Will Robots Take Your Job? | Economics for People with Ha-Joon Chang
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 лют 2025
- Automation is as old as capitalism itself. But new technology raises the question of whether robots will replace most-if not all-of our jobs. In this seventh lecture in INET’s “Economics For People” series, Ha-Joon Chang examines the history of automation, and whether current fears are well-founded.
About “Economics for People”:
“It is extremely important for our democracy to function that ordinary citizens understand the key issues and basic theories of economics.” - Ha-Joon Chang
Economics has long been the domain of the ivory tower, where specialized language and opaque theorems make it inaccessible to most people. That’s a problem.
In the new series “Economics For People” from the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET), University of Cambridge economist and bestselling author Ha-Joon Chang explains key concepts in economics, empowering anyone to hold their government, society, and economy accountable.
"Do you want high leisure, infinite material comfort with no work?" Well yes, obviously. I don't really want to go to some factory and sit around making chairs all day just so I can have something to do. I've already got plenty to do. There's biking in the summer, snowboarding in the winter. If the weather is crap and I need to be inside, I can play around on my computer making video games, writing, or pursuing some other creative thing. I don't need work to connect with people. I'm naturally social as it is. All I need to do is go to a skate park or put on my snowboard and say hi.
What sort of people need someone else to tell them what to do just to avoid boredom or feel like they have a purpose? Are they just naturally subordinate? A world with less drudgery is obviously superior to a world with more of it. Duh.
The fact of the matter, rich or poor, people get bored on their days or hours off work. So it's dubious. We all experience boredom at some time in our lives. So the argument that we would be bored is dubious.
The rich also get bored, and the develop sociopath or just weird behavior, primarily because others do in fact have to work, unless in their inner super rich circles, they don't have to have a job, and thus feel they didn't earn their leisure and find it offensive when people ask them what they do, because they do shit. So they develop hobbies and play executive of the board which is tantamount to running errands to the rest of us.
The Jaime Johnson 1% and Born rich documentaries with various rich people who literally have all the leisure they want spend it in various ways... some get bored, so much so they annoy their tailor to the point of absurdity to have the "best most attractive suit jacket" or whatever. Some go into a weird depression, some go crazy, some go into abusing drugs/booze, some love the leisure, some desire to then develop fame and prestige. It's all over the place.
So it's the worst argument people "must" have work to feel fulfilling.
Many develop hobbies that happen to be productive/helpful to humanity as a whole anyway other than chowing down on empty entertainment: they study astronomy, develop aviation or civil naval methods and productions, study and go on to contribute to literature, music, architecture, archaeology, particle physics, etc.
ua-cam.com/video/maWdDl_OjlQ/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/XpIoGgafFsE/v-deo.html
@@jmitterii2 It kinda depends on a certain definition of "work" too. If "work" is an umbrella term that includes hobbies and sports, then I largely agree with the idea that people need something to occupy their time or life becomes sort of meaningless.
But this idea that we would intentionally reduce our productive capacity and impose drudgery on all of society because some people might get bored if they don't have to go to a job for a living is just banana cakes. It's anti-freedom. There is no way to frame it that isn't totally dystopian.
It's not my fault that I want to do creative things with my free time, that I would prefer sports over working in a factory, that I am physically capable of doing both in a way that fulfills me, or that I am independent-minded enough to find fulfillment doing these things without any oversight or collaboration with others. A system that makes me go to work because some people might get bored goes against everything we've built this country on.
I want the rich to be vain and mostly useless. How lucky for them! They don't need to explain it to me. I get it. In fact, I am totally happy for them, unless of course, they aren't all that bright and end up wasting their lives doing drugs because they couldn't think of anything better to do. That's a shame. But not everybody gets to be smart and interesting, so oh well. We shouldn't make everyone suffer for it.
@@tedbendixson I believe that our cities and towns in the US show that there's much, not to say unlimited, work that ought to be done or for which there is a significant social need, but doesn't get done because there's zero or insufficient ROI for Capitalist investment, unless govt hands out subsidies to privatize what is *essentially* public sector functions.
Business often relies on these types of public sector handouts.
Anti-Socialism but Alt-Progressive scholars of "political economy" in the 1800s had no issue with such public investment in the Commons for productive capital dev. They aimed to distinguish between gains of private investment vs gains from social investment being captured as "rents".
The goal was socialistic "good" outcomes without erecting an actual socialist system, such as Marx was proposing as a Dictatorship from the bottom .. arguably from the bottom but actually from the top. Progressives in the 19th century looked deeply and rejected *that great degree* of centralization.
Neoclassical econ science aimed to erase these distinctions between real honest private gains vs (French) "rents", the free lunch which is provided, directly or indirectly, from social investment and special legal privileges and other circumstances. Not so easy to parse by rules.
Yeah if I did not need to work and had income, enough to keep my bills paid, then I would pursue learning language and learning music. Hell when people were living in tribes most of the people just slept and had sex.
I find a lot of meaning in the world I do. Of course I don't want to work over 6 hours a day. I find people who don't like some sort of work childish
14:37
"technology isn't independent of technology"
that's why it going for the befit of the few.
@Javier Adan no one cares, nice scam but it's too obvious.
Gary Stevenson spotted at 9:09
Long live communism and freedom
There is a wrinkle that many overlook: Previous jobs like farmer and ditch digger could be done by sany human with a working body.
Loss of old jobs opens up new jobs, it's true.
But, not everyone CAN become a computer programmer.
Not everyone has the IQ needed, and even if they do, they may not have the right mindset.
What do they do?
In thew old days they could have made a good living on a farm.
What will they do now?
Bingo.
Robots eliminate "stupider" jobs or parts of jobs which are relatively "stupider". I'm including professional jobs with dull aspects. (My mother used to specialize in shorthand, taking dictation of letters, use of grammar and business English, typing, other small office mgmt work. Tech hasn't eliminated all of that .. yet .. but a lot of that.)
But some people ARE stupid, at different levels.
Some people can pack widgets.
Some may have grown too many anti-social tendencies to pack widgets or do much else but create disorder and trouble.
One older (pushy) office worker I served as Desktop Support about a decade ago, I could tell she was a breathing and eating Excel macro, even tho I lacked the skills to write that macro, I could see that was her role. A repetitive copy and paste function, plus griping and office gossip as added value.
We can't, as a society, let such people starve.
Capitalism NEEDS CONSUMERS for SALES more than it needs workers.
But UBI *is* simply inflationary.
It's a conundrum.
@@gg_rider 'UBI is simply inflationary'
Of course it isn't.
we don't pay robots for their hard work.
all kinds of automatization are bounded to the demand, uk did not became the first industrialized/mecanized country because of improvements in technology, steam machines have been invented dozens of times since the bronze age, water wheels existed for ages, is became the first industrialized economy because it had access to asian markets and american slave labor produce, it was a political/military position that enabled the changes in the production, not technology
It's not either/or. It's not a binary choice between demand and technology.
Korea has automated shipbuilding. Not because of political military position or guaranteed market. because they don't want foreign immigration while they have lot's of highly educated engineers competing for best jobs. so they can choose high investment in robotics and limit needs for workers using less but we'll educated without any shortages.
that's also how you keep high salaries in economy (no shitty jobs in Sweden, automated latrins) and you don't need social support for poor people and you can have equally high levels od education in schools without pathology dragging more talented down.
But growing costs of energy may force them to recalculate costs.
Short answer: yes, the robots will.
yes, just get used to it.
o:50
8:19
The crucial question he does not touch, is whether in future we will have to work for a living?!
Or even want any kind of employment!?
When robots, big data and automation manufacture all food and daily necessities, we could indulge in culture, creative tasks, learning and creating livable communities.
Call it jobs, work or simply community work.
It is going to be an enforced employment as of today only if the methodical inequality (fiat debt) is uphold.
Otherwise we will evolve and become higher, conscious beings, more like our alien peers. 👽
Except capital is owned by the few, not the public.
It will never happen. Because the world runs on growth. All efficiencies are captured by capital to increase profits.
Somewhat idealistic and theoretical? Who makes the decisions? As Jaron Lanier has written "Who Owns the Future?" When Adam Smith surmiised that we might be working 15 hours a day, he must have assumed that there is a fair method of distribution of jobs? That seems not to be the case. In many countries we now have about 2x labour force, since most women are now also working, whereas they were not in 50s or 60s: they were "homemakers". Automation has increased productivity significantly in the last 50o years, but wages have barely changed, perhaps even slumped. Unfortunately, the profits have been captured by the owners (the 1% or less?) and technological unemployment has thrown many out of work, or having to settle for more menial jobs. In fact, employers very much LIKE having people unemployed because that puts downward pressure on salary demands! I also think "this time it is different" because we are automating not only brawn (muscles) but brains (AI and ML) which is totally new viz industrial revolution. Perhaps the end result will be a measure of how well democracy (the actual desires and will of "the people") works? I expect most employees would prefer less work hours, sharing jobs, and sharing in the benfits of productivity. Automation is largely developed through taxes (on everyone! including those workers about to be unemployed!) supporting university research and government and military projects. Sharing the benefits would be "fair". However, employers prefer to hoard more profits, push down salaries, and have even more control over the process.
Around 35:00 a very deceptive proposition. 1) have material productivity but no jobs, thus generating poverty; 2) material productivity, but sadness because we love jobs; 3) or keep jobs with low productivity in order to be happy. In sum: wage labour or sadness. Its a very narrow view that conviniently keeps Marx aside, except for a footnote and a joke. Productivity can be shared, reducing jobs and generating happiness. It would take a small step for man but would be a giant leap for mankind: share the property over production. Once again, burgeoise property unquestioned. Tells you how "new" this "economic thinking" really is.
A lot is made of economics and their statistical and data analytic work of late, but little is discussed about how economics is actually a study of _logistics,_ not merely a study of wealth and its accumulation and/or distribution. Indeed, it is easy to have an economic model wherein there is no market whatsoever. That model is called communism, where _planning_ replaces market forces. And indeed, commanding the heights of the economy through planning, has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to effect extremely rapid economic progress.
The Russian Revolution of 1917 resulted in a country devastated by war twice over, and the expulsion of foreign invaders, including the United States. Within 40 years it had progressed from a feudal society to one where its life expectancy was the longest amongst Continental Europe. Where it was the first country to access space. Where it produced the most steel in the world. Where literacy rates where the highest in Europe. It took a crisis of ideology (Khruschev) and a liberal counter-revolution and mass privatisation (Yeltsin) to reduce its power to that of a middling country today.
Economic planning was how Britain, a backward, import dependant country, became an empire upon which the sun never set. Economic planning was how the United States rebuilt itself from being shattered by civil war into today's military and economic hegemon. Planning is how China has transformed from being a country based on feudal subsistence farming into today's industrial powerhouse. For all that Friedman and Hayek railed against planning as a road to serfdom, they sure do love being publically owned by multiple counterfactuals.
@@MonMalthias Don't forget China did almost the same, with a few missteps.
Totally agreed. It made me throw up a little in my mouth. Do people just not have hobbies? I've gone through patches of unemployment in my past, and I usually just double down on activities I love to do, snowboarding, making video games, etc. It's hard to feel depressed when you're hitting jumps, going upside down and hearing cheers from the crowd.
We really ought to be campaigning for some kind of basic income that will let people feel comfortable enough not to take bullshit jobs. We should find a way to put the squeeze on these bullshit kinds of people who actually *like* wearing suits, going into offices, and holding meetings.
@@tedbendixson "We should find a way to put the squeeze on these bullshit kinds of people who actually like wearing suits, going into offices, and holding meetings."
What I have always found fascinating such people particularly the board of directors, really see this as a job. When it is in fact just them running errands as we would do if we were shopping for house with a realtor, speaking to legal council to a lawyer, asking the deli clerk for the soup of the day, or the cashier as we buy our groceries at the counter.
It's not work at all. It's fluffy errand crap. All the work was done by production specialist managers and financial and accounting agents often not even part of their staff, but that of the banks they they use for their banking or representatives from the firm that makes equipment or supplies them with an input.
It's shopping with others who have already done the analysis. They just need to glance over it, and decide to sign or not sign the dotted lines.
I think we sometimes forget that he is stating the neoclassical view
It the wrong question, the question should be will Robots CHANGE Your Job?
I’d like the opportunity to have re-education made availiable at low cost and the to be able to opt out of work when ever I wanted to get out for significant time and relearn and re imagine the future. Not for everyone, but Def for those of us who are more open, though we might need some resources such as social clubs related to staying in touch on this kinda thinking and transitions.
Upskilling and re-skilling
Disappointingly shy and foggy regarding relations of jobs, work, income, distribution and promises of sane economy such as increased leisure time and reduced uncertainty.
Sane economy would allow everyone unconditional basic material floor on which to stand. That means: income unconditioned by work (just like the rich have) which is sufficient for food, shelter, clothes, some comfort, full health care and good education. Who has more ambitions or wants after that, or is miserable for not being a wage slave, is free to earn more through cooperatives or renting themselves to others.
Discussing automation without demystifying JOBS and DISTRIBUTION is in vain. Insisting that work is somehow inherently tied to income is hypocritical, as can be seen with rich people, whose wealth is something society allowed and not a "god given" law of nature.
Most people work (slave) just ot pay the bills. They hate their jobs and themselves but are forced to create all kinds of material and service crap just to justify their income. This "economy" is toxic for the planet and for the people but it serves the rich. It's a disguised feudalism.
giridharadas
@@pinkdarkrose Yeah, Anand has deceivingly fashionable packaging but I like his passion and message. I like Mr Chang a lot as well.
right in the begining he says machines ae a threat to jobs since the begning of capitalism, assuming that capitalism=automation and industrialization=automation and they are 3 very different things that came about 200 years appart each, capitalism in th late 1400s, industrialization in the 1600s and mecanozation in the late 1700s, its like saying in 2200 that AI has been a threat to jobs since the begining of the industrial revolution
You misunderstand. MACHINES have been replacing humans, right from the start.
AI is just the latest machine.
None there is old enough to have dug a well by hand, shoveled manure, or planted potatoes. They have no understanding of the work ahead.
Just think: If robots take your job, you will be liberated to take a much more interesting one. There will always be jobs the robots aren't ready for.
I'd imagine those "more interesting ones" are going to be locked behind a lot of schooling that most people can't afford.
Nmmmjjnnnnnnnbbbbbbb😔😔😔😔😔🔎🔎🔎🔎🔎🔋🔋🔍🔍💚💚💚😂😒😒😒😒😒🎆🎆🎃🎃🎃🎃😒
Long term communist
Good, we need more Communists. Capitalists are psychopaths
Bad english
English, not english.
Not bad English, heavy accent
Did my mans say "bascillay"? 😳