Robots Will Take 2/3 of All Jobs In the Developing World, UN Says

[Guest]

The first industrial robots came about during the early 60's with companies like General Motors utilizing its capabilities 

Companies today utilize such robots to get work done more precisely, and it costs much less to maintain a robot than pay a worker

These robots have become more affordable to companies with some in the $25,000 price range 

This attracts manufacturers to purchase robots over human labor given the future costs 

 

Quote

 Assuming the robot operates around the clock six days a week, Baxter's
price works out to be less than a dollar per hour over the course of three years. 

 

However, with eight hour work days and 260 working days per year, Baxter costs an average of
$4.32/hour. This undercuts most country's current going rates for industrial employee compensation.

 

The United Nations recently released a report on the potential impacts of the use of robots in industry

Quote

According to some estimates, for developing countries as a group, the “share of occupations that could experience significant automation is actually higher in developing countries than in more advanced ones, where many of these jobs have already disappeared”, and this concerns about two thirds of all jobs. Reshoring economic activities to developed countries is one mechanism that could lead to shrinking output and employment in the manufacturing sector of developing countries.

 

The most hard-hit by the advent of the industrial robot is the human, with many companies looking to spend less and earn more

Though the report did also state that some industries such as garment-making are tasks that are not yet compatible with current robots

 

Sources: Motherboard, UNCTAD, Stanford

[tlink]

i wonder how this will affect the worlds economy and ideology. i've heard people who say that we will just "invent" new jobs to keep the economy going, but i've also heard people saying that it could be the stepping stone to something like socialism or communism because all the basic needs can be provided for more easily. would the current structure be able to hold job losses like that? i do know that after the recession the profits climbed back but the amount of jobs keeps climbing back slower and slower

 

[zMeul]

this will end in a human crisis as families of low income will not have a chance to get their member in a managerial position; nor will they be able to support their kids through appropriate schools

 

"invent" new jobs - that's the biggest bullshit since turning tin into gold

[dizmo]

Not overly surprising, considering even McDonald's is looking towards full automation.

They've already taken long strides into reducing the level of staffing.

 

There will come a time when there simply aren't enough jobs to go around, and that's when we're going to have to take a good hard look at how society is structured as a whole.

If we all worked together to better ourselves instead of profit the world really would be a much better place.

4 minutes ago, tlink said:

i wonder how this will affect the worlds economy and ideology. i've heard people who say that we will just "invent" new jobs to keep the economy going, but i've also heard people saying that it could be the stepping stone to something like socialism or communism because all the basic needs can be provided for more easily. would the current structure be able to hold job losses like that? i do know that after the recession the profits climbed back but the amount of jobs keeps climbing back slower and slower
 

It would be socialism. Communism wouldn't really benefit here. But neither is really ideal, as socialism is often just seen as a step before transitioning to communism. In which you'd still have huge amounts of poor people doing nothing.

In order to invent new jobs, there has to be a point of profit (as society is today). They'll simply look at cutting costs from there on, and the greatest cost cutter is labor.

 

There will be massive riots in the future, of people fighting for life or death.

I feel sorry for the following generation or two.

[Tech_Dreamer]

 

[captain cactus]

We as humans have become very good at making ourself useless because of automating things. Doesn't mean we can't do anything about preventing it from happening even more.

[deviant88]

We have been automating stuff ever since thousands of years ago, think about inventing the wheel instead of having a person carry each various resources back in those days you invent the wheel a big cart with horses 1 driver you load and you're on your way.

The difference nowdays is that automation reaches too deep in every domain and no longer we can create new jobs, comparing with the horse cart example, that created many new job opportunities unlike modern day robotic/AI automation which is driving everyone out and leaving nothing for the people.

 

I believe the solution is only UBI but with many many other new concepts and laws, for instance people should not just be given money and left on their own, they should actively participate in society. How? well everyone should follow continous training/retraining learning new stuff needed in the new world even if there isnt a job for him/her, people should have skills when needed, example a natural disaster occurs people should be mobilized from a pool of UBI assisted unemployed citizens that have undergone training in the meantime, for rescue missions, cleanup the mess behind the disaster and rebuild areas/help people relocate all for FREE without having to be payed since they already have UBI but not without any form of giving back, i cant imagine a UBI model where everyone sits on their ass drunk all day.

[Unimportant]

You don't want work - you want the things created by the work. If robots could do all the work while humans lie at the beach all day we'd be just as rich while relaxing all day long.

 

The difficult part is getting from here to there. The gains would off course go to the owners of the robots and not the displaced workers. But in stead of once again looking to government to forcefully redistribute and putting a monkey wrench into the whole process we should be looking toward systems of shared ownership. Every person should be able to buy his 'robot share'. Share the risk and the rewards, not the current system of taxing the risk taker to pay the non-risk taker thereby retarding risk taking and thus the economy, because it's the risk takers that get stuff done, we can't all be employees, somebody has to stick out his neck and start things up in the first place.

[apm]

we could tax the companies that do this and put the money in good free education.

people can stop doing retarded jobs and start moving us forward.

3 hours ago, dizmo said:

There will be massive riots in the future, of people fighting for life or death.

I feel sorry for the following generation or two.

i dont. we are already too many.

[dizmo]

44 minutes ago, apm said:

we could tax the companies that do this and put the money in good free education.

people can stop doing retarded jobs and start moving us forward.

i dont. we are already too many.

But that's the thing. It's nothing to do with the number of people on earth, but the amount of automation.

Soon there won't be jobs for the majority of people on earth.

[Magikarpdrowned]

I imagine that Socialism or Communism would be the only practical way to support a growing population. That or begin assigning everyone to the massive task of expanding the earths domain and colonizing new planets and such. This could wind up being the push we needed to begin seriously considering life on different planets.

[apm]

43 minutes ago, dizmo said:

But that's the thing. It's nothing to do with the number of people on earth, but the amount of automation.

Soon there won't be jobs for the majority of people on earth.

but then they can focus on other things besides producing random shit.

maybe everyone can get a proper education and spread the knowledge.

why is a million people buillding shitty iphones in china etc.

you could even bring like 100 jobs to the west for monitoring and maintaining the robots. lol

 

why does the majority have to work shitty ass jobs?

[VerticalDiscussions]

Man this is so bad, and people are complaining about Trump. This is like the most peaceful and slowly growing WW3 instigation against humanity.... but i understand its needed for the ever developing planet and super demanding consumers, like hell, they can deplete an entire stock of headphones/smartphones or cars in under a friggin week. But even so, cant enterprises just allow 50/50 of each .-.?

[Trik'Stari]

6 hours ago, zMeul said:

this will end in a human crisis as families of low income will not have a chance to get their member in a managerial position; nor will they be able to support their kids through appropriate schools

 

"invent" new jobs - that's the biggest bullshit since turning tin into gold

I know so many people on the left who think you can just invent jobs.

 

Luckily I live in the middle of nowhere, and am surrounded by farmers with animals and crops, who do most of their shit by hand (except the crops. But if the gas runs out they'll need farm hands).

 

Excuse my while I don't starve to death like all the morons living in big cities. Enjoy devastating poverty.

[VerticalDiscussions]

3 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

-snip-

Dayum, thats deep.

[Trik'Stari]

2 minutes ago, VerticalDiscussions said:

Dayum, thats deep.

Land = resources. When you live in the city, you have no resources other than what other people provide.

 

When there's no need for an economy, because robots do all the work, where are you gonna get your food? Sure, the corporations could give it up for free since no one had to do any work to make it and get it to you, but we ALL know they aren't going to do that.

 

Society, or civilization, is the abdication of an individuals daily responsibility to ensure their own survival, at heart. Tip the scale too far in either direction, you end up with major problems.

[zMeul]

5 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

I know so many people on the left who think you can just invent jobs.

 

Luckily I live in the middle of nowhere, and am surrounded by farmers with animals and crops, who do most of their shit by hand (except the crops. But if the gas runs out they'll need farm hands).

 

Excuse my while I don't starve to death like all the morons living in big cities. Enjoy devastating poverty.

in China there are shit ton of hectares of terrain that can't be cultivated

in the last 40y, 1/3 of Earth's land mass has become unsuited for cultivation due to pollution and erosion 

[Trik'Stari]

2 hours ago, zMeul said:

in China there are shit ton of hectares of terrain that can't be cultivated

in the last 40y, 1/3 of Earth's land mass has become unsuited for cultivation due to pollution and erosion 

Not around here. China has fucked itself by not having and standards for anything at all. They just do what they want without any thought to the consequences, worse so than America does.

[noisebomb44]

20 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Not around here. China has fucked itself by not having and standards for anything at all. They just do what they want without any thought to the consequences, worse so than America does.

Ha, china has finally discovered the ultimate weapon

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/13/chinese-pollution-is-coming-to-america.html

[IhazHedont]

Honestly I think it only relies on how you define the word "work".

 

For instance:

- A retired person is gardening his property.

- Now, a person hired by the community is gardening.

- Finally, a person hired by a private company is gardening.

 

Who is working ? Plot twist: all of them.

 

What I mean is: it's not because you are not hired by a company that you don't work.

And thanks to this logic, Europe is beginning to discuss about the "Universal Salary" (even if I think this is a powerful tool for any government).

 

Nowadays it seems difficult to apprehend it, because we were born and educated around capitalism; what if tomorrow we decide that any kind of natural ressource should be free and equally distributed, to avoid any waste or overconsumption, including gas and oil ? Seems crazy heh.

[Trik'Stari]

18 minutes ago, noisebomb44 said:

Ha, china has finally discovered the ultimate weapon

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/13/chinese-pollution-is-coming-to-america.html

I always said the asians would kill us all lol

15 minutes ago, IhazHedont said:

Honestly I think it only relies on how you define the word "work".

 

For instance:

- A retired person is gardening his property.

- Now, a person hired by the community is gardening.

- Finally, a person hired by a private company is gardening.

 

Who is working ? Plot twist: all of them.

 

What I mean is: it's not because you are not hired by a company that you don't work.

And thanks to this logic, Europe is beginning to discuss about the "Universal Salary" (even if I think this is a powerful tool for any government).

 

Nowadays it seems difficult to apprehend it, because we were born and educated around capitalism; what if tomorrow we decide that any kind of natural ressource should be free and equally distributed, to avoid any waste or overconsumption, including gas and oil ? Seems crazy heh.

Excellent points. The problem is that the powers at be won't do that. They'll automate everything (including the police) and anyone that can't pay will starve, or be mowed down by robot police attempting to riot to get food.

[zMeul]

46 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Not around here. China has fucked itself by not having and standards for anything at all. They just do what they want without any thought to the consequences, worse so than America does.

if you actually think it doesn't apply to you .. oh boy

world population 7.4 bil

china's population 1.3bil

^ as of 2013

[Trik'Stari]

2 minutes ago, zMeul said:

if you actually think it doesn't apply to you .. oh boy

world population 7.4 bil

china's population 1.3bil

I didn't say it doesn't effect me, I said China has done that to itself. That's all.

 

It will affect us, when they need our food.

[zMeul]

 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

The UN isn't known for its prowess in Economics, though  

 

The idea that automation can in itself be bad is one of those things that only makes sense if you don't think about it. Automation is when your washing machine replaces your hand washing. I fail to see the downside. We sometimes get confused by all that "hard work" rhetoric, and forget that work is a curse. Work is doing what needs to be done; when you do what you like it's called hobby.

 

Now, the often highlighted difference between your washing machine and factory robots is that you own the washing machine, while the worker relieved of his task doesn't own the robot. If workers would be buying robots to replace themselves at their jobs (pretty much what Homer did with the drinking bird), the benefits of automation would be transparent to everyone. Problem is, they don't have the capital to do so, and they don't control the automation decisions of their workplaces. That's where the narrative turns dark and we conclude we will end with ever richer companies and masses of unemployed broke folks.

 

Except, of course that's not true. That's a very short run, partial equilibrium view that is misleading to think about industry-wide or economy-wide changes. By that logic, the steam engine would already have sent humanity to the gutter. Instead, it brought more progress than ever before. In contrast, a general equilibrium view allows you to see why this type of predictions fail. To begin with, using robots can only be profitable if it reduces the costs of your sales, the key word being "sales": you need to sell, and you need to sell a lot, for any profit to exist. The idea that everyone can go into long term unemployment while the fat cats gets fatter breaks when you realize that they need the masses to buy all the robot-produced items in the market. Lower prices can help a bit, but lower costs + lower prices take the profits back to where they started. They can sell to the wealthy minority, but hardly enough to justify the cost of robots. McDonald's can automate because it serves tenths of thousands of burgers a day. The fanciest restaurant in town can't cost-effectively automate the  two $1000 meals a day it serves. Bottom line: you cannot have income-less masses and mass production. Either poverty delays automation, or automation is accompanied by sufficiently rich masses. 

 

Now, when you add the decisions of individual agents, each of them  too small to take into account their role in shaping the equilibrium, you can end up with a large swing: first automate everything, later go bankrupt due to mass unemployment - the so called overproduction crises that were more trendy 100 years ago. We now know what policymakers can do about it and how to do it. What is changing, as @tlink's graph shows, is the elasticity of employment to GDP growth, and that has something to do with how much you can increase production by pushing a button before hiring more people. It doesn't mean that the levers of the past no longer work; in fact, you can still see how recovery is there in every example. But it probably does mean that it's becoming harder and harder to do it without redistribution, because the longer it takes, the less people can resist the cycle, the more explosive it becomes. But as @Unimportantsaid, if we were all simultaneously workers and stockholders, all this could only mean good news, consumption flows wouldn't need to stop as automation advances, and we should experience no technology-induced economic cycle. The true challenge is how to achieve that in an economy where wealth is distributed substantially more unequally than income.