[Ph0X]

The point isn't that we save 2 minutes, it's that there's now 10 less job we need. And that may seem as a negative at first, but the idea is that as more and more job get automated, prices should go down until the point where people will not have to work full weeks anymore, or rather, focus on learning and reaching higher education, rather than doing dummy work all day (aka just scanning items non stop for 8 hours).

[dap]

The claim that increased automation will enable people not to work is often cited as a defense of putting people out of work in favor of automation. This relies heavily on a number of assumptions that I think are empirically completely untested:

- that automating all jobs will cause all prices to go down. (It seems just as plausible that if everything were automated, then the relatively small class of people who work building and maintaining the machines wield monopoly-like power and charge accordingly, concentrating wealth even more than it's concentrated today.)

- that with lower prices, people will want less money. (It seems just as plausible that people will expect to be able to keep working and buy more to raise their standard of living.)

- that the intermediate state, where many jobs are automated, but people still need to work for a living, is tenable for society

- that there are no significant social problems resulting from a society where nobody has to work

I don't know whether these are true or not, but if they're not, the result will greatly impact the lives of millions (billions?) of people. Obviously, banning automation isn't a solution either, but it seems flippant to bet the lives of so many people on what we think might happen in a system as complex as the global economy.

[edited formatting]

[joshumax]

Funny how I just finish my Thesis on automation and its effects on globalization and the workforce the day before this comes out...

[omtinez]

Well, are you gonna share that with us? :-)

[joshumax]

As soon as I publish it I will ;)

[asragab]

I imagine this scenario has played out a thousand times when it comes to the socioeconomic effects of technology given the rapid pace of ostensible innovation. I think it actually is part of the problem, while not a specific critique of Amazon Go, to the degree that technology advances at a rate faster than we can make sense of their effects, we face the possibility of endangering the lives of millions of people. Theses and dissertations aren't the only means of understanding, but they are invaluable mechanisms for grounding the discursive space in a digestible format.

[duaneb]

Is it any good?

[zanny]

It does enable people not to work in an agnostic view of wealth distribution. Automation means both less labor and more production, which means a net increase in total wealth.

The problem is assuming that total wealth means anything for anyone but the capitalist class that owns said wealth.

[vintageseltzer]

I used to believe that, but yeah, that hasn't happened and is not likely to, because the real world does not operate anywhere close to an efficient market.

Instead, those with the means of production have hoarded the benefits. Despite all of our technological progress after the American industrial revolution, we are working more hours and earning less as a whole. Despite record profits, companies are not increasing wages and prices are not decreasing for anything except cheap, low-quality, mass-market consumer goods.

See: trickle down economics.

[genericpseudo]

> those with the means of production have hoarded the benefits

And, behold, we see someone rediscovering the central tenet of Marxist economic theory.

(Entirely serious; not an insult. HN readers could really do with a more balanced economic diet – reading more Marxist theory and less Chicago School...)

[eropple]

I upvoted you, but I want to also vocally agree with you because I think it's important. Even if you don't come away agreeing with the conclusions of Marxist economists, etc., understanding it is worth the time it takes. Considering theories that are not automatically in agreement with those that currently run the show is valuable.

(This is why I've read a solid chunk of the Austrians. I generally laugh at them. But I've read their stuff and I can think in it once I get into the mindset.)

[TeMPOraL]

I agree. Also, Marxism didn't appear out of thin air - it was a response to real and perceived problems of the people living at some point in the past. So even if solutions don't ultimately make sense, the problems they've observed are worth thinking about.

[eropple]

An argument for learning about history, too? Are we allowed to have this thread on Hacker News? ;)

[TeMPOraL]

Oh. I didn't see the HN Experiment announcement until just now.

I'm promptly shutting up about anything for which the valid answer isn't "Lisp does it better". ;).

[genericpseudo]

> Even if you don't come away agreeing with the conclusions of Marxist economists, etc., understanding it is worth the time it takes

Yes! It's a useful lens – just as Hayek is. No-one has a monopoly on absolute truth in the social sciences, so understanding (and empathizing with) all the framing narratives, most all of which have some kind of a point, is crucial to being able to navigate these kinds of discussion.)

Understanding Marxist (and Hayekian) thought has been very helpful to me in framing my own politics – which, ironically enough, wind up being moderate market/social liberalism in the European tradition.

[eropple]

Sounds similar to my own path. I started off in the libertarian bucket (unsurprisingly, being an affluent white kid) and ended up evolving towards a position roughly summed up as "markets are fine so long as you put the fear of the state in them for antisocial behavior" the more time I spent outside of my CS classes and in my political science and economics classes.

To this day I'm so thankful that I got a B.A. that let me actually leave the CS cage during college instead of just taking more math.

[burkaman]

I think anyone who uses the phrase "means of production" was probably already familiar with Marxism.

[TeMPOraL]

Many people know the phrase - maybe they even remember it from history lessons. But understanding what it means is often absent (as with many concepts one doesn't use) until one for some reason starts thinking about it more.

[lucio]

"those with the means of production have hoarded the benefits"... totally agree, for example, Elon Musk's Tesla should be Nationalized ASAP. </sarcasm>

[mikeash]

It might be worthwhile to re-frame it. Rather than say "10 fewer jobs," say "10 people are no longer forced to spend eight hours a day sitting in front of a cash register."

That assumes we can find something better for them to do, of course. But man, we have to try! Forcing people to do things a machine can do is inhumane.

[rescripting]

I'm a bit worried that most of us here on HN are feverishly working on ways to automate away jobs, and there is quite a strong economic incentive for us to do so, but there is hardly any effort and no incentive for policy makers to catch those affected. Who is building and planning for this new social utopia once people no longer have to bag groceries? Right now it looks like a lot of misery and poverty on the horizon before things get better.

[mikeash]

I totally agree. Getting rid of wasteful jobs is a good thing if you can somehow handle the people who lose those jobs, whether redirecting them to something more productive or pensioning them off or whatever. And that side of things really doesn't seem to get much attention. There's a lot of hand-wavy talk about basic income, some lip service paid to continuing education and retraining, but not a whole lot really being done to prepare.

[avar]

Getting rid of wasteful jobs is a good thing regardless of whether you can handle the people who lose those jobs in the short term.

The job-saving technology will live forever, long after the people who are temporarily displaced die. You're doing an immense amount of good for the untold number of people who aren't even born yet.

Technology is also global, but the political problems associated with eliminating jobs are problems on a state-by-state basis. Is it immoral to develop a technology just because some political systems are incapable of handling the gains in productivity, while other states are?

[mikeash]

I would never say it's immoral to develop the technology. The tough question is how to deploy it.

[SamBoogieNYC]

I have a notion that one of the major ways people will be spending the time they otherwise would be working is by consuming entertainment.

If that notion is correct, moving towards an educational model focused around creating the components needed for general entertainment (video/AR/VR/Music etc) might alleviate the problems we'll face.

[darpa_escapee]

> I have a notion that one of the major ways people will be spending the time they otherwise would be working is by consuming entertainment.

Where are these people getting the money to spend on entertainment if they aren't working? I don't think this will happen.

What I do see happening, however, is that people have less free time between juggling more than 1 job and a side gig with Uber/their ilk.

[hyperbovine]

This is the right question to ask. The laborers in question could all be productively employed as artists, homemakers, social workers -- whatever. To the extent that we get lots of new workers in those categories, and still get to have groceries too, that's a net gain for society. But it's up to society to get us there, and right now society doesn't seem even remotely up to the challenge.

[sampo]

> Who is building and planning for this new social utopia once people no longer have to bag groceries?

I grew up in a country (Finland) where people bag their own groceries. The table behind the cashier just has a bit more room and some dividers, so even 3 customers have room to bag their own groceries simultaneously.

So an utopia without the "grocery-bagging class" is certainly possible.

[rescripting]

I was being a bit facetious with the grocery bagging example. My core point is "Who is building and planning for this new social utopia once 5, 50, 95% of jobs are automated away?"

[biafra]

Same in Germany. When I visited the US for the first time. It was really strange for me to have people bag my groceries. Also. I usually shop groceries with a back pack. How does that work in the US? Will they put the stuff in there for me?

[mikeash]

I've never seen someone with a backpack, but it's not uncommon for people to bring their own reusable bags and have the bagger use them. I think a backpack would work the same way. Hand it over, then get it back full of food.

[samatman]

I normally pack my own backpack. That way I can be sure the squishy stuff is on top, the glass bottle goes in the glass bottle holder, etc. As a nice bonus, the bagger can take a couple minutes rest.

[Theodores]

> Right now it looks like a lot of misery and poverty on the horizon before things get better.

So what is new? We have been automating jobs out of existence for a long time. Every era has had a lot of people that are redundant, every era has had useless governments get to grips with it.

Recently I automated three jobs out of existence, making the computer do the data entry work with the customer filling in forms. This is great for the customer as they now get what they want done instantly instead of having to wait a week for the human to do what the computer can do. It is great for the company as 3 people don't have to be managed, provided office space and paid. But as for my colleagues?

I obviously have had thoughts about automating my friends on the next desk out of existence, how I see it is that there are actually plenty of vacancies in the company, there are plenty of vacancies outside the company and the writing has been on the wall for the last year regarding the changes we put through. 2 of my 3 former colleagues are now working elsewhere, having moved on fine, but there is the one that did not step up and go for other interviews within the company or look elsewhere. Now I am sure that government handouts are available, however, if someone does not look out for their own job and assumes it will always be there for them, what can you do? Is it always the government's fault in this situation?

My above sentiment is a tad Thatcherite, it was Norman Tebbit who said 'on your bike', i.e. if there isn't a job for you in your home town then you have got to move, the government isn't going to magically create a job for you. The 'on your bike' remark didn't go down too well in the 1980's, but 'on your bike' it has been since then.

[rescripting]

Thats a highly individualistic point of view. One where as long as you're willing to put in the effort and be flexible you'll be able to thrive. I see it a lot on HN because most of us work in growing fields with many opportunities. Maybe you had to uproot your life and move to San Francisco but hey, now you work for Google and clear six figures.

There comes a point where flexibility and gumption don't get you far enough. When the pool of good quality jobs shrinks so much that the ecosystem cannot support the species.

I'm not calling for a halt to progress. If you hadn't automated away those jobs someone else would have. There are very strong economic incentives to do so. I just wish governments would see the writing on the wall and start planning for the future where the status quo leaves most people out in the cold.

[pbhjpbhj]

>That assumes we can find something better for them to do, of course. //

In practice what [is and] is going to happen is that the jobs of the poor are removed, because they are more easily automated and the capitalists will retain much of the revenue that would formerly have been spent on wages.

Nothing is going to be done politically until there is either civil unrest or until there is so much impact to those with lowest wealth in society that the capitalists start getting poorer returns because too few people can afford to purchase the goods produced. In either case the situation is going to be very dire IMO before we get there.

This on top of the apparent existing inequalities and the increasing pay gap that the gig economy is creating (the efficiencies don't appear to be improving pay for the workers nor reducing costs as much as they could), and things like zero-hours contracts are pushing [in the UK] makes for a bleak outlook for those who are not already rich IMO.

[jimbokun]

"Nothing is going to be done politically until there is either civil unrest or until there is so much impact to those with lowest wealth in society that the capitalists start getting poorer returns because too few people can afford to purchase the goods produced."

The problem is the civil unrest seems to be moving in the direction of ethnic nationalism and isolationism, which may not turn out to be the best long term solution to this problem.

[ako]

Look at what happened in the us. Unemployed people are looking towards the government to make sure that there are jobs for them to do.

But how can we be sure that enough meaningful jobs will exist for all people who want to work? It would be kind of surprising if there was a meaningful full job for everyone.

This feels like former communist countries where everyone was employed, although many jobs were pointless.

[base698]

XBox and OxyContin seems to be the current trend.

[jimbokun]

"Forcing people to do things a machine can do is inhumane."

It's not clear there's anything a person can do that a machine can never do, in principle.

So then what's the point of having people?

[Qwertystop]

Generally in sci-fi, one of:

A): None (catastrophic). People die out, or are wiped out, as advanced machines outcompete them for all resources.

B): The boundary (hopeful). AI capable of creating new ideas is either impossible or just too difficult to invent (hard to prove which way it goes), so people keep pushing it farther.

C): None (utopic). Machines do anything people would have done for society, including the creation of new things to have and/or do. However, machines don't reach the level of autonomy required for them to actively eliminate people, or decide against it because there's plenty of resources for everyone, so people have 100% leisure time (which may happen to resemble what used to be work, if the people in question enjoy the process, but is no longer necessary to society).

D): The boundary (dystopic). Machines end up being more complex than people - to the degree that people are valued less than sufficiently advanced machines, and are put to work rather than manufacturing robots to do the jobs.

A note on D: Generally relatively soft sci-fi that does this, because the stories generally put humanity's role as hard labor, which doesn't make sense. However, I could see a story in "The Thinking Machine of the Future has become so Incredibly Advanced that the Absolute Pinnacle of Human Thought is to them what Plowing Fields is to Us." Humanity as the intellectual equivalent of the plow ox (or the tractor), doing the jobs that the machines (with their much higher potential for more complex thought) find to be beneath them and refuse to subject each other to. Possibly with the assistance of basic nonintelligent machines, the way we wouldn't try to make an ox plow a field without first affixing a plow to it.

[mikeash]

Unless you believe in souls or some other form of dualism, then clearly machines will eventually be able to do anything we can do.

But we're far from that point now. Anything machines can currently do is, pretty much by definition, drudgery. I'd be happy to reevaluate that statement if and when this changes.

I have no idea what the ultimate answer to that question would be. Lots of SF authors have tried to address it, coming up with answers varying from humans always having something they can do better, to humans existing to have fun, to humans having no point at all and therefore get wiped out by the machines.

[user5994461]

Keep half of them to unstuck the automatic cash registry, watch buyers and restock the shop.

[mikeash]

That certainly seems to be the solution so far.

[milcron]

This would be great if they got to keep the same salary.

Now they're just plain out of work. Hooray?

[CrLf]

The Earth's population isn't getting any lower, those 10 jobs lost mean 10 people that will need support from the rest of society, just to survive.

It's utopian to think job losses mean everybody gets their workload reduced, as this has never happened before. Automation has never reduced anybody's workloads. In fact, every reduction has happened to either eliminate de-facto slaves (industrial revolution) or because excessive workloads actually reduce productivity.

[chongli]

those 10 jobs lost mean 10 people that will need support from the rest of society, just to survive.

If we have the technology to replace those people and we don't do it, then we as a society are already supporting them just to survive. You're talking about artificially maintaining inefficiency. If we're going to go down that road, we might as well start paying people to dig holes and fill them back up again.

[leereeves]

Workloads have been reduced before.

The 40 hour workweek is significantly shorter than the 6 12 hour work days people used to endure.

Why not reduce the workweek again, to say, 32 hours?

[RobertoG]

Yes, and we shouldn't forget why workloads have been reduced before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day

It's not a 'natural' evolution, but organized fight from labour.

The same with the general conditions of work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mines_and_Collieries_Act_1842

So, in my opinion, reducing the workweek or, an alternative that I think is more practical, stop working younger it's against powerful interests and can't be done without a fight.

[leereeves]

And that's a fight that will be prompted by high unemployment after automation replaces many jobs.

The transition will be difficult (they usually are) but the end result (more free time for everyone) sounds good to me.

[RobertoG]

I hope so. But history tell us that the first reaction to high unemployment and bad economic conditions is the dark side of politics.

[guntars]

They already need the support of the rest of society. No one survives on their own anymore. Automating a job like this gives more time and money back to people who buy groceries, which is almost everyone. Some of that can be used to support the lost jobs while they find something else to do.

[falcolas]

> Automating a job like this gives more [...] money back to people who buy groceries

Honestly, I think this is never going to actually be the case. Why would a grocery store lower prices just because their costs went down a bit? Neither the demand nor the supply has changed, nor has the price people are willing to pay for their groceries.

If nothing has changed but your costs, why lower the prices when you can simply report increased revenue to your shareholders? If competition comes along, a quick "we're premium, they are cheap" marketing campaign (or buying them out) would probably cost less than lowering the prices to match.

[aianus]

Just look at Walmart. They're dirt cheap because their costs and their margins are the lowest and consumers flock to their stores.

[falcolas]

Funny enough, if you find the same products at other stores, they are the same price. I think Walmart thrives by offering a diverse selection of inexpensive offerings, not by pricing identical items lower (to reflect their lower workforce costs). For example, videogames cost the same at Walmart as they do at Target. To see a different price for a specific item, you have to go to a very different type of store (Sam's Club/Costco).

I think it's fair to say that even if Walmart could half their operating costs with technology, those savings would not find their way into the pockets of consumers.

[handzhiev]

You'll have to lower the prices if you can because the next store in the neighbourhood will do it to outcompete you anyway.

[pbhjpbhj]

>Some of that can be used to support the lost jobs //

It can, that's clear, the problem is convincing the people who didn't lose their jobs that they should take a take hike to support the others; that's not an easy sell in Western Capitalism at least.

[goranb]

This would work if means of production were distributed more equally. The global productivity is already at a point where many of us don't need to work, but we still do because we are denied the benefits of the automation that you mention.

[ronjouch]

> "the idea is that as more and more job get automated, prices should go down until the point where people will not have to work full weeks anymore"

Fallacy; apart from a short break thanks to syndicalist wins, we're just working more and more since the industrial revolution.

Reading suggestions: "A People's History Of The United States" by Howard Zinn, and Noam Chomsky.

[Apocryphon]

Losing 10 jobs to automation would be far less concerning if the businesses and individuals that cut the jobs would reinvest a greater percentage of their newfound profits into social programs to retrain the 10 people who are now without jobs. Or into a fund for the much-vaunted basic income, even.

[darpa_escapee]

Reminder that unions have negotiated and continue to negotiate compensation plans from employers that automate away or move jobs overseas to workers that are replaced.

[Apocryphon]

Unions... in the U.S.???

[dpc59]

Except prices for living necessities won't get lower, since demand is elastic, people will just get trapped as debt slaves while corporate stockholders become the new monarchy.

[platz]

> prices should go down

unlikely - can think of a bunch of reasons why this wouldn't happen.

> people will not have to work full weeks anymore, or rather, focus on learning and reaching higher education

too idealistic - why aren't the people who "aren't working full weeks" today focusing on learning and reaching higher education? The logic doesn't work for the people already in this target group, today.

[TeMPOraL]

> too idealistic - why aren't the people who "aren't working full weeks" today focusing on learning and reaching higher education? The logic doesn't work for the people already in this target group, today.

There are many reasons. "Not working full weeks" doesn't always mean "not busy". Some of the reasons are:

- they're taking care of children / sick parents

- they're themselves sick or disabled (including various psychological conditions that can make you unable to perform effectively as a worker in this economy)

- they don't have a way to find a job that would let them earn more than they get from benefits (going to work in such circumstances is stupidity from economic POV)

- higher education they need costs money they can't get due to reasons listed above

[batrat]

At the end of the day, that CEO has to make bigger profits to justify the technology investment.

[herval]

Is there any evidence that reducing the number of jobs correlates to lower prices?

[wooter]

The last 300 years during which capitalism and tech have done more for the common man than any other ststem in the last 30,000.

[herval]

Uh... I'm not a luddite, nor comparing the modern world w/ pre-electricity society.

I'm specifically asking about the assumption that "if we remove cashiers, supermarkets will obviously bring the prices down" (as a counter-example, I remember reading somewhere that Seattle's minimum wage didn't affect inflation in any meaningful way)