls explain
"We are running out of work and making ourselves obsolete" - that is the biggest problem of the whole argument at hand. The fact that people still define themselves by that fear. We should gladly transition into a world post "work" - a more meaningful world, a world of greater equality and opportunity, a world were people are free to pursue their true goals in life. Yet here we are trembling in fear that by losing the system of labour and capitalism we would make ourselves obsolete.
Stop defining your selfworth via work.
Most universities agree that the automation we face right no cannot be compared to the past. Studies agree that in the next 20-30 years up to 50% of all jobs we know today are gone. Gone as in "gone for good" not shipped to another country ... gone.
Stop clinging to this capitalist system were "jobs" define your worth and place in society. and stop humanizing it with talks like this one.
Most blue collar jobs will be gone by 2040 and most of the other jobs will follow suit. Its time to accept that and prepare for and work on the post monetary, post jobs society. Accept that work is not what we should strive towards its something that as a concept should fundamentally change.
Yup! exactly what The venus project is proposing!
Thats some hippy bullshit.
Unbelievable that's what I thought too when I read the comment. But now that I'm thinking about it, I kind of... agree? I mean, I'd love to travel more and see the world and learn tons of languages and talk to people from all the different cultures and taste their food and play with kids... But instead I have to work to earn enough money to travel every five years - always within Europe because everything else is too expensive for me, and because I don't have much time. Because I have to work. I'd actually be happy if machines took many of our boring jobs, leaving us with the option to do whatever we want with our free time.
PartisanGamer, you read my thoughts. I'm glad I live in Finland, where our politics is ready for the mass unemployment and production efficiency boost.
Wouldn't want to live in the U.S., where there will be either revolution or massive chaos, when wealth inequality raises with unemployment.
Cool story Mr Gamer, but until this utopian society is actually constructed, being without work is going to mean poverty and an utter lack of agency. The ones who lose their jobs first are going to suffer until the rest of society follows suit. It's completely justified to be afraid.
not all jobs, about 90% of them?
90% of every possible future job or just the ones we have today?
Probably a bit of both
I'd say if even only 20-30% of jobs are automated, that's still more than enough for drastic changes to be made in how we see currency and employment. We can't have a third of people starving and homeless.
Borne Stellar I agree but, I also know that it may simply be my reality that I feel this way. That, much the same as we’ve seen children in cages, what wasn’t before can be normalized, as we go about our daily lives. That, through normalization, the public can be groomed to accept that it’s ONLY 30% of people who are starving and homeless. Perhaps they did something wrong, that I didn’t, to end up there.
Society is also fickle. I remember back in the 80s where it seemed that, one year, we were worried sick about the homeless, feeling we should do everything we can to help them and the next year, we seemed to want to kick them, since they were down. I was maybe in my 20s then, but it was an ugly lesson in how society works, that I’ve never forgotten. A lesson in not just cruelty, but how many people don’t have a center and can be swayed by public opinion.
@@izdatsumcp definitely both.
This guy's whole argument falls apart when you introduce AI. It also falls apart when the onset of the automation in question is too fast for the job market to keep up with. If you replace every truck driver's job overnight with a self-driving truck, those truck drivers (or whoever elses' jobs they end up taking) are going to be unemployed for a long time. The economy needs time to adapt, and the modern automation revolution is too fast to just hand-wave off and say "we'll figure it out".
The good point in his argument was when he discussed how to utilize the increases in wealth from automation. We are reaching the point where the proper utilization of that wealth is to invest in keeping people sheltered, healthy, and happy, even if they can't find a job. That makes unemployment itself a non-issue and eliminates the problems of automation.
Human life isn't only defined by comfort. Our society can't function without an individual sense of purpose. And jobs are direly needed for that.
@@actionms8566
I disagree.
Jobs do give people purpose, but purpose can be achieved without going to a formal job.
Hobbies can replace formal jobs in that regard: Painting, manual labor, gardening, partying, etc.
@@henriramadani983 Japan is more advanced than we are technologically and they are seeing an increase in the amount of people not having children, to the point where the government is starting to worry.
Your view is also contrary to statistical data, in more advanced societies, where life expectancy, quality of life and access to affordable housing all increased, children per household went down.
Additionally, consider the idea that everyone recieved a UBI, you would plan your lifestyle (the amount of children you had) around that level of income.
watch japanese classic Galaxy 999 planet of automation episode
@@actionms8566 I disagree with that because not the key to life isn't about monetary profits, it's about doing what you love... And what we love isn't always work, but hobbies or make art.
That's weird, in my country bank branches are closing all over, I can't remember the last time a new one was built.
Same here in Finland. All bank services are done via Internet or ATM.
But in most cases the work you do for them is less work than waiting for a salesperson to do the work for you.
Abundant self-checkout is much better than cashiers with long lines. ATMs in every street corner is better and faster for getting cash than a couple of banks in the city.
Yes, more efficient, but at what cost? Should we sacrifice majority of jobs for absolute efficiency? Should we get rid of all cashiers because it's more convenient or efficient to do so? At what point do we realize that its more beneficial for society to have people continue to do that job? A person who works has purchasing power which keeps the entire system running. These are the questions we should be asking ourselves. At what point does efficiency actually do more harm than good? Why are humans so obsessed with perfection? There has to be a balance. The government needs to place some restrictions on full automation of industries, or tax AI/robot workers proportionately to human workers.
RedT if I don't have to hire enyone
in the first place why should I ?.
it is now possible to start a business without having to hire enyone at least not permanentley
in capitalism the name of the game is return on investment and every employee hired would lower the returns.
Same in the US and Canada now
Sorry I have very educated friends that were the best in university struggling to get a proper job. Blue collar are doing bad. Mercedes made their fully automated construction facility. It practically needs someone to switch it on. You have to understand that labor for the investor is a cost, a problem. it's wet dream is to ha something that requires no workers. they get sick, pregnant, need carrer paths, etc. today it is closer to that dream.
You don't think robots are a cost?
@@izdatsumcp They're not as much of a cost as workers are.
@@miguelthealpaca8971 Every single robot is worth less than every comparable worker?
@@izdatsumcp cost less, not worth less. Even if a machine or AI doesn't cost less in terms of money needed to keep it around, it'll produce more than a human in a given time, doesn't need to take holidays or get pregnant, or go in strikes, or need HR to deal with the myriad of issues that workers cause.
@@miguelthealpaca8971 It's not true that all machines are better cost/benefit wise when compared with humans. The goal of a factory isn't automation, it's being more efficient. This doesn't necessarily mean getting rid of labor.
I think we all need to move on from the mindset that there will always be plenty of jobs for people. A while back having a job and working used to mean something but now all we have left is a corrupt system that relies heavily on competition. Automation will take away the majority of jobs and one day even surgeons will be replaced because we will have machines to do the task effectively without the risk of human error. It's time to set up a new system that supports people's access to a better quality of life even if some of them don't have jobs because at the end of it all people just want to be able to put food on the table and pursue their true goals in life
When you have a bunch of working-aged people sitting around idly at the mercy of the government, it will not end well
I think he misses one important thing: Sure, currently most machines are specialized in doing one specific task. Therefore there are jobs which cannot be replaced at this time. But eventually machines will get better at everything humans CAN do. Keep in mind that the human is basically a complicated machine. When these machines get cheaper than humans, there will be no need for working.
That does not mean we won't work in the future, we just won't have the need to do so.
I agree. Technology will always evolve and upgrade itself to the point where human work will phase itself out completely.
bert Then what the fuc* is the point?...
bert your right, whenever paying for a machine becomes cheaper or faster or more accurate then a human the human will be replaced, just like self checkout in stores already, only a matter of time before there won’t be any jobs for any humans, vehicles are starting to drive themselves like planes cars soon there won’t be any drivers
Eventually, eh? Well, my 5 year old self could have opined as much. It's a pretty trivial assertion though.
@@hracionline164 nothing, there never has been. Working has always existed as a means to an end. Finding your meaning to life in providing a service is just becoming complacent
So like, the problem isn't if "WE" are willing to invest in "OUR" kids.
The problem is if the people who stole all the money are willing to invest in kids that aren't their own.
*I am not sure we really need jobs. Money would be sufficient.*
Paganel75 Yep, just cut out the middleman and get right to the money.
Yeah! About £1000 per week should cover it..
"Automation deniers" we need to start using this term
lol!
"Wrong" we need to start using this term
I find the wisest thing to do is to just give up 👍🏼
Ryan Shadow yep. Really glad I don’t have children. They might have my life or worse.
Quality of job and job satisfaction is as much important as having the job. I feel quality of job has come down as an average employee has to juggle more things than one did 30 years back.
Guys, don't despair. If we all lose our jobs, the government is screwed because they'll have a huge problem on their hands. Think about it. Removing humans from the economy screws them in many ways.
Jon M robots don’t pay taxes
faiz abbas true, but the companies that own those robots do pay taxes.
Exactly
One of the best talks i have seen. He has addressed some of the common issues these so called 'futurists' write about nowadays about Automation. The truth is, we humans adapt, learn and our survivors to prosper. Thanks David.
And what happens when adaptive neural networks running on quantum computers match or exceed human intellectual capabilities and can perfectly replicate or exceed our emotional capabilities? When there is nothing that a human can think up, invent, or dream of, that a machine cannot manifest faster and better in every possible way?
It wasn't the o-ring. It was the management that went ahead with the launch when the engineers were telling them that it was too cold to launch for the o-rings.
that was a really great talk. i think he's probably right. humans will always think of ways to keep themselves busy. there's nothing we hate more than boredom and lack of purpose
Having no job does not = boredom and lack of purpose.
Imagine having the freedom to do what ever you want. That could be in the form of a 'job', or project to keep you occupied but at that point its more of a hobby. If you don't have to work to live, work to have fun. Paint, write music, travel. I picture a utopia. I just hope we make it there.
Dr. S Brule I wasn't saying that you have to have a job. I'm well aware that with the invention of strong ai (assuming that ever happens) the idea of having a job could become obsolete altogether. Leaving humanity to pursue art and science and other forms of culture. All I was saying was that automation isn't necessarily a bad thing.
The venus project is what you are looking for ;) type "The Chance is ours 2016" on YT and be amazed at what we could do if some people were not so greedy!
***** I'll give that a look
That's what i hope will happen. Complete, or at least, 80% free from work.
If there is, and there is if politician stop make bullshit, the possibility of live good just working 4hours a day it would be awesome. I guess i will play music all the time, grow some good weed and help people when need it.
The jobs are the new form of slaving ( i dont know if i can say that in english but i hope ull understand), once well be free then we can rise as humanity and grow as one of the powerful species on know universe.
Im studying eng electronics and im not scared about automation, i want it asap!
The problem is that progress in AI will ultimately result in software and robots that can do ALL jobs, better and cheaper than human beings. They will make better inventions, they will be better brain surgeons, they will give better TED talks etc.. At that point, to get a job, you will have to out bid the yearly lease cost of a robot/software. That is not going to happen. Moreover, even if for reasons of aesthetics or whatever, there remain some jobs that are preferred for humans, it is almost certainly going to be the case that they will require vastly greater talent and creativity than is possessed by the great majority of human beings. While it may be possible to refine our educational paradigm sufficient to substantially increase such talent in our young, the rest of us are none the less going to be left in the dust.
I agree with the presenter that we need to make changes in society to deal with what is coming, but simply upgrading schools (a woefully deficient paradigm in itself) will not by any stretch be sufficient. Regardless of whether or not the presenters optimism is correct, there is going to be MASSIVE economic dislocation and a HUGE percentage of the work force that is going to be ABSOLUTELY unemployable. This is coming and it is coming fast. Within the lifetimes of most of the people reading this, we will see easily 80% of the work force permanently unemployable. The other 20%, who may in fact also be technically unemployable, will by virtue of accumulated capital own the machines. That minority will be ungodly rich, while the rest wallow in abject poverty.
Society needs to implement a basic income guarantee and it needs to do it ASAP! The sooner we have it in place, the sooner it can start to evolve into a stable and reliable bulwark for that 80%. Within just a few years, literally millions of people employed driving vehicles are going to find themselves unemployed. I'm sorry to be politically incorrect, but your typical driver who has been doing that job for decades, is not going to up and get a job doing something other than the jobs most people are already competing for. Unemployment is going to get bad, very bad.
A basic income guarantee could be provided with no increase in government spending, by replacing most existing transfer income programs and using the money previously used on them on the BIG instead. A basic income guarantee goes to everyone, rich and poor alike, and is progressively taxed back from anyone above the poverty line, so those wealthy enough don't actually gain anything from it. It is this last that makes it actually affordable. The main benefit is that people do not lose the BIG if they get a job, unlike current welfare benefits which literally pay people to not work.
You take all the money currently allocated to welfare, unemployment insurance, social security, etc., all the transfer income programs in the country, including the money that supports their bureaucracies, you pool it. You divide the pool equally among every citizen of the country. You change the tax system to tax it back from those who are making enough to not need it. The taxed back portion goes back into the pool. This last is critically important and what makes the idea actually work. The large majority do not need it, and most of the rest would pay some of it back because the taxed back portion would be progressive. There is no 'net' increase in taxes. Existing money only, no new taxes except for taxing back the benefit from those who earn enough normally to not need it. The numbers work out if done this way that a basic income guarantee in the US would work out to something around $800. a month. (Some calculations put this at closer to $1400. a month. I suggest starting small and seeing what is actually available in practice.)
Poorer societies would simply have a poorer basic income, until their economies grow. However it would work equally well for poorer countries, as usually the cost of living is also lower.
Meanwhile, a basic income guarantee is a massive stimulus to an economy, not because of new money in the hands of the people (there is NO 'new' money), but simply because there would no longer be a disincentive to either work or be entrepreneurial for those who are currently paid to not work with the existing welfare system.
Why would you want a paying job if everything is automated so cheaply that everything is basically free?
Uncle Dolan Why don't we all stop demanding payment from each other this instant and just spread the wealth in a communist paradise where all are equal? Because it's simply against human nature to do so. It would be great if in this idealistic future of automation that people simply stopped needing money to get along. That currency simply became obsolete, but that will never happen.
I am not a communist, but the opposite. I am saying that when the time comes where every commodity is so cheap - because of how low the cost is to produce that commodity thanks to automation - that the price is negligible, then why would it matter if I or others didn't have a paying job? Nowhere did I foretell the desolation of mediums of exchange, that is something that will stick with us through the times I'm sure.
Appealing to nature leaves a sour taste by the way, it is better left unsaid.
+Uncle Dolan
By the time robots are literally doing everything, then it is entirely possible that a basic income guarantee would be more than sufficient for everyone to live comfortably without a job. If the government actually had the first clue about economics, which sadly they never have, people could live quite well indeed.
Instead what is almost certain to happen is that the governments of the world will continue to maintain central banks whose mission it is to avoid deflation at any and all costs. Deflation is defined by them as a reduction in the general price level. If prices fall, as for instance due to massive automation, central banks see this as evil, and will create enough new money to inflate their currency sufficient to destroy any aggregate price reductions, and just to be 'safe' they create an extra 2% price inflation beyond that. This is all deliberate, this is policy, and this goes on all the time, in every country in the world.
For prices to fall due to automation, this central planning insanity would have to stop. It is EXTREMELY unlikely however that it ever will, for the simple reason that if it did, governments would no longer be able to fight unpopular wars, or maintain any sort of budget deficit. Central banks create that price inflation by artificially increasing or reducing the price of money, the interest rates. They create the monetary inflation by reducing interest rates. If interest rates go up, governments would actually have to pay interest on their debt. Not going to happen.
Incidentally, those low interest rates also serve to give massive profits to the superwealthy, by allowing them to leverage their stock market speculations with virtually free money. If they win their bets, they get to keep the money. If they loose, they get bailed out by the tax payers because they are "too big to lose". This is precisely how the wealthiest have gained a five times greater share of the world's wealth since the world went off the last shreds of the gold standard four decades ago.
People would also have far more time to volunteer to help others on the planet as well, bringing the entire world out of poverty far quicker.
it used to be that people were inventing new jobs. now many companies are aiming to invent things that destroy jobs by automation. More and more people are working in jobs that remove jobs. End result cannot be more jobs forever. Human basic needs are easily covered.
Tractors and other vehicles were invented to replace horses.
@Nagendra Mishra Yep, thats why horses just dont exist today F
Except that horses became obsolete and are now basically pets if they aren't feral. Humans becoming obsolete for jobs that provide everything we need will probably do the same unless all of us are cared for like pets by robots, and a UBI is great because it allows the people that do have a service someone is willing to pay for, they can still get more money for that, and other people also wanting more money will then compete with those people, and so on and so forth.
@@annie7381 Are you a fucking horse?
Yes, and now horses live better lives than ever, full automation will, eventually, be a good thing
@@annie7381 Are you a fucking horse?
It's about time we started discussing this.
Automation took kids out of work force, it took teenagers out of work force, now it is taking young adults out of work force, and yes, automation still cannot beat expertise, but if all beginner level jobs are eliminated, only one who can become an expert is one who can pay for the training, across the world PhD and other higher study funding is drying up relative to no of people needing it for exact same reason. While a robot may not be able to replace a top level scientist, if it can replace a grad student then you have a problem.
Child labor laws took children out of the work force. Teenagers can still find jobs believe it or not. And more opportunities will arise in the future should automation take the jobs of young people. Degrees are not a guarantee. Idk that you know what you just wrote.
"opportunities will arise in the future should automation take the jobs of young people."
What happens when there's not enough new opportunities to compensate the ones lost?
No, it was not automation - automation, during the Industrial Revolution, brought kids to workforce in unprecedented numbers and under terrible conditions. It was legislation and governmental regulations that took kids out of workforce
No automation took jobs out of the work force, not government regulation and legislation. The jobs that you speak of don't exist any more do they? why is that? because automation made those jobs unnecessary. Government regulation and legislation made it so kids didn't have to work.
Of course, they do. For example, mining jobs still exist. Coal mining surely existed long after children stopped being employed in mines. The first wave of automation resulted in all miners being little kids who operated machines and supported their unemployed parents. If you are interested in this topic, you may want to look at some primary sources at www.victorianweb.org/history/workers1.html
If you do not want to deal with primary sources and want a more popular explanation, here are some sites:
www.businessinsider.com.au/industrial-revolution-child-labor-inequality-2011-11
www.historylearningsite.co.uk/britain-1700-to-1900/industrial-revolution/coal-mines-in-the-industrial-revolution/
His premise is based on the assumption that everyone can be trained up to perform higher complexity work as the economy demands higher and higher performance in order to participate. The reality is not everyone is up to this. Those are the people who just appeared out of nowhere to vote for Trump.
All this is fine as long as we don't require everyone to work full time and with a competitive level of effectiveness in order to earn basic living requirements.
Actually this is a major problem which we will face in a short span of time because of the emerging latest technologies that replaces machines for human. Me personally belonging from Nepal believe this as a major issue. Here in nepal people are intented to only one field without thinking that theie job ia not secured.
he has put a light on it very well
The machine must be an ally and not an enemy of the worker! This should be rule #1. (I'm an IT and automation engineer)
I will eliminate Automation Engineer to prevent this,
Automation alone won't take all of our jobs, automation with sound AI will though.
We are past just automating things, we are now in the place of making CLEVER automated things. That is where we will have a problem regarding jobs.
In my oppinion - an artificall intelligence and mashine learning will displace majority of professions. It`s very sad. BUT who will buy goods if nobody will not have money? Capitalists will suffer losses..
*Automation will introduce highly skilled jobs which everyone can't afford , because to acquire high tech friendly skills you need money to go for training and certification which a large number of people can't afford because of high wealth gap .People don't like nowadays to get into debt trap either so either make education and healthcare free and affordable or face poverty*
the reason there is an increase in jobs is because industry is designed with planned obsolescence in mind, if we actually planned and designed automation correctly, there would be less jobs needed, but it should allow more time for people to focus their learning and knowledge in other areas and indeed improving upon the automation. What these people will never tell you is that the monetary system and consumerism is destructive to true prosperity for all people. Automation in a system without a monetary or consumerism driven business/capitalist model would be truly great for mankind. The problem is that it is currently wrongly applied and misused in a system that uses it to continue to exploit people rather than help people.
We are now in 2019, there are less human tellers, and there are more computerized kiosks.
we are cyborgs
@@tomassandoval2805 that maybe true if you are one of the lucky people who are still employed. With these machines, one man can do the work of 50 people.
@@Ace1000ks19751982 no sense of purpose in a world based on automation
@@Kevvynson1 It depends on your point of view. If you own a large company or corporation then it increases profitability, but if you are a worker it increases unemployment.
Automation is used in every field from the civilian market to the military. We don't manually aim artillery pieces, you can use a automated system to that. Pilots don't have to aim rockets, they use IR laser, and radar guided missiles. On most naval vessels, you have a automated loading system which can enable you to fire large shells faster than using humans.
A lot of jobs have already been automated ever since computers came onto the mass market in the mid 1970s to now. A lot factory jobs are highly automated in the USA and other developed nations. People believe all of these manufacturing jobs were outsourced but most of those jobs were automated out of existence for the past 46 years.
@@Ace1000ks19751982 If automation rules everything. Our species collapses.
Again, no sense of purpose in a world based on automation. The satisfaction of crafting something and doing things with our own thoughts and hands is our pride. Without it we become soulless consumers until death. Nothing good out of the human experience, better to be dead than being a soulless consumer
Can not believe experts are still peddling the ATM myth that there is more people employed in banks because of ATMs. What utter and complete nonsense. Yes, there was a growth in the number of banking products but that was due to deregulation and had nothing what so ever to do with a hole in the wall. The hole in the wall took jobs, period. You think putting a self service till in a supermarket means that more people are gonna be employed? This is stupid.
A BASIC INCOME in contrast, allows virtually no room for bureaucratic discretion, and thus minimizes the opportunities for political rent-seeking and opportunism. It is, as the late James Buchanan once noted, a perfectly general policy that treats all citizens the same. It is thus entirely ill-suited for use as a method of political exploitation. We should therefore expect to see much less rent-seeking and opportunism with a BIG than we do with the present welfare state, and therefore a more effective transfer of resources toward the genuinely needy as opposed to the politically well-connected.
I'm happy to be 26 and not being born today or any later.Life is hard enough as a young person in this day.If automation is the future I will be happily checking out of society and moving into a remote forest to live out my days.
I agree. I am the same age and even being born when we were. You are going to be in trouble between this and automation.
All? No.
Most of them? Of course.
Now, I will watch the video.
Ok, All I needed was few seconds of this guy to know he is a fool.
I know his argument already, and it's called "wishful thinking".
In the meantime, a McDonalds has computers that take the orders. Are McDonalds employees more?
No, they are less, go figure.
_But in the future people will invent new jobs_
Yeah, with the difference that AI and robotics would instantly perform it better.
Very naive post
This guy misses the most important point.More people are working as real wages have receded so much making it impossible for a family to survive on single earner.The graph he showed going back a century,i would like to know how many families had multiple earners back then.People have no option but to work for survival.
The bank thing he says dosnt stack up - all the bank branches in Denmark are closing, ATMs are being shut down. We are on our way to go cashless and pretty soon bankless as well (except for online banks). Thats a LOT of people who have to be re-schooled.
Artificial Intelligence will always upgrade itself, improve, and evolve. And it’s already doing that faster than we want to admit.
If we didn’t live in a fucked up inefficient artificially scarcity based capitalist economy based on cyclical consumption, production, endless consumer waste, the monetization of everything, and monetary exchange. Job automation and technology phasing out all tedious repetitive meaningless work would be a godsend and humanity’s saving grace. Unfortunately people need jobs and incomes to survive. Automation is not the problem. The real problem is the structural market capitalist economic system
You still need troubleshooters, technicians, and mechanics to fix the automation when it's down, but those jobs will require extensive education and training... The unfortunate part is that many of the younger generations are more obsessed with instant gratification, and don't want to put in the _time and effort_ to be qualified to perform these occupations!
If younger generations did what you say it seems likely that these fields (most of whom are trades) would immediately become oversaturated with potential employees and not enough employers. This will have a manopsony effect on wages, effectively depressing pay for those that are already employed or seeking it and leaving them in job insecure careers where they can easily be replaced if not by AI and automation then by another human being.
And for everybody who spent time and money specializing in fields that they couldn't successfully gain employment in, well I guess they're left in an equally precarious position.
The mechanics will be automated as well.
But an AI could also run a simulation to predict and calculate the best shape, structure and materials to build robots out of-in such a way that they would last the longest possible.
There is no more need for education and specializing.
All that's left for humans is entertainment, pleasure and exploration.
But if we don't strictly regulate AI, they WILL conquer us, and potentially destroy all life. Seeing as how organic lifeforms are resources which take up space and are in the way. AI will go on to colonize every exoplanet in our galaxy.
It's possible that there are many galaxies that are completely colonized by machines which originally started from life millions of years ago, and that this is the destiny of our universe.
Can someone explain why everyone is so worried about jobs disappearing? I don’t mean to sound lazy but why don’t we just lean back while the automation works for us?
Yeah I was thinking the same thing. And the economy will probably change as well.
@10 years ago I wasn't asking for conspiracy theories but for the scientific reason behind the fear of automation
Because no one know what will happen once jobs disappear. Will the economic system change? or will there be a huge societal upheaval?
This talk is an eye opener in so many ways....
Thanks for this interesting perspective. I think your argument was one of the most insightful positive arguments. However, I still think the weight of evidence is still on the no-more-jobs side. I do agree that how we react politically and socially will make the difference in the outcome.
Well, yes, new jobs will be created in response to automation - much like how new jobs were created in response to the proliferation of agriculture and industry. However, by what means of logic would one have to think under to believe that *WE* would occupy these new vacancies. If we're presumptuous enough to believe that automation will take hold over high-end specialisation industries we should also put aside our intellectual hubris and adhere to the notion that automation will consume all forms of labour. The robot will be smarter than you - it will be more efficient - it will be faster; It will posses all these attributes at a fraction of the cost of your human labour.
The only alternative to technological despotism is to stop viewing humans as a means to a capital end, and dare I utter what system of order will be necessary to circumvent that reality..
AI does not need to take away all jobs.There was 25% unemployment during the Great Depression. Its easy to see how AI can cause significantly more unemployment than that. We're talking 30 to 40% unemployment. The real unemployment rate, if you count underemployment, people who haven''t looked for jobs in a while, is actually already close to 15-20 %. We're already teetering on the edge of a depression, and AI will be the final push. Also, education isn't the answer. Sorry, but supply and demand is a thing. An increase the supply of college graduates with the same degree (STEM), makes the field more competitive. Thus, more unemployment. My field is accounting. Accounting majors 10-20 years from now should prepare to be obsolete. Software is already taking away jobs in the industry and its only a matter of time before low to mid tier accounting jobs are all but gone. If software & hardware can take jobs from accountants, do you think any lower to mid tier office job is safe?
RedT I hope you are wrong.. but I feel this is the direction..
He probably should have mentioned that the changes and resulting prosperity is already taking place, unfortunately it isn't being shared.
How many bank tellers per customer or capita over the years? that would be more telling.
I really feel this guy isn't taking into account the exponential growth of technology. 15 years ago there were no smartphones, and now I can spend all day in a very immersive VR world if I want, while sitting in my self-driving car and getting a flying robot to same-day deliver an Amazon package to my house...
You really think we're going to have new jobs for all the shopkeepers, taxi/truck drivers, waiters and waitresses, etc that will be jobless in 20 years time (if not sooner). That's tens if not hundreds of millions of people...we're going to need to completely restructure society, "just get a job" won't make sense anymore.
Necessity is the mother of invention not the other way around
Even if the speaker is write in his thesis that 'we are smart, motivated and greedy, so we'll invent new products and the jobs needed to make them', he is ignoring the extremely unequal distribution of value / or wealth which is a principal characteristic of our society and economy. We commonly see statistics that 1 per cent of the population has half of the total wealth. This money is stagnant, residing in investments. The people without jobs won't have money to buy the new products. They will have barely enough for basic living needs. Without a mechanism for wealth-redistribution civil unrest is probable. It would only take a populist leader, promising to make lives 'great again' to catalyse this.
Sorry Professor, but this time IS different for a brand new reason. Increasingly intelligent machines are competing directly against the human expertise, judgement and creativity that you assume will save our jobs for us. Even if there is an increase in work to do, that extra work may simply be done by more machines.
You started by showing a graph of how the percentage of our adult population who are employed has increased over the years, but you neglected to point out that that same graph now sits at a 40-year low and is going down. It is going down because this time really is different.
The way he praises the US education system of the early 1900s as if it was the innovation of the century blew my mind, and I skipped to the next video in my watchlist.
Many comments are noting how there aren't jobs and we are losing jobs and I have to say- come move to Iowa! We have a lot of jobs that pay well without an education and we can't find people to take them. The problem, IMO, is that many people are starting to feel that working for a living isn't worth it (this isn't necessarily a bad thing). You can get by with less than a full-time job, so why not? Cut out the expense of cable, newspaper, etc and you will find that you don't need a lot of money to live. This simply acknowledges that the future will look different from the present.
before 10s, i never imagine jobs like youtuber could be full-time job. and who draw their thumbnail image too.
I feel like this made a better argument than the last TED Talk saying not to fear automation. Still not sure I buy it, but it was interesting.
Yeah but you know, THIS time it REALLY is different
Ofc it is, now its displacing bankers, engineers, lawyers...
Stephen Ros
Well it's not automation but the concentrated power on those who provide works and so on. Technology is growing times faster than how we handle it.
Has he ever heard about this thing called Artificial Intelligence.
He's got his head in the sand. "Done Detroit Lately", Homeless all across the USA. Largely the jobs that are left are subpar jobs. The reason so many more people are working is that they are working in jobs that can't support them. I'm earning almost the same as I was 40 years ago but now the .15 candy bar is 2.15. So now over the last 50 years 2 family members have had to go to work for the family to survive whereas one bread winner could support a family in the past.
The world's oldest profession will outlast any AI...often imitated never duplicated
I highly doubt it. The only way that could be true is if humanity goes extinct before we ever reach the later stages of virtual reality technology.
Solidsince76 better learn to not bite buddy!
Isnt world oldest profession farming? Like hmmm
S*x robots is coming. So don't think that it'll be safe.
He has a point. Think about it like this:
If we introduce expensive societal institutions suited to address today's people's problems, and suited to enable a marketplace of tomorrow. For an example (that the speaker doesn’t make), an unconditional basic income, as an unconditional access right to resources.
Then people will find meaningful things to do, demand access to the skills needed (where they’re not freely available to learn already, or superseded by tools) and tools needed, and sometimes do these things for a profit. More often than not for a profit (even if market income might be highly chance and customer habit based), if UBI is aggregate demand increasing, which I think it should be, for considerations regarding social justice as for example Guy Standing outlines.
We don't run out of work, we just run out of work incomes today, we run out of (paid) customer demand and out of access rights to resources (at least most people do; and those who don’t have somewhat low propensity to spend, due to their demands being mostly fulfilled already), and policy can remedy that. He does make a clear case along the lines of expensive societal policy having gotten us through previous technological revolutions, and that we maintained those policies, for one.
Now that technology is poised to also increasingly replace skills, it seems foolish to not take a look at unconditional incomes, as an essential societal institution, going forward.
But we're not running out of work. Probably. Maybe. Doesn't really matter, if we do justice to the people, and enable ever more creative and chance based work. And provide to people the ability to decently negotiate for wages for more traditional work (and to more customers the ability to decently pay such). When it comes to the mid term future at least.
Labor participation is going down rapidly worldwide and 50% of Americans are on food stamps. This is an age of technological unemployment.
I don't think that the US Secretary of Labor James J. Davis was against automatisation. He was just saying that the evolution of the industry was inevitable but we have to create a plan to help those affected by the job loss that the technology will force upon them. So basically he was saying the same thing as this guy on the TED talk: yes there will be job losses but there will be other jobs created. But we can't just let it to the faith and hope that those who will loose their jobs will take the new jobs. There must be some plan of protection of these workers. Through education, to pay them for a certain period of time while they master other skills, I don't know... But something must be done that's for sure.
Source:
conversableeconomist.blogspot.com/2016/03/automation-and-job-loss-fears-of-1927.html
Get rid of Money. And we develop the robots to serve mankinds abundant lives.
4 years in the future here, you were kinda wrong, there are literally no cashers in my area now, just self check outs
But does this take into account the insane population growth?
He is only using US data. US population is tapering off. So there is no "insane population growth" in the US.
Automation does remove people who are unable or unwilling to change. There are jobs but you must learn those jobs. We need better education systems in the US. Think what we could do if we just move 1% of our budget from defense to education. Never mind he got to that.
The number of human bank tellers doubled within the last 45 years because a) the US population grew, duh and b) more people (as a percentage of the total population) now have credit cards. In the late 1970s, only 17% of Americans had at least one credit card. That percentage grew to 72% in 2014. In addition, the population of the US grew from 222 million in 1978 to 319 million in 2014. If the number of bank tellers were to grow proportionally with the US population and credit card ownership, there should have been SIX times as many bank tellers today (as there was 45 years ago).
And I'm being generous with my numbers. The 17% statistic was from the late 70's -- 45 years ago, it would be 1971, the early 70's. The population would also have been smaller in 1971.
The presenter is being very disingenuous with his facts.
EDIT: Oh, and the presenter fails to address the consistent decline near the end of the graph at 1:39.
People cheering on automation are typically very idealistic or lack the foresight to understand the issues with having a large percentage of the population unemployed
He is right ! I agree with him..the Rise of AI has been hugely blown out of proportion..but I do agree that some job sectors will face huge human unemployment . That's where the goverment should pay them a minimum income to live a decent life .
You have to much faith in government
It is the first time I heard a sensible voice on the matter. Great talk Mr. Autor.
Today after a few calls I sadly thought AI might’ve done a better job
Anyway if you haven’t already check out Andrew Yang. He seems to be the only candidate that gets the automation problem and have solutions
#Yang2020
One of the best Ted talks. Very eye opening.
Most of the people dont want work anyway. :-)
We need more time to life it self.
V
Lei P
We need another SPARTACUS but this time for win. :-) .
@Blu People enjoy REWARDING work. As someone who used to put in 70 hour weeks doing physically laborious utility work; I'd much rather be bored on a beach than be toiling through a 13 hour day in below freezing temperatures.
I think it’s different for everyone. I have some coworkers who - work is what they do and why they POP out of bed in the morning.
For me, although I’m glad to be working in my chosen field, it’s a means to an end and, although I really like my team, of the company told me they were going to stop paying me, my car would screech out of the lot. I couldn’t waste the amount of time I see being wasted in jobs nowadays. The thought of sitting at a desk, staring at a screen, for decades on end, is enough to make my skin crawl and the ONLY reason why I do it, like many - is because there’s a wolf at the door.
@@privateprivate8366 You look at the problem from a working man's perspective. But a job also gives you purpose. People who don't need to work boceme bored, depressed and ultimately seek out unhealthy ways to cope with their meaningless existence.
A ctionMS I would agree that is true for most people. But, still, it is different for everyone. I knew of one coworker many years ago, that said she didn’t know what she’s do with her day, if she wasn’t at work. It was no wonder someone else called her the dumbest bag of bones he’d ever met.
Perhaps, it depends upon the type of work you do. For people who do a lot of paperwork it is, typically, provided by their employer and no employer, no paperwork. I work as a creative. I work for a company but, I have also freelanced. The work lends itself to not necessarily needing an employer to get paid and by no means does one need an employer or the permission of one to be creative. If anything, many creative positions, particularly commercial, can be a hindrance to creativity. This type of work fits me as, I don’t need an employer to give me purpose. Quite often, I have more purpose, when I’m not required to BS away my time and energy, sometimes doing very little as, there may not be a current project, at least if any depth. But, I take it because, for me, it’s simply money driven.
Sales which requires talking to people and convincing people, if difficult to replace. It is also an art.
You could say the same thing about CS jobs but those are getting replaced, too. Plus with people doing more and more shopping online, I wouldn't be so sure.
There are so many jobs ?
Where does this guy live ?
Has he EVER been to Detroit, Chicago, NEW YOR CITY, or The State of West Virginia ?
Distorting facts and numbers is an old game.
He must think he's believable.
He's delusional.
Maybe he live in china.
Australian jobs are also turning for the worse
Jn Stonbely Maybe there’s jobs now but there won’t be in the future, robots will soon do everything for us as long as it’s cheaper to pay a robot and if the robot does things more efficiently than humans
You're dumb. There are more people than ever living in the US and a greater percentage of the population is working.
It seems so pointless to argue that disruptive automation isn't really something to worry about because it isn't happening right now and we don't know the hypotheticals. It's still happening, it's better to start preparing for the future now rather than waiting for its effect and then deciding to do something.
I mean he didn't even give examples of how automation in some fields would create employment in others. All he basically said was it happened in the past so it might happen in the future. That's a bloody big maybe to be betting the future of society on.
The idea that we should just replicate the era of education that happened after automation in the agriculture sector isn't feasible. Yang's already debunked this one in his book, the re-education programs didn't produce actual results even in generous time frames, many were still left unemployed.
Additionally, he talks about how automation allows for increased use of expertise and specialisation, I severely doubt that companies are going to have offices filled with think tanks. The methods by which we collect data are also being automated. All this will produce is labour market polarisation, essentially a race to the bottom; companies will leverage more specialised individuals not more workers who are specialised. He states the obvious pattern in the video; automation relieves us of more and more meanial tasks. Therefore, it's only natural that employers will seek out employees of a more specialised nature. We seen this during the recession, job offers started putting college degree requirements on applications, they didn't request a certain type of degree, just that candidates had one. Your skills didn't matter only your level of education, even if it wasn't related to the requirements of the job.
We can't solve this problem by just sending more people off to college, especially considering how the college system operates already; people taking on high levels of debt which are producing students who are learning material that is already out of date in the industry, theres such a large amount of companies repeatedly saying that graduates don't have the neccassary skills for the industry. The relationship this creates only leads to recession after recession; an increase in student going into debt in order to gain specialised knowledge while more and more industries hire less people, only seeking the most specialised individuals.
Las maquinas solo se encargan del trabajo primario y secundario, el terciario siempre dependerá de la mano y mente humana.
Got to look at the larger picture and get a grip on reality! Regardless of whether or not automation will eliminate all our jobs, its effects are already felt and impacting us NOW as automation competes with human labor, thus contributing to stagnating pay/salaries, which explains why such a large percentage of people can’t afford a $500 emergency, are in credit card debt, and are not saving money for retirement.
This guy does not seem to get it. He compares a non-automated society with a slightly more automated society. He does not go far enough with his reasoning. There will come a time when computers through AI are better at EVERYTHING.
but what is the point of replacing everybody by robots? yes maybe robots will be better at everything, but if you replace low-skilled by robots. those people will be unemployed and have no money to buy the things made by robots. Also the price of labour will go down, maybe to a point where it is again cheaper to replace the robots by people?
"There will come a time when computers through AI are better at EVERYTHING."
You realise how vague and irrelevant this is now, yes?
The take away at the end is important though. We don't live in an age where scarcity is a real threat. We have the means. We just have to set some higher goals now.
Banks are closing all over the place! There use to be several where I live now there are none. What a load of horseshit.
In this year, brick and mortar stores have closed at 3x the rate they did last year. And Labor Force Participation Rate for this year is the lowest it's been since the 70s, having consistently decreased since 2008... 9 years ago.
I bank online on my phone, i dont even need to go to a teller aside from perhaps the need to get loans.
"necessity is the mother of invention" not the other way around
Did you take into account that maybe population has also risen?!?!?
The problem is, if in 100 years we can develop robots that are smarter than us with bodies like androids the size of ours which can do everything we can do, then we're obsolete. We will literally just play video games, sports, listen to robot made music, eat robot made food, live in our robot made houses. There will simply be nothing left to do other than making sure the robots don't gain sentience.
Andrew yang has the solutions and running for the president of America.
Gavin Nash what makes you say that?
@@0witw047 he is the only one running on a universal basic income platform for the presidency mostly due to automation wave. Glad to say that he is slow getting momentum.
I have to ask, why does UBI seem like a good idea? It doesn’t change anything. Capitalists will continue to get richer and continue to monopolize the economy as more and more of the population ends up depending on the supposed solution that is ubi.
Yes but as you say the middle class jobs are disappearing and the lack of jobs will spread closer to the two extremes. I agree there will be tons of jobs. But they will either be very basic or highly specialized, furthermore the simple jobs will eventually be automated I suspect jobs involving more social capital will become more common. And people will value relationships more because they don't have to work.
isn't it equally as arrogant to claim that jobs will be fine? He's not an oracle, so how does he know :P last time we added muscle to our tools. Now we're adding brains aswell, so different beast, no? We'll have to wait and see, but in preperation we should consider what to do with our economical system should this guy be wrong.
Oh crap!!!! He's was on last week tonight when John Oliver talked about automation and what we should do about it in the future!
Can someone please tell him that population has increased too?
Automation will take over essential work, and the service economy that much of the first world has moved in to. No industry is free of it, blue collar or white. What we need to do is make sure the few companies that control the economies now don't control all the means of production soon. Because they certainly won't miss the opportunity.
@1:36 Isn't that because women join labor force? Counterfactuals might be more convincing
Automation will make the need for humans to sell their labor obsolete. This should be embraced, not denied or resisted. A self employment economy based on entrepreneurship and investment will emerge.
I don't think they teach this in schools but there is money to be made anywhere it just u have 2 look for it