This post has been removed from the Skillful channel by channel owner Deano. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

I will be dead, but it scares me to think what jobs the un-educated will be able to do in 50 years.

I will be dead, but it scares me to think what jobs the un-educated will be able to do in 50 years.


I don't think it'll take that long before this becomes a much bigger issue.

Right now there's a few important barriers that are holding back a huge flood of automation: driving on public roads, recognizing and handling awkward materials, interfacing in delicate, safe ways with people (and recognizing their subtle cues for motion, etc..). We could see computers solving most of those challenges to acceptable levels in the next 5-10 years.

I think driving will be a big watershed. Once you meet that kind of competence standard reliably - once people put their lives in the hands of automated judgement like this - I think you could see large percentages of jobs go very quickly. I'm not just thinking of unskilled jobs either.

For example, there's no reason a computer couldn't handle a good percentage of optometrist visits right now (with humans only required in odder scenarios). All that's stopping it is a lack of public confidence - but, again, once robots are driving I think people will come to accept them in all sorts of scenarios... and it'll spiral out very quickly.

Things are going to have to change a lot in terms of what we expect people to do all their lives, and what it means to contribute your share to the economy. Once it starts I think it's going to change very quickly.

@A10anis @jmzero what would be the point of working so much when we have robots doing all the stuff we need? They would reduce our costs of living, so we wouldn't need to work as much. Of course, automation won't happen overnight, so people will have plenty of time to adjust and find more creative and managerial jobs (managing robots?) that can't be done by robots themselves.

what would be the point of working so much when we have robots doing all the stuff we need? They would reduce our costs of living, so we wouldn't need to work as much.


Oh - certainly it's a good problem. Once we've adjusted to it, people will be free do great things and a ton of other problems will disappear. However, some of adjustments are going to be big - and while they won't be instant, they'll still be very fast. The balance could tip over the course of just a decade or so, and many people won't want to change.

But the old way won't work. Of the remaining jobs, many won't be sharable - and other people won't want to share, assuming we're still allocating resources how we do now. It would make sense for many people to be involved in doing creative works (even if those works are only appreciated by a small group), but the market won't support them in doing so (just as it doesn't now). You'd get huge positive feedback cycles for owners of remaining scarce resources.

Anyways, there will still be scarcity (of something) - and I don't think we'll able to distribute stuff based solely on how the market values our contribution. If we do, we'll end up with a cruel, unsustainable level of inequality (if we aren't there already).

But that's exactly what some people will want. Many people believe in the current setup of capitalism as not just a "more practical economic system than its competitors", but as a kind of divine perfection of fairness and just rewards. People have bought into capitalism as quasi-religion, and many - especially the people who are currently "winning" - aren't going to want to switch.

@jmzero I'll assume you're referring to free-market capitalism, and that anybody who thinks capitalism is "divine perfection of fairness" is just a convenient characterization of those who don't happen to share your concerns.

What you've presented is an economic problem, a hypothetical one set in the future, but a problem nonetheless, and, of course, your concern that capitalism would deal with it poorly and unfairly.

Maybe you're right. Maybe society will be stumped by that problem when it comes.

Economic problems exist no matter what social system you adopt. Capitalism just happens to have a good track record of dealing with them, specially considering the limited amount of economic freedom (what I would consider the oxygen of capitalism) that it has enjoyed for centuries.

You portray those who are "winning" as people who quasi-religiously believe in capitalism, when I'd characterize them as mostly the opposite: corporatists and socialists bent on subverting capitalism for their own profit, depriving it of its oxygen. They've been very successful so far.