Difference between revisions of "Jobsolescence"

From Issuepedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Links: fiction: Player Piano)
(→‎to file: recovered stuff that got deleted due to munged characters, sorted properly, added year-headers, added 2009 article)
 
(20 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 7: Line 7:
 
</hide>
 
</hide>
 
==Definition==
 
==Definition==
−
[[jobsolescence]] ''(n.)'' is the phenomenon whereby increasing [[automation]] enables fewer and fewer workers to produce all the [[basic goods and services]] necessary for society, resulting in fewer "[[paid job|job]]s" (i.e. less [[employment]]) through which the resulting [[wealth]] can be [[wealth distribution|distributed]].
+
[[jobsolescence]] ''(n.)'' is the phenomenon whereby increasing [[automation]] enables production capacity to be maintained with a shrinking quantity of workers, resulting in shrinking [[employment]], resulting in reduced [[wealth distribution]] and therefore increased [[economic disparity]].
  
−
In colloquial usage, it can refer to:
+
Note that [[off-shoring]] of jobs is also the result of automation, as it could not be done effectively without modern telecommunication.
−
* the fact of having one's particular job rendered obsolete
+
==Conclusions==
−
* the fact of jobs in general, as a means of survival for individuals and as a way for society to allocate resources, becoming obsolete
+
Jobsolescence will continue to be a growing problem as long as we depend on the concept of [[employment]] as a means of allocating the consumption of basic goods and services.
−
===Systemic View===
+
 
−
A systemic view of the situation acknowledges the following essential facts:
+
Society must be significantly restructured so that [[employment]] is no longer required in order to survive at a reasonable level. (The possible results of successful reform along these lines are generally referred to as a [[post-employment economy]] and [[post-scarcity economics]].)
−
* It now takes a quite small percentage of society -- a relatively small number of people -- to produce the basic goods and services that all of us need in order to survive at a reasonable level of contentment and freedom.
+
==Mechanisms==
−
** The percentage is larger if we include goods and services that many people ''want'', but it is still relatively small.
+
The following mechanisms seem to be in operation.
−
* This number will continue to shrink as long as innovation and technology continue to progress.
+
# '''Automation of labor'''
−
* As a consequence, the number of jobs available will continue to shrink as a percentage of the population. More people will not be able to find jobs.
+
#* [[Employment]] generally only occurs when the [[private benefit]] of having a task done is worth the cost of paying a worker to do it.
−
* There is no reason to stop technological process, as it reduces the amount of resources we each ''need'' in order to live while also improving the quality of life on average.
+
#* [[Automation]] is replacing more and more jobs with machinery that costs considerably less than this to operate and maintain.
−
* Our economy and society are currently configured in such a way that if you cannot find employment, you are in trouble.
+
#* No matter how skilled a given worker may be, or how much effort they put into retraining themselves, there will come a time when a machine is better suited for any job they might be able to do.
−
* Many tasks that people do for "employment" are essentially make-work, or (worse) are part of the process of concentrating wealth in the hands of a few.
+
#* The more skilled the worker, the longer it will be before this happens -- but the bar is continuously being raised.
−
* There are, however, still some tasks that need doing -- we can't ''all'' just stop working.
+
#* This results in a continually-shrinking pool of jobs at any given skill level.
 +
#* Those who are laid off due to automation are therefore not likely to find new jobs, as they will have to (a) retrain for a new job, and (b) compete with others who already have such training.
 +
# '''Imprisonment of resources'''
 +
#* As automation reduces the cost of production, the intake of profit soars without increasing the rate at which those profits are distributed.
 +
#* Wealth is privately retained by the owners of automated production facilities. These owners do not have any use for most of the increase in their wealth, and when they do use it they generally use it to accumulate even more wealth (e.g. by buying up competing businesses, loaning money at interest to those less fortunate, etc.)
 +
#* Wealth becomes increasingly scarce in the economy at large.
 +
# '''Evaporation of public benefit'''
 +
#* There are many tasks which are not being done because although their [[public benefit]] is certainly great enough to make them worth doing, their [[private benefit]] is insufficient to convert the task into employment.
 +
#* When people are employed at a decent salary and reasonable hours, this leaves many of them with spare resources and energy to devote to work of high public benefit and low private benefit. When more and more people are employed at inadequate salaries or excessive hours (e.g. via multiple jobs or working unpaid overtime under threat of being fired), they will increasingly lack the resources or time to engage in such projects.
 +
==Effects==
 +
This trend has a lot of immediate negative effects:
 +
* [[technological unemployment]]: the replacement of human jobs by automation, thus reducing the [[job supply]]
 +
* [[wealth concentration]] as owners of increasingly automated production facilities receive an increasing share of gross revenues due to reduced production costs. This further leads to:
 +
** [[market distortion]], undermining the functioning of [[free market]]s.
 +
** [[regulatory capture]], undermining the functioning of a free society.
 +
* [[economic disparity]], due to the increased flow of wealth away from (increasingly unemployed) workers and toward owners
 +
===Potential Benefits===
 +
Overall, though, automation ''should'' be a net benefit, since more work is being done with less labor.
 +
 
 +
It now takes a quite small percentage of society -- a relatively small number of people -- to produce basic goods and services that all of us need in order to survive at a reasonable level of contentment and freedom. It should therefore be economically possible to distribute a [[citizen dividend]] based on basic productivity, possibly even one that would constitute a [[living income]].
 +
 
 +
This is especially true if we consider how many of our "wants" represent [[socially useless production]], and that public desire for them has been deliberately engineered in order to increase demand for production.
  
−
Given these facts, the conclusion seems inevitable: We need a major restructuring of society into a [[post-employment economy]].
+
Any reduction in labor would also reduce the amount of consumables we each ''need'' in order to live happily (e.g. commuting expenses) while also improving the quality of life on average, thus increasing the human carrying-capacity of our ecosystem (hopefully to the point where we can level off population growth before a crisis occurs).
−
===Usage===
+
==Reform==
−
These are examples of how the word might be used in writing or conversation:
+
It seems clear that systemic change is needed; we cannot continue to depend on an ever-decreasing [[job supply]] as a primary means of allocating consumption of essential goods and services (primarily: food, clothing, shelter, medical care).
−
* ''The paradox of jobsolescence is that it results in severe deprivation in the midst of plenty.''
+
===Areas===
−
* ''In 2011, the capitalist system reached a crisis point, with thousands of jobsolescent workers flooding the streets of major cities around the world seeking new solutions for wealth redistribution. They were told by the establishment, with no sense of irony, to 'get a job'.''
+
* Much of the wealth that is now being imprisoned is not being used by those who hold it. That excess wealth would do far more good if redistributed.
−
* ''The system I designed for VeryBigTek to help with my work there is so efficient that they were able to lay off 5 employees -- including me. I've been rendered jobsolete.''
+
* Many tasks that people do for "employment" are [[socially useless production]] -- i.e. essentially make-work or (worse) are part of the process of concentrating wealth in the hands of a few. Eliminating these jobs would be of general benefit, as doing so would reduce the overall usage of consumables without reducing the overall quality of life.
−
==Conclusions==
+
 
−
* Jobsolescence will continue to be a growing problem as long as we depend on the concept of [[employment]] as a means of allocating [[basic needs]].  
+
==Proposals==
−
* Jobsolescence is a by-product of the same changes (continuing improvements in automation and telecommunications) which have made society incredibly wealthy. This incredible wealth has led to discussions of [[post-scarcity economics]], reducing the work-week, and other attempts to spread that wealth via employment. Most of these discussions seem to be reacting to particular aspects of the situation ("Hey, we have more wealth and fewer jobs -- let's work less so we have more free time and more people can have jobs." or "A lot of people aren't getting enough to eat -- let's make more jobs for them by reducing work-hours for those who have jobs.") rather than seeing them as indicative of a basic flaw in the system: using something scarce ("jobs") as a means of allocating something plentiful (basic needs and other wealth).
+
The following proposals have been made in reaction to this situation:
 +
* Reduced work-week (would increase the number of people needed to accomplish a given task and therefore the number of jobs)
 +
** '''Problems''':
 +
*** only somewhat increases wealth redistribution, and doesn't do anything to repair the safety-net for those who still can't find work
 +
*** decreases efficiency; is basically make-work, in many cases
 +
* Require businesses to hire a certain number of employees, at a living wage, for every million dollars of revenue or profit. This number would be calculated based on the total adult population multiplied by that business's share of the "economic pie", guaranteeing that essentially all of the population would be employed. (In practicality, businesses would probably tell many of their employees to just stay home.)
 +
* Increase taxes on the most profitable businesses to the point where the government could afford to provide a [[guaranteed income]] to everyone.
 +
* Require (partial or full) public ownership of the most profitable businesses so that all citizens receive dividends.
 +
==Caveats==
 +
There remain some tasks that need doing -- we can't ''all'' just stop working. Right now, however, the system is ''preventing'' much important work from being done.
 +
==Related==
 +
* [[Jobsolescence]] is one of the primary causes of increasing [[economic disparity]].
 +
* A [[post-employment economy]] is an economy in which employment is not a requisite for a reasonably prosperous life.
 +
* [[Post-scarcity economics]] is the study of economics in the circumstance where basic needs and wants can be produced without engaging the majority of society as production labor.
 
==Quotes==
 
==Quotes==
 
<blockquote>
 
<blockquote>
−
<p>It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian Darwinian theory he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors.</p>
+
<p>We should do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian Darwinian theory he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors.</p>
  
 
<p>The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.</p>
 
<p>The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.</p>
 
</blockquote>
 
</blockquote>
 
<div align=right>&mdash; [[Buckminster Fuller]] ({{wikiquote|Buckminster Fuller}}, [http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/133403-we-should-do-away-with-the-absolutely-specious-notion-that GoodReads])</div>
 
<div align=right>&mdash; [[Buckminster Fuller]] ({{wikiquote|Buckminster Fuller}}, [http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/133403-we-should-do-away-with-the-absolutely-specious-notion-that GoodReads])</div>
 +
 +
<blockquote>
 +
<p>There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision.</p>
 +
</blockquote>
 +
<div align=right>&mdash; [[F.A. Hayek]], ''[[The Road to Serfdom]]'' (to be verified)</div>
 +
 
==Notes==
 
==Notes==
 +
I'm using "imprisonment of wealth" as a less-loaded alternative to "hoarding of wealth".
 +
 
I find it interesting to note that the domain "[http://jobsolescence.com jobsolescence.com]" was registered (by a [[htyp:domain squatter|domain squatter]]) on 2011-10-20, six days after I created this page (2011-10-14), which is eight days after my post suggesting the word on G+ (see link below) -- although [http://www.transparencyrevolution.com/2011/09/jobsolescence/ this article] uses the word on 2011-09-08, more than a month earlier (I was not aware of it at the time). I need to do an exhaustive Google search and see if there are any earlier uses of it. --[[User:Woozle|Woozle]] ([[User talk:Woozle|talk]]) 14:34, 19 April 2013 (EDT)
 
I find it interesting to note that the domain "[http://jobsolescence.com jobsolescence.com]" was registered (by a [[htyp:domain squatter|domain squatter]]) on 2011-10-20, six days after I created this page (2011-10-14), which is eight days after my post suggesting the word on G+ (see link below) -- although [http://www.transparencyrevolution.com/2011/09/jobsolescence/ this article] uses the word on 2011-09-08, more than a month earlier (I was not aware of it at the time). I need to do an exhaustive Google search and see if there are any earlier uses of it. --[[User:Woozle|Woozle]] ([[User talk:Woozle|talk]]) 14:34, 19 April 2013 (EDT)
 +
 +
I made another version of the basic jobsolescence argument in one or two comments [https://plus.google.com/u/0/109348954914940290321/posts/YE7285htnX2 here]; perhaps that should be integrated into this page.
 +
 
==Links==
 
==Links==
 
===Reference===
 
===Reference===
Line 55: Line 100:
 
* ''[[wikipedia:Player Piano (novel)|Player Piano]]'' by [[Kurt Vonnegut]]: Widespread mechanization in a future society creates conflict between the wealthy upper class &ndash; the engineers and managers who keep society running &ndash; and the lower class, whose skills and purpose in society have been replaced by machines.
 
* ''[[wikipedia:Player Piano (novel)|Player Piano]]'' by [[Kurt Vonnegut]]: Widespread mechanization in a future society creates conflict between the wealthy upper class &ndash; the engineers and managers who keep society running &ndash; and the lower class, whose skills and purpose in society have been replaced by machines.
 
===to file===
 
===to file===
−
* '''2011-06-21''' [http://www.forbes.com/sites/mattkibbe/2011/06/21/obama-atms-and-rage-against-the-rise-of-machines/ Obama, ATMs And Rage Against The Rise Of Machines]
+
====2014====
 +
* '''2014-02-25''' [http://www.theprovince.com/technology/tech-biz/Robots+will+take+jobs+will+they+take+hearts+well/9550898/story.html Robots will take our jobs &ndash; but will they steal our hearts?]: also references ''[[The Second Machine Age]]''
 +
* '''2014-01-24''' [http://www.businessinsider.com/erik-brynjolfsson-2014-1 Erik Brynjolfsson Explains How Technology Drives Inequality And The Scary Truth About Robots Taking Human Jobs]
 +
** [https://plus.google.com/u/0/113232896560414607307/posts/JnjFeFfznu8 summary]
 +
** [http://declineofscarcity.com/?p=3436 critique] of ''[[The Second Machine Age]]''
 +
====2013====
 +
* '''2013-11-03''' [http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/11/surviving-post-employment-economy-201311373243740811.html Surviving the post-employment economy] ([https://plus.google.com/u/0/108292626386548337225/posts/L25MrE44bVN via]): "The author argues that in the new economy, it's people, not skills or majors, that have lost value."
 +
* '''2013-10-17''' [http://qz.com/134661/briggo-coffee-army-of-robot-baristas-could-mean-the-end-of-starbucks-as-we-know-it/ An army of robot baristas could mean the end of Starbucks as we know it]
 +
* '''2013-10-10''' [http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9243138/Gartner_s_dark_vision_for_tech_jobs Gartner's dark vision for tech, jobs] "In a world where smart machines do most of the work, expect high unemployment, unrest and tumult"
 +
* '''2013-09-12''' [http://www.technologyreview.com/view/519241/report-suggests-nearly-half-of-us-jobs-are-vulnerable-to-computerization/ Report Suggests Nearly Half of U.S. Jobs Are Vulnerable to Computerization]
 +
* '''2013-09-03''' [http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2013/sep/03/americas-jobless-generation/ America's Jobless Generation]
 +
** [https://plus.google.com/u/0/102282887764745350285/posts/QQQxQsrYZu8 commentary]
 +
* '''2013-08-24''' [http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/how-technology-wrecks-the-middle-class/ How Technology Wrecks the Middle Class]: rejects the idea that automation reduces employment; I respond in a comment [https://plus.google.com/u/0/109348954914940290321/posts/YE7285htnX2 here]
 +
* '''2013-08-23''' [http://m.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/08/who-are-the-long-term-unemployed/278964/ Who Are the Long-Term Unemployed?]
 +
* '''2013-08-22'''
 +
** [http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/08/unemployment_is_very_low_in_some_cities_so_why_don_t_people_move_there.html Bismarck Is Lovely This Time of Year]
 +
*** [https://plus.google.com/u/0/101896915525351208408/posts/CktXgHvZxte commentary/discussion]
 +
** [http://dangerousminds.net/comments/jobs_are_not_the_answer_the_big_idea_that_libertarians_and_socialists_alike Jobs Are Not the Answer: The BIG Idea that Socialists and Libertarians Can Agree On?]: claims that [[Milton Freedman]] endorsed the idea of a Basic Income Guarantee (in the form of a [[negative income tax]]), but I seem to recall Richard Wolff saying that he and other libertarians later backpedaled on that
 +
* '''2013-08-19''' [http://www.strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/ On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs]
 +
** [https://plus.google.com/u/0/102282887764745350285/posts/TAUtBRXARWF commentary]
 +
* '''2013-07-17''' [http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bulletin/top-20-economies-still-struggling-to-create-jobs/24475?tag=nl.e660&s_cid=e660&ttag=e660&ftag=TRE4eb29b5 Top 20 economies still struggling to create jobs]
 +
* '''2013-06-29''' [http://www.kurzweilai.net/rodney-brooks-why-we-will-rely-on-robots Rodney Brooks: why we will rely on robots]: the other side of jobsolescence -- robots make life easier, and we will need them more as the old-to-young ratio increases
 +
* '''2013-06-20''' [https://37signals.com/svn/posts/3543-google-uses-big-data-to-prove-hiring-puzzles-useless-and-gpas-meaningless Google uses Big Data to prove hiring puzzles useless and GPAs meaningless]: companies use filters like hiring puzzles and GPAs simply to filter down the vast number of applicants in some objective way (where an individual can't be blamed for making the wrong decision, i.e. CYA)
 +
* '''2013-06-13'''
 +
** [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/opinion/krugman-sympathy-for-the-luddites.html Sympathy for the Luddites] by [[Paul Krugman]]
 +
** [http://www.newstatesman.com/economics/2013/06/basic-income-versus-robots Basic income versus the robots]
 +
* '''2013-06-01''' [http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/01/after-your-job-is-gone/ After Your Job Is Gone]
 +
* '''2013-05-21''' [http://declineofscarcity.com/?p=3053 Why the Market and Technology Aren't Playing Well Together (and Five Possible Solutions to Fix the Problem)]
 +
* '''2013-05-13'''
 +
** [http://www.motherjones.com/media/2013/05/robots-artificial-intelligence-jobs-automation?page=1 Welcome, Robot Overlords. Please Don't Fire Us?] by [[Kevin Drum]]
 +
** [http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/05/who-will-own-our-future-robot-overlords Who Will Own Our Future Robot Overlords?] by [[Kevin Drum]]
 +
* '''2013-05-05''' [http://pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com/2013/05/05/over-55-out-of-work-more-than-six-months-headhunters-say-youre-screwed/ Over 55, out of work more than six months? Headhunters say you're screwed.]
 +
** commentary: [https://plus.google.com/105502506545735279423/posts/6ydxuTH62LQ Pam Spaulding]
 +
* '''2013-05-03''' [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/sunday-review/the-idled-young-americans.html?_r=1& The Idled Young Americans] "The problems start with a lack of jobs."
 +
* '''2013-05-02''' [http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2013/05/02/bipartisan-push-to-buy-tanks-army-doesnt-need/ Bipartisan Push to Buy Tanks Army Doesn't Need]: If Congress thinks we can afford this kind of waste, why not use that money to pay for social infrastructure?
 +
* '''2013-04-29''' [http://declineofscarcity.com/?p=2790 Ten Responses to the Technological Unemployment Problem]: potential ways of dealing with jobsolescence
 +
* '''2013-04-25''' [http://capitalismandyou.blogspot.com/2013/04/why-jobs-arent-coming-back-not-this.html Why JOBS aren't coming back - not this life time!]
 +
* '''2013-04-11''' [http://www.businessinsider.com/profits-at-high-wages-at-low-2013-4 Profits Just Hit Another All-Time High, Wages Just Hit Another All-Time Low] by [[Henry Blodget]]
 +
====2012====
 
* '''2012-06''' [http://www.ted.com/talks/andrew_mcafee_are_droids_taking_our_jobs.html Andrew McAfee: Are droids taking our jobs?] (TED Talk)
 
* '''2012-06''' [http://www.ted.com/talks/andrew_mcafee_are_droids_taking_our_jobs.html Andrew McAfee: Are droids taking our jobs?] (TED Talk)
 
** [http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=EMRATIO Graph: Civilian Employment-Population Ratio (EMRATIO)]
 
** [http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=EMRATIO Graph: Civilian Employment-Population Ratio (EMRATIO)]
−
* '''2013-04-11''' [http://www.businessinsider.com/profits-at-high-wages-at-low-2013-4 Profits Just Hit Another All-Time High, Wages Just Hit Another All-Time Low] by [[Henry Blodget]]
+
* '''2012-04-26''' [http://www.epi.org/publication/ib330-productivity-vs-compensation/ The wedges between productivity and median compensation growth]: one version of the classic productivity-vs.-wages graph
−
* '''2013-04-25''' [http://capitalismandyou.blogspot.com/2013/04/why-jobs-arent-coming-back-not-this.html Why JOBS aren't coming back - not this life time!]
 
−
* '''2013-04-29''' [http://declineofscarcity.com/?p=2790 Ten Responses to the Technological Unemployment Problem]: potential ways of dealing with jobsolescence
 
−
* '''2013-05-02''' [http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2013/05/02/bipartisan-
 
−
* '''2013-05-03''' [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/sunday-review/the-idled-young-americans.html?_r=1& The Idled Young Americans] "The problems start with a lack of jobs."
 
 
** commentary: [https://plus.google.com/101896915525351208408/posts/LJAU9zrJwKg Christine Paluch]
 
** commentary: [https://plus.google.com/101896915525351208408/posts/LJAU9zrJwKg Christine Paluch]
−
+
====2011====
−
** commentary: [https://plus.google.com/105502506545735279423/posts/6ydxuTH62LQ Pam Spaulding]
+
* '''2011-06-21''' [http://www.forbes.com/sites/mattkibbe/2011/06/21/obama-atms-and-rage-against-the-rise-of-machines/ Obama, ATMs And Rage Against The Rise Of Machines]
−
* '''2013-05-13'''
+
====2009====
−
** [http://www.motherjones.com/media/2013/05/robots-artificial-intelligence-jobs-automation?page=1 Welcome, Robot Overlords. Please Don't Fire Us?] by [[Kevin Drum]]
+
* '''2009-09-21''' [http://www.businessinsider.com/the-real-problem-with-the-economy-is-that-it-doesnt-need-you-anymore-2009-9?IR=T The Real Problem With The Economy Is That It Doesn't Need You Anymore]
−
** [http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/05/who-will-own-our-future-robot-overlords Who Will Own Our Future Robot Overlords?] by [[Kevin Drum]]
+
{{links/smw}}
−
* '''2013-05-21''' [http:/]
 
−
* '''2013-06-01''' [http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/01/after-your-job-is-gone/ After Your Job Is Gone]
 
−
* '''2013-06-13'''
 
−
** [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/opinion/krugman-sympathy-for-the-luddites.html Sympathy for the Luddites] by [[Paul Krugman]]
 
−
** [http://www.newstatesman.com/economics/2013/06/basic-income-versus-robots Basic income versus the robots]
 
−
* '''2013-06-20''' [https://37signals.com/svn/posts/3543-google-uses-big-data-to-prove-hiring-puzzles-useless-and-gpas-meaningless Google uses Big Data to prove hiring puzzles useless and GPAs meaningless]: companies use filters like hiring puzzles and GPAs simply to filter down the vast number of applicants in some objective way (where an individual can't be blamed for making the wrong decision, i.e. CYA)
 
−
* '''2013-06-29''' [http://www.kurzweilai.net/rodney-brooks-why-we-will-rely-on-robots Rodney Brooks: why we will rely on robots]: the other side of jobsolescence -- robots make life easier, and we will need them more as the old-to-young ratio increases
 
−
* '''2013-07-17''' [http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bulletin/top-20-economies-still-struggling-to-create-jobs/24475?tag=nl.e660&s_cid=e660&ttag=e660&ftag=TRE4eb29b5 Top 20 economies still struggling to create jobs]
 

Latest revision as of 23:53, 21 January 2015

Definition

jobsolescence (n.) is the phenomenon whereby increasing automation enables production capacity to be maintained with a shrinking quantity of workers, resulting in shrinking employment, resulting in reduced wealth distribution and therefore increased economic disparity.

Note that off-shoring of jobs is also the result of automation, as it could not be done effectively without modern telecommunication.

Conclusions

Jobsolescence will continue to be a growing problem as long as we depend on the concept of employment as a means of allocating the consumption of basic goods and services.

Society must be significantly restructured so that employment is no longer required in order to survive at a reasonable level. (The possible results of successful reform along these lines are generally referred to as a post-employment economy and post-scarcity economics.)

Mechanisms

The following mechanisms seem to be in operation.

  1. Automation of labor
    • Employment generally only occurs when the private benefit of having a task done is worth the cost of paying a worker to do it.
    • Automation is replacing more and more jobs with machinery that costs considerably less than this to operate and maintain.
    • No matter how skilled a given worker may be, or how much effort they put into retraining themselves, there will come a time when a machine is better suited for any job they might be able to do.
    • The more skilled the worker, the longer it will be before this happens -- but the bar is continuously being raised.
    • This results in a continually-shrinking pool of jobs at any given skill level.
    • Those who are laid off due to automation are therefore not likely to find new jobs, as they will have to (a) retrain for a new job, and (b) compete with others who already have such training.
  2. Imprisonment of resources
    • As automation reduces the cost of production, the intake of profit soars without increasing the rate at which those profits are distributed.
    • Wealth is privately retained by the owners of automated production facilities. These owners do not have any use for most of the increase in their wealth, and when they do use it they generally use it to accumulate even more wealth (e.g. by buying up competing businesses, loaning money at interest to those less fortunate, etc.)
    • Wealth becomes increasingly scarce in the economy at large.
  3. Evaporation of public benefit
    • There are many tasks which are not being done because although their public benefit is certainly great enough to make them worth doing, their private benefit is insufficient to convert the task into employment.
    • When people are employed at a decent salary and reasonable hours, this leaves many of them with spare resources and energy to devote to work of high public benefit and low private benefit. When more and more people are employed at inadequate salaries or excessive hours (e.g. via multiple jobs or working unpaid overtime under threat of being fired), they will increasingly lack the resources or time to engage in such projects.

Effects

This trend has a lot of immediate negative effects:

Potential Benefits

Overall, though, automation should be a net benefit, since more work is being done with less labor.

It now takes a quite small percentage of society -- a relatively small number of people -- to produce basic goods and services that all of us need in order to survive at a reasonable level of contentment and freedom. It should therefore be economically possible to distribute a citizen dividend based on basic productivity, possibly even one that would constitute a living income.

This is especially true if we consider how many of our "wants" represent socially useless production, and that public desire for them has been deliberately engineered in order to increase demand for production.

Any reduction in labor would also reduce the amount of consumables we each need in order to live happily (e.g. commuting expenses) while also improving the quality of life on average, thus increasing the human carrying-capacity of our ecosystem (hopefully to the point where we can level off population growth before a crisis occurs).

Reform

It seems clear that systemic change is needed; we cannot continue to depend on an ever-decreasing job supply as a primary means of allocating consumption of essential goods and services (primarily: food, clothing, shelter, medical care).

Areas

  • Much of the wealth that is now being imprisoned is not being used by those who hold it. That excess wealth would do far more good if redistributed.
  • Many tasks that people do for "employment" are socially useless production -- i.e. essentially make-work or (worse) are part of the process of concentrating wealth in the hands of a few. Eliminating these jobs would be of general benefit, as doing so would reduce the overall usage of consumables without reducing the overall quality of life.

Proposals

The following proposals have been made in reaction to this situation:

  • Reduced work-week (would increase the number of people needed to accomplish a given task and therefore the number of jobs)
    • Problems:
      • only somewhat increases wealth redistribution, and doesn't do anything to repair the safety-net for those who still can't find work
      • decreases efficiency; is basically make-work, in many cases
  • Require businesses to hire a certain number of employees, at a living wage, for every million dollars of revenue or profit. This number would be calculated based on the total adult population multiplied by that business's share of the "economic pie", guaranteeing that essentially all of the population would be employed. (In practicality, businesses would probably tell many of their employees to just stay home.)
  • Increase taxes on the most profitable businesses to the point where the government could afford to provide a guaranteed income to everyone.
  • Require (partial or full) public ownership of the most profitable businesses so that all citizens receive dividends.

Caveats

There remain some tasks that need doing -- we can't all just stop working. Right now, however, the system is preventing much important work from being done.

Related

Quotes

We should do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian Darwinian theory he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors.

The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.

— Buckminster Fuller (Wikiquote, GoodReads)

There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision.

— F.A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom (to be verified)

Notes

I'm using "imprisonment of wealth" as a less-loaded alternative to "hoarding of wealth".

I find it interesting to note that the domain "jobsolescence.com" was registered (by a domain squatter) on 2011-10-20, six days after I created this page (2011-10-14), which is eight days after my post suggesting the word on G+ (see link below) -- although this article uses the word on 2011-09-08, more than a month earlier (I was not aware of it at the time). I need to do an exhaustive Google search and see if there are any earlier uses of it. --Woozle (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2013 (EDT)

I made another version of the basic jobsolescence argument in one or two comments here; perhaps that should be integrated into this page.

Links

Reference

Discussion

Fiction

  • Player Piano by Kurt Vonnegut: Widespread mechanization in a future society creates conflict between the wealthy upper class – the engineers and managers who keep society running – and the lower class, whose skills and purpose in society have been replaced by machines.

to file

2014

2013

2012

2011

2009

Related


Retrieved from "https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=Jobsolescence&oldid=37597"