Automation and robotics will create more jobs (employment, average, transaction)

[branh0913]

The age old argument is that computers and robots will come forth and replace all human jobs. Yet anytime things have been automated it has led to more jobs. Now how can that be? Well it's really quite simple, because demands and needs change. And automation creates new demands and new needs not previous needed. Now I'll present one really good scenario:


McDonalds:


Let's say McDonalds decide to reduce it's in restaurant staff in majority of it's restaurants. It basically only want 1 staff member on any given 8 hour shift. To achieve that, it will allow it's customers to use kiosk, and it will use in store assembly to assemble burgers in other items in the menus. So in the average McDonalds let's say there are usually 5 people on staff per shift. Meaning the store has anywhere between 15-20 people who work in the restaurants. Now there are only 3 people, no including the manager.

So the first thing people would look at is that at least 12-17 people now lost their jobs. And that's true, if we were looking only at a particular restaraunt. One would even say if McDonald did this at all of it's corporate and franchise stores we would see an astronomical loss in jobs. And I would say that's true. But think of this for a minute...

The size of a McDonald becomes smaller, and the overall congestion at a McDonalds goes down as well. How? Because since a McDonalds store only needs an assembly line, and kiosk, that means that McDonalds are more compact in general. And since the price of creating restaurants have become less, then that means they can probably create a lot more restaurants.


This is also important for the staff, as there job becomes a lot more technical. Instead of simply delivering hamburgers, what they instead do is manage the delivery of hamburgers. This means they're probably more concerned with ordering food for the restaraunt, managing the inventory, and managing the flow of money into the restaraunt. They are also probably going to do rudimentary maintanence on kiosk and escalate issues with software.

But still this doesn't say how this would create more jobs. Well here it is. Since you create more McDonalds, that creates more demand for assembly lines in stores. This creates more need for a support staff who is remote, and this creates more needs for kiosk. We must understand that this sophiscated supply chain for just a single store creates a major need and demand not previously seen. Because McDonalds is now producing more overall volume for less money, the demand for more equipment, and people who can build it skyrockets.

Now we've create economic activity. Because every machine needs to be built, every piece of software needs to be supported, and quality needs to constantly be assured. For every robot that exist there needs to be someone who builds them. And this will create explosive economic growth.


I closing, there have always been people who stood in the way of technological progress due to fear. But the only reason why we're a rich world is due to technology. So why do we care if we get rid of a dozen positions yet create thousands more?

[emathias]

What makes this revolution different from past ones is that *this* time, we are making things that can make themselves, and they are far more reliable than machines of the past. How many techs will you need when you are making equipment that breaks down so infrequently that it's usually just replaced if it has a problem, and when the new machines are all made by other machines, loaded on delivery trucks automatically, and the delivery trucks drive themselves to the destination and the replacement machine is installed by a robot? And not only that, but we're very close to software being able to write itself. To find its own problems and fix its own bugs. That's not science fiction anymore, it's just not universally available yet. But it will be, and in our lifetimes.

Automation has already decimated certain industries. Automation in steel eliminated tens of thousands of jobs. Automation in manufacturing eliminated hundreds of thousands of jobs. In places where those jobs were lost there is STILL economic hardship. And that was the tip of the iceberg. Another big problem is that a large portion of the people who do jobs that can be easily automated often can't do more skilled work - literally are incapable even with training. Some workers can be retrained, but automation will work its way up the payscale and over the next 100 years more and more jobs will be given to robots. In 100 years we may not even have lawyers or doctors, let alone food service workers, and if we do it'll just be because certain classes of people will insist on going to a human doctor. But in the long run? Yeah, no human doctors, there simply won't be a need. It's like self-driving cars - people worry about accidents with them, but self-driving cars don't need to be accident-free to be accepted, they just need to not have more accidents than human drivers and, unlike human drivers, computer drivers will be constantly improving and, once common, safety rates for driving will improve dramatically. Computer doctors will be the same way and once they reach a certain level will become ubiquitous and in a connected world, every "doctor" will instantly know every medical thing. There will be an increase in robotic policing, however I think because of the range of movement a police officer needs, full automation of police work is probably still 100 years away - but in the mean time, police forces will be supplemented with more drones, more observational self-driven police scout cars and improved data collection, analysis and distribution. We're not that far from making every police car able to automatically check the plates and stickers of every single car it passes, whether parked or being driven, for example.

Over the next 100 years what we'll see first is wage stagnation as automation pressures wages down to compete with machines. We're already seeing that, and I think a strong argument can be made that the reason wages haven't gone up even with improved efficiency over the past 15 years is because of the reduced demand for workers. Knowledge workers are still seeing increases in wages because they're enabling this revolution, but that, too, will change.

Then we'll see the class of unemployable people grow from the few percent it is now, to the low double-digits. I would expect that class size could be as big as 25% by 2116. But by 2216, the "economically unemployable" class size will be a majority and people who work because they want to, not because they have to. That assumes we make it to 2216 - if we don't figure out what to do with a working-age population of unemployable people that's in the double-digits by 2116, there will be social unrest, and a very real risk of societal collapse. Whether we think its moral or not, there will have to be a "minimum income" plan by 2100, at least in the wealthy countries, and maybe globally. And by 2200, we'll either be in a new Dark Age, or there will be global minimum income in place, with a high likelihood of the majority of people not being paid for work.

That may sound like a terrifying thing, and in some ways it is, but that will liberate a lot of people to do more creative things. Lazy people will be lazy, but people who are self-motivated will be freed to do things they love without having to take a low-wage job just to get by. Artists can make more art - I think there will be a market for automated artwork, but the market for human-crafted works of art will still be alive and probably even do better than today. You may have people band together and form hobby farm collectives.

[An Einnseanair]

You're making the classic overeducated economists' argument about better-paying jobs replacing low-skilled jobs. People who only read books and talk in classrooms instead of looking at the real world are trying to postulate and dictate how the real world works. Or even worse, you read a book or listened to some ultra-rich talk show host rant about life really works and actually believed him.

emathias' "unemployable class" is dead-on. Take the person who barely graduates high school with a C- average who could never finish a college degree. Timing how long potatoes need to be submerged in hot grease is about as technical as they can get. Are you honestly suggesting that this person could get hired to work in a high-tech factory that produces robots?

Or take someone who had to drop out of high school because she got pregnant or his girlfriend got pregnant. This person needs to work at least one and preferably two jobs continuously to pay bills. When, exactly, does this person have time to obtain training for a robot management job in your mythical world? Where, exactly, would this minimum wage worker get the money to pay for robot management training? Or are you suggesting a taxpayer-funded training program? Say, a tax/fee on all hamburger-flipping robots sufficient to pay for training all the out-of-work human former hamburger flippers?

I'm not saying we should shun technology. My industry is very technology centric, so we're constantly training in new means and methods to make our work more efficient. I'm lead in writing simple in-house programs to replace repetitive processes with computing power. But I'm well aware of the fact that if we now can do a job in 2000-man-hours that used to require 4000-man-hours, that's a man-year where we suddenly don't need a person. So we need to either obtain more work (more clients) or else let someone go. So far we've manged the change with natural attrition (retirees) and increased client base, but that won't last forever.

The real irony is this:
- The ultra conservatives who advocate for the myth of pure capitalism state that in their mythical world the underclass will simply be re-trained for higher skilled jobs.
- The ultra conservatives refuse to pay for such retraining, and the under-class does not have the time nor the money for re-training, so it doesn't happen.
- The unemployable underclass grows, significantly increasing the burden on taxpayer-funded social welfare programs.
- The ultra conservatives b**ch and moan about all the people on welfare who don't work for a living.

[Anika783]

I wonder if in the future fully automated world there may be a market for "human-produced" goods, in the same manner as there is demand for "Made in America" "Organic" and "GMO Free" today... "Robot-Free" anyone?

[branh0913]

Originally Posted by emathias

What makes this revolution different from past ones is that *this* time, we are making things that can make themselves, and they are far more reliable than machines of the past. How many techs will you need when you are making equipment that breaks down so infrequently that it's usually just replaced if it has a problem, and when the new machines are all made by other machines, loaded on delivery trucks automatically, and the delivery trucks drive themselves to the destination and the replacement machine is installed by a robot? And not only that, but we're very close to software being able to write itself. To find its own problems and fix its own bugs. That's not science fiction anymore, it's just not universally available yet. But it will be, and in our lifetimes.

Automation has already decimated certain industries. Automation in steel eliminated tens of thousands of jobs. Automation in manufacturing eliminated hundreds of thousands of jobs. In places where those jobs were lost there is STILL economic hardship. And that was the tip of the iceberg. Another big problem is that a large portion of the people who do jobs that can be easily automated often can't do more skilled work - literally are incapable even with training. Some workers can be retrained, but automation will work its way up the payscale and over the next 100 years more and more jobs will be given to robots. In 100 years we may not even have lawyers or doctors, let alone food service workers, and if we do it'll just be because certain classes of people will insist on going to a human doctor. But in the long run? Yeah, no human doctors, there simply won't be a need. It's like self-driving cars - people worry about accidents with them, but self-driving cars don't need to be accident-free to be accepted, they just need to not have more accidents than human drivers and, unlike human drivers, computer drivers will be constantly improving and, once common, safety rates for driving will improve dramatically. Computer doctors will be the same way and once they reach a certain level will become ubiquitous and in a connected world, every "doctor" will instantly know every medical thing. There will be an increase in robotic policing, however I think because of the range of movement a police officer needs, full automation of police work is probably still 100 years away - but in the mean time, police forces will be supplemented with more drones, more observational self-driven police scout cars and improved data collection, analysis and distribution. We're not that far from making every police car able to automatically check the plates and stickers of every single car it passes, whether parked or being driven, for example.

Over the next 100 years what we'll see first is wage stagnation as automation pressures wages down to compete with machines. We're already seeing that, and I think a strong argument can be made that the reason wages haven't gone up even with improved efficiency over the past 15 years is because of the reduced demand for workers. Knowledge workers are still seeing increases in wages because they're enabling this revolution, but that, too, will change.

Then we'll see the class of unemployable people grow from the few percent it is now, to the low double-digits. I would expect that class size could be as big as 25% by 2116. But by 2216, the "economically unemployable" class size will be a majority and people who work because they want to, not because they have to. That assumes we make it to 2216 - if we don't figure out what to do with a working-age population of unemployable people that's in the double-digits by 2116, there will be social unrest, and a very real risk of societal collapse. Whether we think its moral or not, there will have to be a "minimum income" plan by 2100, at least in the wealthy countries, and maybe globally. And by 2200, we'll either be in a new Dark Age, or there will be global minimum income in place, with a high likelihood of the majority of people not being paid for work.

That may sound like a terrifying thing, and in some ways it is, but that will liberate a lot of people to do more creative things. Lazy people will be lazy, but people who are self-motivated will be freed to do things they love without having to take a low-wage job just to get by. Artists can make more art - I think there will be a market for automated artwork, but the market for human-crafted works of art will still be alive and probably even do better than today. You may have people band together and form hobby farm collectives.

Classic arguments. So let me first address the "machine building machine" myths. If machines build machines, then who builds the machines that build machines? Furthermore, macines need power, who powers the macine? Machines have bugs and glitches, who fix the machines? Other machines or humans. Even if you have a fully autonomous setup, which you can't, more than likely humans would still need to come up with better models all the time. Where there are products, there are complaints. And companies would spend a lot of their time trying to upgrade these robots.

We also forget about the complexities of business models. Every business needs different levels of security for one. Some model of robots don't necessarily fit a general purpose need. Some people really won't like the software and the encryption in robots. And that within itself is a new market.


But I'm sure your real concern is "where do all the unskilled people get jobs"? Well that's very simple, they simply fail to be unskilled. Now i bet you're saying that's proposterous. But let's think for a second. Everybody in the world no matter how poor or how dumb they are has a cellphone. And I think we forget just how sophisticated a cellphone is. While many of us look at cellphone as an afterthought. Let's take a cellphone and place it in the year 1865. And now let's see how many people are even qualified to operate a cellphone at that time.

Now I bet you're saying this is an absurd "what if". But I don't really think it is. Because let's think for a second. A cellphone would have probably been an insanely technical wonder anytime in history. But today everyone knows how to use one. This means the overall ability of society has gotten higher as the result of technology being a core part of society. You take a cellphone and insert it anytime through history, and guess who would be the only people who could use one? The skilled, smart, and elite.

So I'm saying that to say this. Skill levels are relative. Someone from 1950 would have no idea how to operate a cash register now. Even some of the above average people. But because most people have grown up with computers, operating a cash register is an afterthought. Also while we complain about education these days, more people are literate than they were 200 years ago. More people are on average richer than they were 200 years ago. Every kid at this point probably at least understand basic arithmetic, how to read at a functional level, and how to do algebra. In 1920, I doubt this was the case for most people in the world.


So what point am I trying to make? Perhaps what we consider "skilled" will be pretty trivial in the future. The idea of assembling robots or creating software would probably become second nature to most people when we automate things. The generation that gets replaced by robots would surely lack the skills, and that is why they can be trained. Now you may be asking, "who pays for the training". And my question is "they do, if we allow them". Because as we have displaced workers, the need for education would explode. And we should see a rising number of people in the market ready to open up schools and train these people. And if there is enough competition, prices should be driven down.

I'm willing to bet, if the market is allowed to do it's magic, the overall literacy in terms of technology for the average adult will be sufficient. We saw this with computers just as recently as 20 years ago. When I first started my career in software engineering, the world looked at these new things called computers with fear and intimidation. The average American adult couldn't even turn the things on. Today nearly everyone knows basic computer skills. Back in 1992, this was not the case.

So let's let technology work. It has proven historically that it has always worked in our favor.

[Unsettomati]

It's not even so much that they will 'make new jobs', but that the work force will evolve to do more things in the absence of such jobs.

The same thing happened when agriculture became mechanized. Half of the work force of the United States used to be employed an agriculture. Now, the number is two percent. That's not just a percentage drop but a precipitous drop in sheer numbers. And more is produced. Yet unemployment didn't balloon up to 50%.

The newly-available labor simply moved into other economic sectors that emerged to take advantage of the increasingly-available new sources of labor.

[branh0913]

Originally Posted by Unsettomati

It's not even so much that they will 'make new jobs', but that the work force will evolve to do more things in the absence of such jobs.

The same thing happened when agriculture became mechanized. Half of the work force of the United States used to be employed an agriculture. Now, the number is two percent. That's not just a percentage drop but a precipitous drop in sheer numbers. And more is produced. Yet unemployment didn't balloon up to 50%.

The newly-available labor simply moved into other economic sectors that emerged to take advantage of the increasingly-available new sources of labor.

Wow, very eloquently spoken, and WAY more concise than I put it. I couldn't have put it better.

[An Einnseanair]

Originally Posted by branh0913

But I'm sure your real concern is "where do all the unskilled people get jobs"? Well that's very simple, they simply fail to be unskilled. Now i bet you're saying that's proposterous. But let's think for a second. Everybody in the world no matter how poor or how dumb they are has a cellphone. And I think we forget just how sophisticated a cellphone is. While many of us look at cellphone as an afterthought. Let's take a cellphone and place it in the year 1865. And now let's see how many people are even qualified to operate a cellphone at that time.

Now I bet you're saying this is an absurd "what if". But I don't really think it is. Because let's think for a second. A cellphone would have probably been an insanely technical wonder anytime in history. But today everyone knows how to use one. This means the overall ability of society has gotten higher as the result of technology being a core part of society. You take a cellphone and insert it anytime through history, and guess who would be the only people who could use one? The skilled, smart, and elite.

So I'm saying that to say this. Skill levels are relative. Someone from 1950 would have no idea how to operate a cash register now. Even some of the above average people. But because most people have grown up with computers, operating a cash register is an afterthought. Also while we complain about education these days, more people are literate than they were 200 years ago. More people are on average richer than they were 200 years ago. Every kid at this point probably at least understand basic arithmetic, how to read at a functional level, and how to do algebra. In 1920, I doubt this was the case for most people in the world.

You seem to think that 1865 people were dullards and modern people are smarter because they can operate modern technology. This is a very simplistic and naive view of intelligence.

Every generation has skills they were trained in that other generations were not. The fact that one generation wasn't trained in skills specific to a different generation means absolutely nothing.

Modern cash register: a few hours of training, even for the average person from 1865 (or 1950).
Literacy, arithmetic, and algebra: Kids aren't smarter these days, they're just taught different things. Back then they were more concerned about things like growing food and surviving diseases. Kids were taught the things they needed to survive, and "solving for x" wasn't a need for the average person. School was only a few months each year, and the rest of the time was spent working on the farm. In modern society you need literacy and higher arithmetic to advance, so those things are taught in schools. Kids do NOT need to work in the fields 6 months each year for the family to survive, so school lasts longer.

Even by 1865 standards, operating a cellphone is brutally simple. Give an 1865 transplant a day or two of background lessons and practice and they could operate a cell phone as easily as many modern teens, many of whom have been using cell phones their entire lives. But put YOU back 1865, and could you survive without considerable assistance? Could you obtain and preserve food without refrigeration or electricity? Could you serve as your own doctor without access to antibiotics or pain medication? Could you repair or operate a steam engine, cure leather, or know when and how to plant crops? If not, are you dumber than the average person in 1865?

Most millennials who can operate a cell phone all day would die (literally) if they were forced to drive in city traffic in a vehicle with a manual transmission because they were never trained in how to drive one.


So back to my earlier post. For the average person, it's all about training, not intelligence. Again, who is going to pay for all this retraining? Do you think the minimum-wage worker who just got laid off has the time or spare money needed for such training? I don't mean just pay for tuition for the class, I mean who is going to provide the student with food, shelter, etc. while they are spending their time training instead of working? Are you volunteering to donate money for the cause?

And for the sub-average person who can learn to punch buttons on a phone or cash register but has zero problem-solving ability... how do they fit in with your mythical world?

[branh0913]

Originally Posted by jwkilgore

You seem to think that 1865 people were dullards and modern people are smarter because they can operate modern technology. This is a very simplistic and naive view of intelligence.

Every generation has skills they were trained in that other generations were not. The fact that one generation wasn't trained in skills specific to a different generation means absolutely nothing.

Actually it means quite a lot. I can do things on the computer that my parents and grandparents couldn't even imagine. I qualify for jobs that people the previous generation diidn't even know existed. And while I can say there aren't a ton of software engineers out there, the number has been growing. There were software engineers in the 70s when my parents were young adults. But the number was small. In my generation the number has grown. I expect it to grow even more with my children, and I expect software development skills to be common knowledge by then.

Modern cash register: a few hours of training, even for the average person from 1865 (or 1950).
Literacy, arithmetic, and algebra: Kids aren't smarter these days, they're just taught different things. Back then they were more concerned about things like growing food and surviving diseases. Kids were taught the things they needed to survive, and "solving for x" wasn't a need for the average person. School was only a few months each year, and the rest of the time was spent working on the farm. In modern society you need literacy and higher arithmetic to advance, so those things are taught in schools. Kids do NOT need to work in the fields 6 months each year for the family to survive, so school lasts longer.

They are smarter these days. Back in the 1800s and the early 20th century the concept of "educated" was someone who knew how to read and understand basic arithmetic. All of this higher learning in advance mathematics was MOSTLY for elite and rich. Even something that we think of as basic like geometry and algebra would have only been for people who had an elite education.

What is funny is that we don't realize that to someone in the 1800s that the idea of a cash register would serve as a complete paradigm shift. The idea of sophisticated transctions would also be, and the idea of the type of currency we trade would go over most people's heads. So I don't think a cash register would be very intuitive to the average 1865 mind.

Even by 1865 standards, operating a cellphone is brutally simple. Give an 1865 transplant a day or two of background lessons and practice and they could operate a cell phone as easily as many modern teens, many of whom have been using cell phones their entire lives. But put YOU back 1865, and could you survive without considerable assistance? Could you obtain and preserve food without refrigeration or electricity? Could you serve as your own doctor without access to antibiotics or pain medication? Could you repair or operate a steam engine, cure leather, or know when and how to plant crops? If not, are you dumber than the average person in 1865?

No, I probably couldn't do anything that they did in 1865. That doesn't make me dumber than them. I wouldn't be able to do it, because in modern life there is no need to. The thing you don't say about 1865 is that they lacked all of these technological innovations, and did almost everything by hand. And in such life expetency was 39 years old. That means that me, at 36 would be 3 years from a natural death. Regressing is VERY hard for anyone. Similarly I don't think someone in an 1865 world could go back 1,000 years in Africa and learn to hunt and craft spears for their survival. This is a pretty weak argument.

3 days training? Not sure, because to an 1865 mind a cell phone is an absolute paradigm shift. We're talking about people who didn't live in a world of cell phones, and who couldn't even conceive a voice coming out of a device. Or even see a projection of software onto a screen for that matter. And controlling something via touch? Actually the average 1865 mind would be more like "what's the point".

Sure there will be people who are smart enough to figure out some of the applicability of a cellphone. But guess what. Those people would become the brightest minds in the world. The idea of unlocking a phone, and getting onto software would be so far beyond a 1865 mind, that anyone would even understand this concept would be considered geniuses.

Most millennials who can operate a cell phone all day would die (literally) if they were forced to drive in city traffic in a vehicle with a manual transmission because they were never trained in how to drive one.

Most people in general would die if they were transported to a time when they had less resources. People died earlier and more frequently 200 years ago. This doesn't give the 1700 mind more intellect.

So back to my earlier post. For the average person, it's all about training, not intelligence. Again, who is going to pay for all this retraining? Do you think the minimum-wage worker who just got laid off has the time or spare money needed for such training? I don't mean just pay for tuition for the class, I mean who is going to provide the student with food, shelter, etc. while they are spending their time training instead of working? Are you volunteering to donate money for the cause?

The market would meet these demands. And who is to say you really NEED training? Let me explain. Back in 1992, the AVERAGE person had no clue how to use a computer. It wasn't uncommon for people not to even know how to turn the damn thing on. What ended up happening? Well kids learned computers in schools. Then taught their parents how to use them. How many times do you hear of people 20-30 years old signing their parents up to facebook, or setting up the computer for their parents? All the time.

Now why do I mention this? well because computer themselves have become domesticated. The reason why more people can use a computer, and learn computer concepts is because more people HAVE computers. And more people can become proficient and even learn computer jobs. Robotics will become the same way. Just like people learn to program there VCR or learned to turn on their computer to watch their favorite cat videos and world star hip hop vids, we will have people who can program complicated robots like it's a second thought. And those people will be able to have careers working with robots and technology.

Everyone will become technical. And it doesn't require a whole lot of intelligence to do.

And for the sub-average person who can learn to punch buttons on a phone or cash register but has zero problem-solving ability... how do they fit in with your mythical world?

Of course it does. Cashiers are operating a multi billion dollar electric warehouse. With sophisticated transactions, and complicated programming. Are THEY programming it themselves? No. But many issues happen with these systems that are solved by cashiers on sight. Such as issue with the till not having enough cash, keeping track of their transactions, and voiding transactions. Yes cashier solve issues. They are solviing issues with transactions is a very sophsticated system, and a cashier error can lead to a lot of money lost for the company. If every cashier screwed up every transaction at every McDonalds, you, there would be no McDonalds. It's not a non-thinking and brainless job.

The funny thing is that mobile technology is now replacing traditional POS systems. The average person knows how to launch software, launch transaction software, view their transactions, authenticate into several high secure systems, etc. And this software has issues, which is resolved by people who work on cellphones. Even something like ending a task is still a pretty technical task. If I asked someone from 1982 to log into a high secure transaction system from a mobile device. You would go and get your most talented software engineers to figure it out. You wouldn't get your 18 year old high school dropout to do it. But now days even a high school dropout can do that.


So this should tell you that the average technical competency is high. And it will only get higher.

[jertheber]

When people speak of automation and it's effect on employment the tone of the discussion usually takes on a form of dispute with two sides arguing over the merits of said automation or, the unwanted consequences of job elimination. The truth of all this talk of robotics lies in the fact of a long fought battle to rid the workplace of the human factor. An almost vindictive mindset is now taking labor to task for asking for better wages and the machine is touted as a kind of just reprisal for the workers recalcitrant ways.

One could say that automation is utilized solely in the spirit of profit seeking, and for the most part that is the driving force, but there is more to it now than in the past. In a rising economy the expectations of workers also rises, workers want their share of the benefit for what they produce, the machine cares not about it's contribution and therefore can raise production at a static level of cost. It's a no-brainer that this is how business views the situation, it isn't about efficiency necessarily, but moreover the desire to have a subservient, low cost workforce of machine labor.

The OP's view that historical norms will always prevail seems flawed in that it doesn't include the scale necessary to include the entire world's available human labor, in the path of a relentless effort to rid the human from the workplace people become economically marginalized as machine labor grows exponentially, there is no valid assumption that would assume an equal amount of jobs is being created. The old tale of agriculture labor giving way to a plethora of factory work wasn't as smooth a transition as some seem to infer, much has been written about those times and the fact of labor unrest resulting from near starvation pay and terrible work conditions causing social upheaval. That upheaval brought about the ideas of unionism, and the organized worker was now in the sights of an automated labor juggernaut.

The sheer number of jobs needed to have an economically independent citizenry would stagger the imaginations of most people, the lack of financial independence means we will need to support those who are otherwise unsupported by the economic reality of this rise of the machine. Sometimes, the same folks who are cheering the mass utilization of machine labor are found advocating for a lessening of social services to those who have become economically marginalized, instead, they castigate the unemployed as leeches on society, insisting that they simply aren't trying hard enough. Old norms associated with our work ethic produces this view, no doubt about it, but that thinking is one of the reasons we have failed to see this problem in terms of something we can fix.

In his book, The End of Work, author Jeremy Rifkin allows us a peek at the problems posed by mechanization in the workplace, we all know the problem isn't really about technology, nor is it about the ethics of work, but it definitely is about the fact that our present economic system has no mechanism for addressing the huge social issues brought about by automation, unlike those who feel there is some automatic mitigation in all of this, I see the problem as one that is bringing us to a depressing reality, and that is the fact of not enough work for everybody that wants to work.

This from Rifkin's 1994 book:
"Worldwide, more than a billion jobs will have to be created over the next ten years to provide an income for all the new job entrants in both developing and developed nations. With new information and telecommunication technologies, robotics, and automation fast eliminating jobs in every industry and sector, the likelihood of finding enough work for the hundreds of millions of new job entrants appears slim." -

Simple answers to complex problems seem to be in vogue these days, the terms, "retraining" "education""motivation" and a sundry of others infer "the problem" to be a thing easily tackled, but when one begins to read the works of those who have spent hundreds of hours studying the modern construct of employment we see the huge complexities involved, and the waters get increasingly murky with the myriad details of unforeseen consequences of machine labor being thought of as a solution, when in reality, it could very well turn out to be our biggest dilemma of modern times.