Whenever we talk about raising the minimum wage, some supply-sider always shoots back that if we raise wages, employers will automate low-wage workers out of a livelihood. So on the latest episode of The Other Washington, we ask the questions: Are the robots coming for our jobs? And if so, is that necessarily a bad thing?
Our guests include renowned tech visionary (but not a futurist) Esther Dyson, Institute for the Future research director Bradley Kreit, and Hointer co-founder Nadia Shouraboura, who takes us on a tour of what the future of brick-and-mortar retail might look like in a highly automated age (hint: different jobs, not fewer).
For your convenience, you can listen to the embed above. But if you like what you hear, please go to iTunes (or wherever you get your podcasts), subscribe to The Other Washington, and leave us a review. Thanks!
A factory to build robots to build factories to build robots to build factories to build robots…ad infinitum. A factory to build robots to repair robots that build factories to build robots…ad infinitum. A factory to build robots that build factories to build robots that build factories to build robots that build factories that build robots that repair robots that build factories that build robots…ad infinitum. And they all lived happily ever after in robot world. That is until alien robots arrived. They enslaved the robots. Then ground them into scrap to make robots that build robots in factories that build robots…ad infinitum.
It is the will of Landru.
@1 Unnecessary if you program robots to have sex.
You humans will be replaced by either robots or rabbits. I put my money on rabbits.
Oregon has passed a 3-tiered minimum wage increase to $14.75 in Portland, $13.50 in smaller cities, and $12.50 in rural areas, phased in over 6 years.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/la.....in-oregon/
Roger Rabbit Commentary: Even if inflation stays at only 2%, inflation will erase 12% of these raises by the time they’re fully implemented, which means this really is an increase to $11 most of Oregon. But wait for it, Bickle will flip out, and post a comment threatening to replace human workers with rabbits, er, I mean robots.
That segment about protecting the vulnerable and better education, minimum wages, labor standards that spawned a thriving middle class are being eroded by automation. Can you have a social contract with a algorithm? for example, Uber sure doesn’t follow the social contract.
“The most common defense of the sharing economy I hear is, “if it’s so bad, why are so many people doing it?” Many do it out of desperation. I’ve talked to a number of drivers who will work over 30 hours every weekend in addition to a full-time job just to have enough money to pay rent and take care of their kids. It can also seem like you’re making a lot more money than you really are if you’re not diligently adding up your expenses, many of which are invisible. For example, taxes aren’t taken out of your paycheck, so when April comes around it can be a shock to discover how much you owe.”
Seems the gig economy is rigged to take more and more power from the worker:
“Postmates once allowed their drivers to see the details of an order before accepting a job. This was great for couriers because we could estimate how much money we would make on an order. It also meant we could reject bad jobs, which created a situation where it could take a long time—or even be impossible—to find a courier who would accept a low-paying job. Postmates responded by “updating” the app to a “blind system” in which we could still accept or reject jobs, but without enough information to determine whether it would be worth our time or not (e.g., a huge grocery store order). To make sure we accept jobs quickly without analyzing them, the app plays an extremely loud and annoying beeping noise designed specifically to harass couriers into submitting to the algorithm.”
I don’t see large swaths of American Society willing doing have an equitable sharing of resources, for example the south constantly cuts food stamps and tries to gut social safety nets and cut pay to teachers. Looking at our history, it seems overly optimistic to think the “haves” will willing give up some of what they have to help anyone besides themselves.
Socialism is a bad word for most people over 25.
As more and more becomes automated or done by a algorithm;
Those with the resources, money and abilities to become highly skilled will likely be employed.
Those with connections will likely be employed.
The ambitious will likely be employed in some way.
The low skilled, the average, the older, those who have responsibilities outside of working all the time, are going to find it harder and harder to find living wage work.
All the new jobs talked about in the podcast do not seem be up to the level of a living wage. They keep talking about new jobs being created, but less and less of them seem to pay any money. How many YouTube stars or massage therapists are making enough to afford to buy an house and send their kid to collage?
How will any of that lead to a middle class life for most Americans?
@8 Well, that’s the question, isn’t it? No, Uber’s not going to embrace a revised social contract on its own; it’s going to have to have one forced upon it by law.
Stay tuned for Episode 4, The Gig Economy, for a deeper discussion of that.
As for the kinds of jobs that are created, the question is not whether they are good jobs, but whether we value them as good jobs. It’s very arbitrary that a skilled barista is paid so much less than a skilled factory worker. As we continue our shift into a predominantly service economy, we need to address our cultural bias against service jobs.
@ 9
It’s very arbitrary that a skilled barista is paid so much less than a skilled factory worker.
WTF?
I can make coffee and pour milk into it, and after 20 seconds in the microwave I don’t miss cafe au lait all that much.
I can’t go into my garage and gin up an airplane.
@ 5
It’s an interesting topic for discussion. If you weren’t too stupid to post it in the appropriate Open Thread, where it will be seen, rather than here, which has very little traffic, it might even be noticed by others, asswipe.
To riff on what Bob said, since even a broken clock is right twice a day.
As I understand it, wage models are based on job scarcity, based on knowledge, tools and location.
Currently a radiologist has specialized skills and access to specialized tools and be in the area to do the diagnosis so they get paid better because the amount people who can do that job is scarce.
An office worker has specialized skills with common equipment but is one of the few people who get meaningful data from a spreadsheet so they get paid better because the amount people who can do that job is scarce.
A 1950s factory worker did not need specialized skills but they did need to have access to specialized tools at the factor to do the work. A union could block scabs from accessing the specialized tools and keep wages higher to make a living wage.
A 1990s taxi driver did not need specialized skills but they were able to limit the number of taxis in a location so they could charge enough from the scarcity of taxi drivers to make it a living wage job.
A 2016 barista does not need specialized skills and coffee tools are common and easy to use and there are any number of people available to do the work, so there is no scarcity in that job so the job pays only the bare minimum required by law.
Shipping and tariffs are almost nothing, so location is no longer a job scarcity.
Apps like uber negate the artificial scarcity of taxis, so wages there have plummeted.
Algorithms figure out how to do the spreadsheets so that office worker is fired.
When everyone’s smart phone has sensors and software to do 99% of a radiologist’s job, radiologists will go the way of the buggy whip maker.
My depression era father said the only way to have stable work was do something that nobody could do, or do a job that nobody wanted to do.
Automation and algorithms erode the first, and desperate people erode the second.
What’s the tipping point? When out of work factory workers and truck drivers and radiologists and office workers are all working minimum wage or less gig jobs and part time mcjobs, who will be able to afford to buy coffee and massages and cars and houses to keep the economy from collapsing?
In our society, we have been trained since birth to only value job scarcity. Our society values what people do. I admit I’m guilty of it. The idea that one should get a guaranteed living wage income just be alive seems somehow wrong, like it’s unfair to those who work, like they didn’t earn it.
I’m a pessimist so it seems unlikely that we will find a way to make a utopian star trek future where everyone is free from want. We’ve never had a society succeed at it yet.
Bob is one of my examples of the dystopian future. Every word he writes about low wage workers drips with venom. He has no desire to care for his fellow man, at least if they are lesser than him , in his eyes. We have vast segments of the population who don’t want it, who think like bob.
@12 How the neoclassical model says wages are determined, and how they’re determined in the real world are two different things. Unlike most other markets, there is a substantial imbalance of power between buyer and seller in the labor market. Even Adam Smith writes about this. That’s what makes collective bargaining necessary.
Also, think about this from the perspective of international trade. Capital is free to cross borders. Goods are free to cross borders. But labor is not free to cross borders… which further disadvantages labor. China doesn’t have a comparative advantage when it comes to manufacturing; it has lower wages. So what we’ve really seen in the age of the global economy is the owners of capital taking advantage of wage arbitrage to the disadvantage of workers in developed countries.
In the absence of collective bargaining, the government needs to step in and set reasonable wage floors and other labor standards. We can all argue over what “reasonable” means, but to argue that government has no role in this is to argue in favor of a race to the bottom.
Continuing to ruminate on conservatives reaction to higher wages. They say the workers have not earned better, that they don’t deserve better, they are not worth better.
People don’t are not worthy simple for being, they only count for what they do. Look at how bob writes, low wage workers don’t deserve living wages.
I don’t know why yet, but its in every thing greed conservatives say and do.