from Hacker News

We Need a New Deal to Address the Economic Risks of Automation

by danvideo on 4/3/17, 8:53 AM with 103 comments

• by bsmith on 4/3/17, 11:53 AM

  I disagree with the author here on UBI. The root of the issue goes deeper than deciding to prop up job markets so that there is enough supply of jobs to meet the demand. Based on the arguments in the article, this can only be a temporary fix; eventually automation will take over too many jobs for every person to have one—or at the very least, human labor is a commodity that eventually becomes so cheap that the laborers cannot survive.

  The author seems to be solidly in the 'work == virtue' camp and argues that UBI decreases the incentive to work. While partly true, the REAL work we want done is not menial, but innovative, and leads to the next big breakthroughs that increase productivity and eliminate even MORE jobs. This is capitalism, no? UBI is there so everyone still survives to have a crack at it, if they want to.

  This becomes an ethical question quite quickly: does being born make you worthy of survival?

• by AndrewKemendo on 4/3/17, 11:53 AM

  As usual the chorus will be something along the lines of:

  "Nothing to see here. We've had these shifts before and more jobs will be created than lost and people will transition to new jobs etc..."

  To which the response is, yes that's true, however never have we seen it at such a pace. Shifts are now likely to happen multiple times in a single working lifetime, as opposed to once a generation (1960-2000 - Solid State & industrial automation) or once every third generation (1800-1920 - Industrialization).

  From years 0-1800 you could expect that your children would probably do the same job you and your grandfather did (more than likely farming). From 1950's on, children would likely go into a different line of work than their parents were in. Now it's common for a parent to have multiple careers with completely different skill sets and so on for their children.

  This would be all well and good if one of these options were true:

  1. People could adapt as quickly as advances in machine processes are changing (the outcome of which obviates machine efficiencies)

  2. There was flexibility in the system which would allow people the time to adapt

  The only other way to keep people around and not in poverty conditions would be to decouple human needs from business processes - which is effectively what UBI is trying to do in a roundabout way. I think has interesting long term outcomes, namely that a few dominant machine organizations would feed, clothe, house and train the population.

• by zip1234 on 4/3/17, 12:37 PM

  I'm totally onboard with UBI if it is actually needed. The problem is people PROJECTING that it will be needed. In the current world human labor is very much in demand. Maybe people won't be able to use the specific degree that they went to school for but that just means a bit of retraining and/or a bit of mindset shift. If there is a massive outflux of jobs in America, then there are many questions that need to be answered before even approaching UBI as a solution. For example, "are all countries suffering the same job losses? If not, then why not?"

• by d--b on 4/3/17, 12:16 PM

  You don't really have to speculate. Automation is going to do to the service industry what globalization did to manufacturing. Manufacturing got "automated" away by sending work to places where labor costs next to nothing.

  Did the offshoring of manufacture jobs create joblessness?

  Actually I'm not sure what the answer to that is. According to statistics the US is running at full employment. According to pretty much every other source of information, regions where manufacturing used to happen are devastated by joblessness, drug addiction, and violence...

  I don't know why there is such a disconnect.

• by peacetreefrog on 4/3/17, 11:58 AM

  this guy needs a little more humility. as dan boudreaux writes:

  "It’s called “history.” Since humans first controlled fire and carved arrows, history is a long tale of the invention and use of labor-saving techniques and devices. Domestication of oxen and horses. Pulleys. Levers. Irrigation channels. Metal saws. The printing press. Concrete. The wheel. All save labor, yet none has led to permanent increases in unemployment.

  "It’s true that the pace of introducing new labor-saving techniques has magnificently quickened in the past two hundred years. This fast pace continues today. Yet still we encounter no evidence that labor-saving techniques permanently increase unemployment.

  "You’ll reply “This time is different!” Perhaps, but I doubt it"

• by digitalzombie on 4/3/17, 12:46 PM

  Automation is going to happen anyway.

  There are several ways we can deal with it.

  1. We can set up a social safety net to transition displaced workers to a new trade/career.

  2. Protectionism.

  3. We do nothing.

  4. basic income

  ---

  Doing nothing is silly.

  Basic income isn't going to pass in USA, universal healthcare haven't even pass yet.

  Protectionism goes against capitalism and it doesn't help in the long run. It just extend a dying market like coals. We chose to become specialized a long time ago and not specializing is crazy.

  So the most sensible thing is a safety net.

• by jmmcd on 4/3/17, 1:05 PM

  > UBI reduces the incentive to work, and risks stranding millions of people in a subsistence living trap, able to just about get by, but cut off from the opportunity for upward mobility, as this essay details well.

  The claim is prima facie false, so I looked at the source provided ("this essay" is [1]) and it doesn't support that claim AT ALL.

  [1] https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601499/basic-income-a-sel...

• by itchyjunk on 4/3/17, 11:44 AM

  I think i've read one too many articles on the "oh no, the robots will flip our burgers. Let's make burgers that's unflippable by robots so we can keep doing it." Even people who don't mind working, maybe loves working will be okay with automating things and moving on. They will have other things in their hobby list/ bucket list/ garage that they have been meaning to work on.

  I understand these articles are still needed/useful for people not yet aware about this issue so it's not a criticism of the article but of myself.

• by huffmsa on 4/3/17, 12:37 PM

  We just need to accept Marx was right, but he got the timescale wrong. I say this as a staunch Randian. I just can't not see the obvious trend towards the future.

  Pixar's WALL-E is the Marxist utopia we'll soon be living in.

  No one wants for anything.

• by adynatos on 4/3/17, 1:16 PM

  "There’s been downward pressure on jobs since the Industrial Revolution due to leaps in productivity brought about by human ingenuity and lucky discoveries." [citation needed] there were never more jobs

• by ganfortran on 4/3/17, 11:45 AM

  Tax the robot

• by behnamoh on 4/3/17, 11:25 AM

  Automation is the natural consequence of computer technology, which is a natural consequence of human intelligence. Any effort to fight or control automation is doomed.

  Believe it or not, the future is gonna be much different and you either accept it, or get crushed by the power of The Machine.