Intelligent Robots: The coming jobs massacre and a more violent world

Reuters ^ | 05/27/2015 | John Lloyd

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

And then there is the creepiest of all robots. Well, fembots anyway;

[DannyTN]

Note to self. Don’t tap ukranian sexbot’s shoulders.

[sitetest]

Butlerian Jihad.

[DannyTN]

It will be an economy of abundance, but....

1. How do people obtain a living in a world with a severe shortage of jobs?
2. Will most of us be dependent on government handouts?
3. Will robot owners have to be taxed at levels currently thought excessive to provide for the masses?
4. How will international trade be affected when countries have unequal levels of automation?
5. Do the less automated countries allow the more automated countries to put their people out of work, and indebt the country?

[Jewbacca]

“Are you bucking for the position of Kwisatz Haderach?”

No, not for me.

Real or purported Jewish messiahs cause a lot of complications, especially if he arrives on the scene earlier than predicted.

;-)

[Rebel_Ace]

"Just like anything else, the market will self-regulate. If there is too much automation, it won’t matter how low the production costs get, because without consumers with money to buy the products, those businesses will not succeed."

I do not think that is necessarily the case, due to the pressures businesses face to stay afloat. Imagine this example:

Business A and Business B both compete in the Widget market. Both employee a minimum compliment of Human Workers, along with a whole bunch of robots that can crank out widgets like crazy.

Both Business A and B begin to feel the effects of "fewer consumers" able to buy widgets. The owner of Business B has a flash of inspiration: "If I Hire More Workers, and get rid of some robots, there will be MORE consumers to purchase the widgets we produce. Granted, making them with people, we will produce fewer of them, and at a higher cost, but it will be worth it to have workers to buy widgets."

Now Business Owner A is in business for himself and his family. Seeing what Business B has done, he formulates this plan: "Hey, I will BUY the used robots from Business B, crank out even MORE widgets cheaper and faster than B can, and I will capture a greater share of the diminishing market."

Depending upon how important the "widget" is to life, most of the consumers will opt for a widget of suitable quality at a lower price. Which business will be the first to go under?

So, eventually, Business B will go under, and Business A will capture a portion of whatever customer base B had remaining.

There is no DIRECT business reason to "hire more people".

[Boogieman]

There is no DIRECT business reason to “hire more people”.

---

Ah, but I think, in your example, you are looking at things backwards (the market forces aren’t giving an incentive to hire more, but rather not to fire everyone), and also, you are looking at an example on the micro level that doesn’t necessarily translate to the macro level.

Even so, you cut off your example right before it would obviously have the same result I predicted, because this:

“So, eventually, Business B will go under, and Business A will capture a portion of whatever customer base B had remaining.”

...is not a sustainable situation that would result in a new equilibrium. The only reason Business A can hope to capture more of a dwindling customer base is because Business B hired more workers to keep the customer base viable. Since Business B has shut down, those workers can’t be counted in the customer base anymore, so there isn’t much for Business A to capture, and therefore Business A will also have to close its doors shortly as well.

[Boogieman]

“1. How do people obtain a living in a world with a severe shortage of jobs?”

Take out a mortgage on your organs. If you can’t pay it back when the loan comes due, we take your liver :)

“2. Will most of us be dependent on government handouts?”

Well, with no tax revenue, the government will be broke too, so not likely.

“3. Will robot owners have to be taxed at levels currently thought excessive to provide for the masses?”

Even taxing them 100% won’t be enough to provide for the masses, just as we couldn’t function today by taxing only the rich. Without the middle class to take up the slack, we’ll still fall short.

“4. How will international trade be affected when countries have unequal levels of automation?”

I don’t know, but I’m sure liberals will do plenty of complaining about it.

“5. Do the less automated countries allow the more automated countries to put their people out of work, and indebt the country?”

What choice do they have in the matter? It’s not likely they could go to war over such things, since they couldn’t compete with an automated military either, and closing your economy off to the outside is only a viable option for a small minority of countries.

[citizen352]

Business A would see labor as an expense. Two companies A and B exist there must be some market for widgets. Company A will continue to exist. Company A can easily adjust operating cost.

[Boogieman]

“Two companies A and B exist there must be some market for widgets.”

Bad assumption. Demand is not inelastic. My whole point is that once the jobs are gone, the demand disappears as well. People can’t demand something they can’t pay for.

“Company A can easily adjust operating cost.”

Adjusting operating costs doesn’t help you if you have no income.