Ninety-Nine Percent Automation: Now What?

Charles Murray's In Our Hands might be interesting.

WE basically have UBI already through government assistance programs, so you probably wouldn't even notice the gradual change over 100 years that it would take for a 90% automated workforce to evolve...as to where the money comes from...

Where else? automated printing press...

The 'welfare program for people in need' will become the 'Well and Fair program for people'.

Art and science will become the only legitimate forms employment / currency to lift people above the basic provided income.

A change is coming. Our form of capitalism has performed well to bring us to this point. The limit of its utility is approaching though, because there are some fundamental limits beyond which capitalism doesn't work,

A limit that is still in the distant future, is the point when the average worker can produce more in their working lifetime than they plus their non working proportional contingent can reasonably consume in their lifetime. With increasing efficiency, with the system in place, this would eventually occur. The result would likely be huge instability and a devastating deflationary spiral, if left unchecked.

Other limits probably come into play earlier. When the average worker can produce more in their working life than the average worker plus nonworking proportional contingent can afford to buy (or what will be permissibly spent by the top wealth 1%) there is a similar risk of severe deflationary spiral.

.

Basic income is a solution being suggested. Perhaps some version of market driven communism could work. Bjork had some ideas...

Stop pretending that the economy is a zero-sum game. It is not a zero-sum game. From the zero-sum game Wikipedia link subsection on Economics: "Many economic situations are not zero-sum, since valuable goods and services can be created, destroyed, or badly allocated in a number of ways, and any of these will create a net gain or loss of utility to numerous stakeholders."

Just because a single fabricating business achieves fabrication of a product (e.g. paperclip) with 100% automation doesn't mean that product fits every scenario nor other jobs cannot exist.

The problem isn't when one company or even one industry reaches efficiencies for which production outpaces the consumption possible by the number of employees and their nonworking cohort.

The problem is when, in aggregate, the entire economy reaches efficiencies for which production begins to approach what can be consumed in total. The limits of consumption are influenced on many fronts; time available, economics, trade barriers, logistics, etc.

Unless you believe the human is somehow capable of unlimited consumption in a limited lifetime, or that there is some as-of-yet unseen limit on increases in productivity/efficiency, then attempting to rationalize a denial of production outpacing the employment opportunitities provided by such production has got to be a worthwhile spectacle.....

...if anyone cares to elaborate that rationalization, I'd love to see it.

I still don't see a problem here. I see the natural struggles of life and business. When production exceeds consumption inefficient producers struggle or just die off until an equilibrium happens. When consumption exceeds production the profit for producers can bloom until consumption wanes.

You are missing an important part. As productivity per employee increases with technological advances, the unavoidable correlary is that for the same amount of production, less people are employed/paid.

That would be just fine if there was no limit on the ability to consume ever increasing production. In reality, consumption ability is not unlimited. Worse yet, ability to consume in total depends on earnings/employment.

The result is that when productivity gets so high that the total ability to consume can be met with far less than full employment, there is no rebalancing. It is no longer a system that adjusts toward eventual stability.

Increased productivity eventually results in fewer people being required to fulfill the need. That is fine as long as the displaced workers can shift to some other purpose supported by the ability of the masses to consume the end result of that purpose.

The end game for capitalism is stark. Capitalism did an amazing job of bringing us to this point, but there is a clear problem that is beginning to materialize.

Your worries are nothing more than the Luddite Fallacy.

IMHO:

If you eliminate corporate greed,lust for power,envy and control from the equations, you may be right.

But the only way to eliminate all of that is by human extinction,so we are stuck with the realistic case of all the power being in the hands of a select few that inherited the power from their families,or the occasional exception to the rule of the entrepreneur that creates a new corporation,which will eventually succumb to the same forces,and nepotism will prevail.

Society will revert back to a caste society unless a solution can be found.

And the changes that are required will be resisted by those currently in power,whether in government,religion or industry.

Borders will become meaningless.There will be more one-on-one trade,with a universal currency of credits,of some type.

3D printing will make mass production, in it's current form totally different,with more customization for individuals.

A lot of manufacturing will be done in the home.

No longer required to take something off the rack if that is not exactly what you want.

I can not predict what the future holds,but it will be very different in terms of the economy than the present state.

Redfred,

Your response is nothing more than an ad homenem attack with a link. It isn't a rebuttal, nor even indication you have attempted to understand what is being asserted.

I am not opposed to technological advancement. I think for myself and in doing so, don't believe something merely because there is a website pushing that point of view.

Upon careful consideration, I believe the ability for humans to consume services and goods cannot grow without bounds. Will you comment on this aspect in and of itself? We may actually have a discussion if you can talk about what I am actually asserting rather than attempting to pigeon hole what I'm saying into some familiar idea you have already passed judgement on.

Technology is a great thing when it can be utilized for the betterment of humanity. If we can implement a system in which technology relieves people of toil, and doesn't put downward pressure on their income, then things will be much better than what is beginning to happen now.

An ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy argument based on attacking the character or motive of the individual you are rebutting. I did not attack you or anyone else. I did indicate that I perceived the worries to be nothing more than a well known economic fallacy with the name of the Luddite Fallacy. I and many others can and will again be persuaded by false arguments. The fact that I identified this false argument casts no aspersions on the integrity on the individual making this argument, just on the argument itself.

As for the ability for humans to consume services and goods without bounds, this obviously cannot happen. However, I say that this argument fits the very definition of an "inductive hyperbole" fallacy. The fact that humanity cannot consume forever does not mean that consumption must grow or shrink for a long time or even soon.

Implying someone is a Ludite is an attack. Let's leave that alone for now though.

We seem to actually be having a discussion now, so let's continue that.

Okay we agree the ability to consume is not limitless. I would further add that many different factors can limit the ability to consume; population size, average activity level, social constraints, logistics, economics, communication, etc. Let me know if you disagree.

Also, please note what I am pointing out does not require or even suggest that demand must shrink, only that it cannot grow without bounds.

As each industry is updated with new technology allowing productivity increases, via robots or otherwise, the workforce that is displaced will be pushed into other industries....which will soon be made more productive.

All the while the ability to consume is being pushed further and further. Yes things are cheaper, but so many more things and services must be consumed to maintain employment. The ability for technological advances to reduce the need for actual human work is far more of a sure thing that the ability for consumption to continually grow at pace to offset the displacement. Productivity gains are likely to outpace the innovation/creation of new demands/markets for novel goods and services. There are so many potential bottleneck for what would be required to offset the rapid and steady increases in productivity.

I still fail to see how this perspective and this whole thread differs from the worries of Technological Unemployment (LF).

One of the reasons all fallacies can persuade people is that they seem to be plausible. Fallacies also rely on methodical, plausible extrapolations in the constrained domain of a rational mind. Macroeconomics (by definition) is not constrained and it is fundamentally irrational. So trying to extrapolate how a perceived constraint on a macroeconomic concept like consumption limits (not the antique term for tuberculosis) will eventually effect us all is nothing seems to me to be just charging down the rabbit hole of a fallacy.

Nonetheless I do see consumption limit detection as an interesting economic research project proposal. Early detection of a stabilizing or diminishing thirst for one or many commodities can be a very useful metric in business, politics and governance.

Ah, this is so much better now that we are communicating well. Yes. Technological unemployment is exactly what I am describing, and it does indeed involve methodical, plausible extrapolations, constrained to the rational mind. Ya got me. Guilty as charged.

In fifty years, with the continually falling price of computing power and the advent of drones (and similar), what jobs won'the be able to be done better and cheaper by mostly nonhuman means? What percentage of the total economy might those human jobs possibly comprise?

.

Once again, understand, I am not railing agains technological innovation. I am concerned or current system is reaching a point of diminished returns, and may make it more difficult for technology to benifit mankind as a whole going forward.

I guess it'll be a service economy. We'll all get rich selling stuff to each other.

Iot you mean? Its a one heck of a risk of bugging down by some IT guy aka hacker.

skill and effort, that's what

Somebody has to "service/repair" all those automated robots!

Sure, someone has to service /repair the robots. Even when there are service/repair robots, there will still be some jobs that humans do better.

The mere existence of human jobs isn't being threatened (at least not yet). The looming problem is that with technological advances, the time is not too far off when the limits of what can be consumed in total of goods and services requires less than full employment to achieve. At that point, capitalism breaks down.

Whereas in idea communism, the result would be less time spent at one's occupation, the result in capitalism is higher unemployment, leading to less total ability to consume, leading to even higher unemployment, etc. Pretty quickly a deflationary spiral issues.

It isn't a simple self correcting problem of production out-running demand. It is the failure of production to lay sufficient seeds of consumption, by failing to have enough employees earning enough to make sufficient purchases. That isn't something that gets corrected by cutting back on production.

Here is a link to an interesting on-topic article:

A long read,but worth it if oyu are really interested.

https://files.ontario.ca/discussionpaper_nov3_english_final.pdf

Thank you. It is going to take a while to get through it, but it look's interesting

That is where the other 1% comes in.

Imagine this:

A factory making robots.A technician that knows nothing about the internal circuitry or mechanical functions of the robots.

A robot has a problem that it cannot auto-correct,or that other service robots cannot repair.

A notification is sent to the technician,and it appears in his field of vision,either via an implant or contact lens.

Included is a map of the location of the broken bot,and directions guiding the tech to the bot.

When he arrives,and looks at the bot,a blinking dot appears on the control panel door.

He opens the door,and he see a rack of boards.

A blinking light appears on one of the boards.

This is the bad board.

Another bot has meanwhile been dispatched to deliver the part needed to the tech.

He hot swaps the board,gives the old board to the delivery bot for proper disposal or recycling, and goes back to his cueing station,awaiting the next notification.

This is what I see as the maintenance tech of the future.

But then again,what do I know?

Your fantasy contradicts itself. Unless the technician is more nimble at getting to the failed circuit board than available robots, all of this can be performed automatically without human intervention. Now if some troubleshooting is needed to identify the source of the failure then a human technician/engineer is required.

I stated that it was a problem that other bots could not repair.

This was an intermediate step in progress until robots develop the manual dexterity to do what humans can do.

After that, no one will be needed at all.

The pick and place platforms are very well advanced,and could be easily adapted to board swapping,and automatic insertion equipment for PCB's demonstrate the accuracy attainable with automation.

A redesign of the boards and components for automatic replacement would also remove the need for human intervention.

But as for working with existing design,until the industry evolves,it will require a tech to lay hands on at some time.

My life is not automated so I guess I will live.

Where does it say 99% of work is automated? I have 99.9% of my work to do myself.

But I am a bad manager of my management.