Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

So I was listening to the radio, and I hear them talking about how people are making self-driving cars and how technology is booking airplane tickets, checking out groceries, etc. Then they mentioned something that caught my attention: How this will effect people's jobs. I mean, cmon, self driving cars? What about the pizza delivery guy? And cashiers won't be needed with self checking --and might I mention that people prefer self-checking over cashiers (as said by the radio). So, I want to hear your opinions on this matter, guys. Will technology be the main cause of unemployment?

The general principle of ecenomics says: for every one cashier fired there would be three people hired to build, program, and install the self checkout machine.

(Which doesn't get into the question of when automation is cheaper and when hiring people to do machine work is cheaper).

It's the 19th century with their Luddites all over again. If history has shown us anything, jobs will simply shift from one industry to another. Internet- and communication-based jobs are rapidly growing in number, even as labour-based jobs are slowly being phased out by machines.

The question in this case isn't "will there be fewer jobs", but rather "will we be able to train relatively unskilled workers to adapt?" The reality is that although the absolute number of jobs may not necessarily decrease as technology advances, the new jobs being created are increasingly cerebral and will hence require more training.

So basically, you're saying that jobs are taking a more mental term? I must admit, it's an interesting answer.

oh my god it's like being back in high school when we thought we'd solved the global economic conspiracy. lmao and what the robots can't do, 3rd world communist children do for the same salary~

Stay in school. Don't be the protester demanding fifteen bucks to take drive through orders. Robots can already do that, the only reason those jobs exist is because the salary is so insignificant. The Lord giveth and the Lord can taketh away.

edit to actually agree with Sparkles, ooh~: While we export unskilled jobs we import skilled trades. And they're mostly Indians and Asians. FactCheck confirms, 6.2 million jobs went to legal immigrants between 16-65 while the only native job growth has been 2.6 million of the over 65 age group.

FactCheck is actually denying Santorum's claim that ALL job growth went to immigrants from 2000 to 2014, very optimistically (emphasis theirs):

{ Looking at all workers 16-plus shows that natives over age 65 did make employment gains. As a result, there are 2.6 million more natives of all ages working in 2014 than in 2000. The immigrant net job gains for all workers was 6.2 million, as shown in the data CIS used. This makes Santorum’s claim simply not true. _All_ of the net job growth since 2000 didn’t go to immigrants. }

While we export unskilled jobs we import skilled trades. And they’re mostly Indians and Asians

My country of residence is currently undergoing a brain drain, which has been a national issue for quite some time. Our politicians would kill for some of those "Indians and Asians" (Indians are technically Asians, btw) of which you speak.

Mod Sparkles

Most countries are as the price of 4 year degrees and beyond continue to inflate beyond their actual worth, which contributes to 4 year degrees taking 6+ years to actually complete.

If your politicians could pay them your politicians could have them, but it's generally worse off for the country importing. They come here on visas and send what they make back home or save it to take back. They contribute very little to their host country's economy, which is why it makes more sense to invest in native non-liberal arts education than to subsidize existing and import immigrants to make up for the population that's too busy collecting handouts to work.

Tomatoes are technically a fruit, but they're distinct enough to differentiate. ¯\(ツ)/¯

they make back home or save it to take back

They contribute very little to their host country’s economy

My father is an immigrant working in a skilled trade, and I can assure you that he contributes plenty. But that's beside the point--could I see some sources for these claims?

Your personal anecdote doesn't matter to the stats.

It's a documented economic phenomenon called remittance, wiki it.

Here's a highlight: { The US has been the leading source of remittances globally in every year since 1983. A majority of the remittances from the US have been directed to Asian countries like India (approx. 66 billion USD in 2011), China (approx. 57 billion USD), the Philippines (approx. 23 billion USD), Bangladesh (approx. <13.8 billion USD) and Pakistan (approx. 16 billion USD). }

It makes me feel so warm and fuzzy inside that we support the rest of the world so well at the expense of our own country's well-being.

Primary and secondary sector have gone through decrease for labour need but I won't know where tertiary sector will go once machines will replace a lot of tertiary jobs.

I think the main problem is the distribution of wealth and resources is going to be a major issue. also, how to lower the tensions between workers and non-workers.

Actually this would be a good thread for me to talk in because I am researching and making a speech about the pros and cons of robotics (ontop of that, I am planning to become a robotic engineer programmer one day, so this will be nice to talk about even more-so) for my summer semester public speaking class.

From what I have think and seen, OP, its that from what I have seen is that there needs to be a balance in order for there not to be a major shitstorm from either people who don't feel ready for this technology yet and for those who are zealous to the point where they believe machines are the next stage of our evolution. This will be done through laws and social change over time and let the machines ease in but making sure that everyone feels comfortable with it.
I got information right here that does suggest this, but if those statistics and trends are true, then this will most likely happen in the future, we will be pretty dead before normal employment starts to phase out, though.
Can't really stop robotic advancement without taking in account of all of the benefits from it despite the potential drawbacks. Besides, some one will try to find a way to make such machines, legal or not (Possibly will in foreign countries).

Right now there is about to be finals for a robotic challenge (Know Your Robots, heh) where one of the challenges is getting in a car, drive it then get out of said car.

What? You realize that remittances are generally beneficial for the host country, right? The G8 are looking to make remittances easier for a reason. Not only do remittances add to foreign aid spending, but the money ultimately creates demand in both the host and the origin country. There is no good reason to oppose skilled immigrants.

Remittances don't "add to foreign aid" and they're only beneficial for the host country in that the government taxes the income and collects fees when it's transferred. It is nothing but a detriment to the people of the host country. Remittance has nothing to do with foreign aid, people say it's better than FDI because actual citizens are receiving the money instead of it going into some activist fund that buys crayons and shit, or going solely to the absolute poorest of the poor (the middle class gets fucked no matter what economy you're in).

Tell the rapidly depleting labor force that there's no good reason to oppose the skilled immigrants coming into the country on temporary visas who remove billions of dollars from the economy every year. This is not even a debate, anybody can spend an hour reading thousands of papers that explain exactly how awesome remittance is for the economic growth of developing countries and how shitty it is for everyone else.

There's a reason every first world country besides ours has an immigration limit that is actually enforced, countries don't just hand out visas to anyone who wants to be there. Australia has a points based system and if you don't have enough points to be considered useful to society, permission not granted. It's America that gets told to accept unconditional amnesty and redistribution of purely middle class wealth under the guise of racial equality and justice.

You don't seem to understand the fundamental economics of remittance. Do you believe that when US dollars are sent overseas, they simply disappear from the US economy, never to be recovered? That is not how currency works.

Please link to one of these thousands of papers.

Relevant to thread

Also, Lisa Lombardo is a fascist psychopath and/or troll.

What, you think the struggling families of China and Pakistan are turning around and buying American goods??

Remittances and the Wage Impact of Immigration

(studies the effect of remittances on Germany, which is fifth in the world when it comes to remittance outflow)

{ The results confirm the first prediction of the model. Even the OLS results, which likely suffer from a spurious positive endogeneity bias, indicate that remittances decrease native wages. As expected, the IV results are more negative and indicate that a one percent increase in remittances leads to a 0.06% reduction in the wages of native workers within that state. As the consumer base shrinks, native wages decline.

Consistent with the second prediction of the model, the impact of remittances also varies across different types of industries. Specifically, the results show that the negative impact of remittances predominantly affect workers employed in non-traded industries which are more reliant on domestic consumption. Furthermore, using a separate data set on industry value-added, an additional set of results show that remittances primarily decrease the output of non-traded industries. This confirms the prediction of the model that the observed relationship between remittances and wages is driven by changes in the consumer base. }

Immigrants are not consuming non-tradeable industry services/goods [local services, like healthcare, education, food service, etc] so their production decreases as remittance rises.

The Negative Long Term Effects of Remittance Inflow in Bosnia and Herzegovina

{ Upon further analysis of not only the economic situation of Bosnia and Herzegovina but the social one, one comes to see the detrimental patterns that have formed. Not only have remittance inflows slowed economic growth and productivity by helping reinforce an already corrupt government reliant on such inflows, but also by forming a nation reliant on “free aid”, unwilling to better the situation in their home country but rather search for ways to migrate elsewhere. This paper will not only discuss these points but will ultimately through migration and Diaspora data show the detrimental long term effects created by the inflow of remittances resulting in a massive brain drain in Bosnia and Herzegovina. }

Long-term effects on the leading remittance receiving countries in the world.

The UN collectively freaks the fuck out over the majority of high-skilled immigrants choosing the USA and the majority of low-skilled immigrants choosing Europe

{ It has become common in some countries for professional immigrants from a third country to fill places left open by departing nationals. “The South African Medical Journal describes a ‘medical carousel’, in which doctors seem to be continually moving to countries with a perceived higher standard of living. Pakistani doctors move to the UK, UK doctors move to Canada, and Canadians move to the USA.” (Bundred and Levitt, 2000). }

plz tell me more about the fundamental economics of remittance.

We are not talking about the exportation of jobs or immigration in this thread. Lisa and Particle Mare, you are both getting way off topic.

Fair point. I'll save my response and energy for a more appropriate thread.

Remittance and immigration are pretty significant when you're discussing low-skilled jobs that are easily replaced by technology. How do you have an economics discussion if you can only talk about one factor that effects the economy??

The question in the OP itself opens an entirely second conversation. If industrial jobs are replaced with robots, where do the workers go? They migrate to find non-tradeable work in dense populations where hundreds of thousands of people need delivery drivers and stock boys. But what happens when there is no more work at their skill level, it has all been replaced by technology? We'll have billions of people with no way to pay for anything and a bunch of robots producing goods nobody can buy. Well now we have to get into a government dependency debate. Low/no-skill people are able to exist on meager subsidies provided by the government, but subsidies that are only able to be paid for by the working class. We're heading towards a world where high-skilled workers get paid extraordinary amounts to keep the world spinning, but are also taxed at extraordinary amounts to support the livestock lower classes. You think income inequality is bad now…

Now that's more like it. A technological takeover would indeed be a global issue.

Chances are high that governments will either have to take strenuous efforts to reeducate their workforces, or capitalism will collapse.