To me, this sounds like a good case for a basic income guarantee or a negative income tax. If we don't need people to work, why should the government bend over backwards and "get on their knees and beg businesses to keep employing humans over algorithms"?<p>The whole point of automation <i>is</i> to make less work. But in the immediate past it hasn't meaningfully translated to less work for most people. We're even afraid of it! I think that's a structural issue with society, which we can only really fix with broad changes and a completely different attitude. The broad fetishization of work and the obsession that everyone <i>has</i> to work is really standing in the way of progress.<p>We have more and more technology. It's time to start taking advantage of it. Unemployment should be a <i>goal</i>, not a menace.
I'm an industrial automation engineer.<p>Everyone from middle-managers up to CEOs think that robots are these magical things that just take care of everything so you can fire all your line workers. Doesn't work that way. It's incremental, methodical and excruciatingly slow work. You cannot simply throw money at it. It's expensive because it requires many experienced automation engineers ($$$) to do all this automation, but first you have to find and train those engineers.<p>What is automation exactly? It's learning a process so well that you know every single possible thing that might go wrong with a machine and then have some other machine to fix all those things automatically on the fly. Building self-diagnosing and self-repairing machines is very complex. The end goal of all those machines is to produce and ship a product. If the product changes, now you have to build a machine that can automate the process of on-the-fly SKU changes which further complicates an already complex machine.<p>In other words, automation is basically the flying car that futurists of a century ago predicted we would have today. So, where is my flying car?<p>In a hundred years automation will definitely have made massive strides, yes. Some jobs can be automated today, some tomorrow, but the numbers we're talking about are not significant compared to the entire workforce of a nation and compared to the massive capital investment it takes to accomplish that automation. A century from now the CEO's of the world will still be asking, "Where are the autonomous robots I was promised that can automate my entire workforce?" It's not as simple as they think.
Here is a link to the actual video of the talk:<p><a href="http://www.aei.org/events/2014/03/13/from-poverty-to-prosperity-a-conversation-with-bill-gates/" rel="nofollow">http://www.aei.org/events/2014/03/13/from-poverty-to-prosper...</a><p>And the transcript:<p><a href="http://www.aei.org/files/2014/03/14/-bill-gates-event-transcript_082217994272.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.aei.org/files/2014/03/14/-bill-gates-event-transc...</a><p>I think this might be considerably more enriching than a link to yahoo news that got it from bgr that got it from businessinsider that reported on the talk.
"Business Insider reports that Gates gave a talk at the American Enterprise Institute think tank in Washington, DC this week and said that both governments and businesses need to start preparing for a future where lots of people will be put out of work by software and robots."<p>We already have. It's called the 8.5h day where you're simply present in your office, paid to be off the street, employed by the state, browsing facebook and doing mundane jobs once in a while.
It's funny that they pick out the part where Bill Gates says we shouldn't have a minimum wage, but skip the parts where he says we should have a basic income and a progressive consumption tax.
Looking forward to mass automation. Free up a lot of time and hopefully we'll create better things instead of doing mindless chores.<p>Predictions about mass automations are at opposite sides of the spectrum. Either most of the population is poor without a job, or it's a utopia where no one has to work (everything is provided) and concentrate on bettering ourselves.
His recommendations seem ridiculous. Why force employment when it offers no real return except keeping an anachronistic standard of 40 hr/week employment?
If he thinks accountants and the like will be put out of jobs, he's not taking into account the power of unions and luddites.<p>Here in Uruguay we have a lot of jobs that could be replaced by today's tech, which will probably last for decades due to unions pushing for inefficiency (and they introduce incredible bureaucracy and friction).<p>For example, to buy and sell a car in my country, you need an "escribano" (closest US equivalent is notary), a specialized lawyer that has to "witness" and certify that you actually own the good being sold, with a staggering amount of paperwork, which is only legal if it's affixed with the proper amount of seals and signatures, and the paperwork itself costs more than an used car in the U.S. :P .<p>There are lots of incredibly useless paperwork, one of my former teachers was put in charge of the IT department of the Judiciary Branch, and he was thwarted at every corner by unions and obsolete laws, he was unable to automate anythign and ended up resigning.<p>The real estate agents' experience is also very bad, I've had some that actually removed value, I hope something puts them out of work soon.<p>Commercial pilots might be a concern, but I worry about truck and bus drivers... those have very powerful unions - see in Argentina where the most powerful lobby is the truck drivers' union led by Hugo Moyano, same here in Uruguay, some truck drivers make the same money as a software developer (at least the same or better than I do).
If we really do get to the point where society doesn't need low skilled workers we ought to start giving out a guaranteed minimum income. If we don't care about the potential disemployment effect the case for it becomes a lot stronger.
Actually I don't think low paying jobs will be replaced at all, they are actually often fairly difficult to replace.<p>All those middle class people working in offices though whose jobs in some way exist merely as a way to outsource tasks software isn't good at or can't really do? These jobs are going to be eliminated with better AI etc. pretty much entirely.<p>If anything software in the 21st century might reproduce the social effects of the industrial revolution. It won't necessarily harm the people who are already poor, it will simply create a lot more of them, shifting power to the people with the means to get a significant stake in the companies that will survive before that happens.
I agree with Bill Gates on what will happen.<p>I disagree very strongly with his solution. Governments begging corporations to employ people doing very little and paying the minimum wage (oh wait, minimum wage gets eliminated...so presumably paying them less than minimum wage)? When have corporations responded to begging? Why is this good for anyone?<p>Who is going to buy the stuff produced when people are bringing home less than minimum wage huh Bill? You? How many plastic spaghetti strainers do you need in all your many houses? Hmm?<p>No, the answer is not corporations in full control and paying whatever they wish. That will never work. The system will break down all together. It must stay balanced. The balance can be achieved by corporations and individuals paying their fair share. My opinion is that land/resource taxes are the way to achieve this. Not payroll or corporate taxes which serve to punish innovation and hard work.
Am I the only one thinking that begging business to keep employing people will, if anything, only worsen the social issues caused by this change?
Scraping the minimum wage? Cheap labour? Is that what we're developing machines for? Is that civilisational progress? What next?<p>I hope Bill Gates is as right about this as he was about the "famous"[1] 640KB, but can't we, as a civilisation, think of better solutions? Like e.g. not working and using automated means in order to provide a minimum of food/resources to everyone? Am I dreaming,does this idea seem as unreasonable as a self-driving car did a century ago?<p>[1]: and possibly apocryphal
I don't think governments will have to beg for anything. The less people businesses employ, the less power they will have. So either they'll employ people or they'll have to put up with whatever solution governments come up with (higher taxes, guaranteed minimum income, etc.). Either way, they'll still need customers, right?<p>This reminds me of a story about a new Ford factory full of robots. The manager invites the union boss for a guided tour then asks him if he can convince the robots to join the union. The union guy then asks if the manager can get the robots to buy Fords.
I personally enjoy work.<p>I wouldn't say that what I do from 9-5, M-F defines me as a person, but I enjoy solving problems and exerting myself.<p>If software 'eats' my job, I'm not going to simply stop working, I am going to learn how to be good at something else. I can't imagine my life without some challenges and struggles.
I think a little bit of wisdom from one of my favorite writers might be appreciated here:<p>"""We have created a lifestyle that makes injustice permanent and inescapable.<p>We have created a world where robots produce robots. Where capital breeds capital with very little need for the Eastenders of the world.<p>Tell me what will happen when the majority of mankind has become technologically superfluous.<p>At the same time rebellious with hunger and economically unimportant.<p>What will then stop a final solution of the world problem?<p>In People of the Abyss the Eastenders already saw it coming.<p>They are, Jack London wrote, “encumbrances”, of no use to anyone, not even to themselves. “They clutter the earth with their presence and are better out of the way”."""<p>Taken from <a href="http://www.svenlindqvist.net/text_only.asp?cat=1&lang=2&id=241" rel="nofollow">http://www.svenlindqvist.net/text_only.asp?cat=1&lang=2&id=2...</a>
The need for employers in society overstated here. Anyone can buy and sell for a living without being employed, and now with the internet it's even easier to do that.<p>True, you may not be able to fulfill all of your needs by buying and selling. People who do that usually experience some level of poverty. But it is and always will be an option available to unemployed people.<p>How many stories are there of people starting at flea markets and yard sales and ending up with investments worth thousands of dollars?<p>Folks got along fine without corporations and 9 to 5 jobs for many centuries. Individuals and families still became as rich as Gates is, relatively speaking, or even richer. I'm confused that he doesn't seem to know this.<p>But I think he's mostly right in what he says about automation, and he of all people certainly would know.
What does an economy that deprecates most of humanity look like? What happens when the economy doesn't demand people?<p>I do not see a future like Star Trek with its Utopian ideal of every person choosing to follow their dream pursuit. Large parts of society already receive no access to opportunity ensuring a lifetime sentence of poverty. When robots prepare meals, drive cars, pave roads, fix power lines, haul cargo, process paperwork, educate students, harvest crops, and enforce peace you may think you have a uniqueness to prosper. Perhaps, and good luck.
> And it’s not just “low-skilled” workers who will have to worry about automation.<p>If it weren't for some political ideology, automation would be a blessing for every one and not something to worry about.
People fear change. This revolution will require adaption and there will be pain involved, but mass automation will create vast wealth.<p>Prehistorically we spent our entire lives simply collecting enough food to survive. Since then we've gradually been able to devote a smaller and smaller portion of our lives to fulfilling the requirements of survival. Mass automation will continue to reduce this. There will be growing pains but the trend certainly continues in the right direction.
Who maintains the machines? Who produces the replacement parts and sources the materials for the machines? What happens when the power goes out? So many flaws in the plan of a completely or even almost robot/algorithm based job future I don't know if it'll really happen. We've had automation in the automotive industry for how long now and look at the amount of people required to ensure the process works along the way?<p>Having said that, I am all for automating things. As a developer, I've seen a dramatic shift in the last 5 years alone with tools for handling tasks and automating things are a dime a doze. Automation definitely has a place, but I think it's too far to suggest that robots will take everyone's jobs, just a few. You're not going to be served coffee from a Starbucks robot barista any time soon.<p>A future where everyone doesn't have to work sounds nice in theory, in practice it cannot and will not work.
In another thread a user argued that "technology is what drives society to a more mature state". I wish that was true, but to me technology and society's advancement at social/human level are disconnected.<p>I really hope that the decline of the average working hours per week in the "western world" becomes a central point of discussion, the next decade. We don't need to work many hours to get the essentials to live a comfortable life.<p>We have all the technology we need to produce food and shelter at extremely LOW prices.<p>Of course if someone wants to be Elon Musk ( I wish I was), he should be free to pursue his interests, but average Joe who only wants to support his family and enjoy friends and baseball, should be working a lot less when we will have robots, not feel threatened by unemployment.
"If we don't need people to work, why should the government bend over backwards and "get on their knees and beg businesses to keep employing humans over algorithms"?"<p>I respect Bill Gates' ideas but this one is totally wrong. His solution is neither practical nor logical. The same solution could have been presented 100 years ago when people were being laid off due to the industrial revolution. We would not have progressed this far if we had given people's employment priority over power and efficiency of machines. In many cases algorithms are simply better and faster over humans and they are just going to get even better and faster. They will not only get things done safely but also reduce human errors and reduce energy consumption.
Oh look, more asshole libertarian scare tactics. The solution isn't to force people to work shitty jobs for even less pay.<p>If our productivity is high enough people don't need to work we should provide basic income, not artificially force people to work so they don't starve to death.
I think a useful conversation to have is, "how quickly we can replace politicians with robots?" A political discourse addressing the topic would necessarily acknowledge the radical changes most technology enthousiasts expect to take place in our lifetimes.<p>The most common response to hearing that a machine can do your job is disbelief (<a href="http://kk.org/thetechnium/2011/09/the-7-stages-of/" rel="nofollow">http://kk.org/thetechnium/2011/09/the-7-stages-of/</a>). Fertile ground for dismissing the imminently possible as science fiction.
I wrote a short essay about this the other day -- Robots are taking our jobs, so what... <a href="http://softwarebyjoe.com/essays/robots-are-taking-our-jobs-so-what.html" rel="nofollow">http://softwarebyjoe.com/essays/robots-are-taking-our-jobs-s...</a>
The solution to this problem may be a massive increase in insurance salespeople and HR department employees. And lawyers. Stuff like that.<p>I can hardly wait.
we are at least a second time through that - first being the Industrial Revolution - and still at loss what to do and with the same luddites and the same other cast of characters in the show... I guess 3rd time will be a charm... for the AI/robots that will completely replace our species.