|
|
|
|
|
|
by yummyfajitas
3572 days ago
|
|
|
If you read the statistics cited in your usnews article you'll see they aren't disagreeing with me. According to them the issue is that there are lots of people who are "neither employed nor actively looking for work". That's what I'm saying too, in addition to the fact that many folks could find work if we didn't illegalize the work they would do (e.g. hair braiding, selling tacos). There are many reasons why people don't work today, but being replaced by machines is not one of them. So whatever solutions we implement today should reflect the problem of today: useful work isn't getting done. If we ever reach the future where I have a Robo-Maid and where Robo-Burger-Flipper is more than just a gimmick, then we can come up with a solution tailored to tomorrow's problems. Similarly, if you are fat eat less. If you are underweight eat more. An obese person eating more because some day they might be underweight is really just making excuses for gluttony. |
|
|
I wonder if we're talking past each other. Perhaps robots aren't the top reason for the apparent worldwide decline in labor participation (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.TLF.CACT.ZS ). But robots have brought economic dislocation, especially in the manufacturing sector. The worry has been out for a long time on whether displaced workers can find other gainful employment in reasonable time (http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1982/09/art2full.pdf ). Note this is not about getting merely any job, but a job that can bring a satisfying life. As the automation has grown more capable, so has this concern (https://hbr.org/2014/12/what-happens-to-society-when-robots-... ).
Consider the full quote regarding the "neither employed nor actively looking for work"[1]: It critiques the official unemployment rate as shrouding a dysfunctional employment scene. Gallup says: "The official unemployment rate, which cruelly overlooks the suffering of the long-term and often permanently unemployed as well as the depressingly underemployed, amounts to a big lie."
The usnews article also cites other stats on wage gains, shrinking middle class, growing low-income, etc., all to illustrate its main point: "The Pew study considers a widening wealth gap to be driving the wage growth disparity, as more and more workers find themselves at the extremes of the income spectrum. And this gap is generated in part by the unavailability of what Gallup considers to be good jobs."
This pressure for "good jobs" has brought movements such as raising the minimum wage or implementing universal basic income. Invariably this leads to questions on whether the wages for low-skill jobs should ever exceed their apparent economic worth in the name of a "living wage". From there inevitably robots are brought into the picture (limited, gimmicky, or otherwise), if for no other reason than to suggest that low-skill workers may price themselves out of a job.
Putting it all together - robots on top of widening wealth gap on top of shrinking middle class... - well people worry, you know?
==== [1] The full quote is: Gallup also is among a host of organizations and individuals to criticize some of the government's statistical methodologies in recent years. The national unemployment rate of 5 percent, for example, doesn't keep track of the more than 94 million Americans who are neither employed nor actively looking for work. And while at least some of those not counted in the labor force are either in school or retired, there's also a sizable portion that simply hasn't actively looked for a job in the last four weeks. People who give up looking for employment altogether aren't actually counted as unemployed, even though they may have been without a job longer and in greater need than anyone who's regularly sending resumes out.