Dylan Thompson one program can be run in 1000s of machines, and making them can be automated too. Designing and programming doesn't require too many guys. A few guys can do it. Force example one good radiology software can replace all the radiologists in the world. Software can be "copied and pasted" and is no here near as expensive or time-consuming as training a radiologist. And this copied program will have the same "experience" and effectiveness as the original one unlike a newly trained radiologist.
MilitantPotato You are absolutely right. Future jobs will require more brain power, and need far less in positions. We see this right now with retail dying. 20 retail shops will close down and we'll get one warehouse for something like Amazon. That will then only require a few people and more and more robots.
Yes they are all talking about how that hand cutter will not have to do his job because of the automatisation and how it is much better for a machine do do his job because its safer and in that regards it is going to be better... but what is that guy (hand cutter) going to do then,what is his next ocupation,how is he gonna make money?I fear that in the future there will be a lot of unemployed people and that will lead to more crime and big economic problems because the automatisation is moving so fast it is destroying a lot more jobs than it is creating.this video hasnt answered the question of how are we gonna avoid this
@@teosenecic3141 as jobs are replaced by machines, that means productivity per capita will go up massively. This causes wages to rise in the jobs that are still available which causes more demand for goods, causing more jobs for those that lost their job. Those textile workers eventually got a much better standard of living than they would have if they kept their productivity and therefore wages low, and imagaine how much clothes would cost if they had frozen the automation of textiles there.
"Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them." - Frank Herbert, Dune -
That's why they should tell us the real composition of theses tools,because if you really are helping me then show us how really the softwares are working don't keep it hidden for so long !!! We wanna advance so please don't hold us and don't keep secrets from us,and that is a principe that people all over the world should be adopting,else,you know we're on the wrong path
We are clearly approaching social revolution with growing automation and robotization, where clash is inevitable. Human's will need to find their place in increasingly technologically advanced society and the social system will need to be adjusted based on that.
@@jobokidd UBI is supposed to happen through heavy taxation, which will lose sense since companies won't be needing society for work (and therefore will not need to contribute to it through taxes) Automation will make companies more independent, no intertwined with society
But who will buy the products of those companies if 70% of the population will be jobless ? I earn only 350$ per month and I don't buy many things, so less profit for companies. Imagine 70% of the population without those 350$ to start with. Most of us will start stealing, killing, etc. Society plunges into anarchy. We have to eat and prison doesn't seem such a bad thing in nordic countries for examples where you can even use a Playstation. So going to prison willingly is a choice I am thinking about. Giving away my freedom for food and shelter. It's a good deal. @@gabrielflaubert5881
Look at Eric saying that "The traditional way of logging will disappear", while sitting in his large machine. What Eric doesn't realize is that his way of logging is FAR from the traditional way and that all of those machines once represented jobs. Sure those people found new jobs in new factories, but that only lasted until they got robots as well. Now they probably work at a fast food restaurant, if they're working at all, but guess what: Those will be fully automated within the next 10 years as well. As long as you're the owner of a company, you'll be just fine... as long as you're willing to automate and kick out every employee. Luckily most owners don't have a problem with that... Sure, they'll feel bad for their employees, but that sure as hell isn't going to stop them from firing every single one of them. By the year 2030, 73 million jobs in the US alone will have been replaced by AI and robots. Chew on that for a while.. Because it's the only thing we'll have left to chew on.
What I don’t understand is this: if business gets rid of workers, who consumes the output? The few robot owners can’t possibly consume enough to run an advanced economy.
@@suzieBirdoSum009 That is still a longterm problem for the business owners. For the business owners themselves if they don't automate then they will lose their business as their competition automates and offers lower prices. It's a race to the end with nobody winning.
@@brantkim well one this is certain we are heading toward a world with basic income otherwise you will have a lot of good for nothing people who got nothing to do so their mind will wonder toward bad stuff , and frustration toward government , society which made them worthless in that highly automated world
If a buisness gets rid of 95% of employees and increases their productivity, it means higher profit or lower cost. Those employees would be able to afford more goods which will create a higher demand for more goods. Eventually those jobs will be created again due to higher demand and productivity and they will have much higher wages due to increased automation. What people fail to realise is that people spend their money on goods and services and that creates more jobs. More automation=higher productivity=higher standard of living=More demand=More jobs. Yes, there will be slightly higher unemployment in the meantime but since the start of history, and especially the last 100 or so years this cycle has been going on and, while it faces resistance along the way it always wins. If we didn't have this cycle then all those hunter gatherer jobs, plowing jobs, knitting jobs, weaving jobs and factory jobs that have been replaced by innovation would still be here, be dangerous and have extremely low wages in comparison to what we see today.
Safety benefits aside, with this example the heavy machinery is actually damaging the forest floor/ pressing it together, making it less able to absorb rain and harder for new plants to grow on their own afaik.
ja687 They are not going to do that. Business is not about, in most cases saving something, it's about making as much money with as least effort ad possible. As a tradesman I can tell you this is not going to happen without passing it off to the client at the highest price possible.
A quick example, what happens to all the wildlife living in the trees? Are they hand carried to the ground? Nope. Not a tree hugger but he definatly has a point to consider.
Apemanwithcalculator What's wrong with using the word tree hugger? It describes a group and a set parameters of principals for that culture. Holy shit are people triggered over anything nowadays...
"Look, i've created a machine that can clearcut the entire earth, watch!" *WHOOMP* "Oh fuck, now there's no one and nothing alive to sell my wood products too"
Exactly. Who will buy the products of those companies if 70% of the population will be jobless? I earn only 350$ per month and I don't buy many things, so less profit for companies. Imagine 70% of the population without those 350$ to start with. Most of us will start stealing, killing, etc. Society plunges into anarchy. We have to eat and prison doesn't seem such a bad thing in nordic countries for examples where you can even use a Playstation. So going to prison willingly is a choice I am thinking about. Giving away my freedom for food and shelter. It's a good deal.
At the end of the day, people need to come to the realization that not everyone can be an engineer, not everyone can get a doctorate; not everyone has the mental capacity to be seen as more cost effective than their automation alternative. The fact of the matter is that competition will make AT LEAST a third of the workforce nonviable economically within the next half-century. This population will be forced into a world where they have no edge, no way to advance up the socioeconomic ladder, because while they might have the work ethic, their IQ is below the average. While IQ is not everything, it VERY STRONGLY correlates to income, and replacing menial labor jobs--held by those who generally don't inherent the most gifted minds--would be on par with restarting the eugenics movement; creating a majority low-income class at the mercy of people they can't realistically compete with. Like a horse having to compete with a automobile.
@@chaoticlife311Why should we? Some of us prefer different kinds of work, for some working in a supermarket is enough for them, from leavin school till retirement. Why should they have that opportunity taken away in countries that claim to be based on liberty? AI and robots are being forced upon us, any kind of criticism is met with the learn to code line. Meaning in a bid to make it so humans don't have to do the jobs they don't like...and some jobs people do like...a few will benefit from profits due to not paying staff, while the majority will remain miserable and lacking in purpose, while also making their lives harder to live because the only answer people have to the "what happens to humans if their jobs are taken" is universal basic income... meaning the majority of a countries population would be totally reliant on the state to live, meaning the state could easily force you to submit to their wishes...on force of your uni being stopped. Lastly why are zoos banning people from using their phones near primates because people were showing them videos ect, because technology is bad for primates health and wellbeing...yet the most intelligent of all primates, us, are supp to just accept said technology and by the idea it isn't harming us. It can't be harmful to primates but not us. Its not possible. We're the same species. To prove the point one zoo had you ger chimpanzee who was getting addicted to watching videos peop would show him on their phones through the glass, his attention was so absorbed by the phones and videos that he didn't see nor hear a larger chimpanzee approaching him to attack him. That's no different to human who are so engrossed in their phones they cross roads without looking and don't have cars coming at them, then they get run over. So again why is technology bad for our primate cousins but not us? Please don't say we're evolved enough to use it, we're not.
Exactly. And who will buy the products of those companies if 70% of the population will be jobless? I earn only 350$ per month and I don't buy many things, so less profit for companies. Imagine 70% of the population without those 350$ to start with. Most of us will start stealing, killing, etc. Society plunges into anarchy. We have to eat and prison doesn't seem such a bad thing in nordic countries for examples where you can even use a Playstation. So going to prison willingly is a choice I am thinking about. Giving away my freedom for food and shelter. It's a good deal.
I'm so happy that I won't be part of the workforce soon. I am going to be retiring in a few years. I have 2 great pensions and I will be moving to a small place to enjoy myself. Good luck young people. You are going to need it.
Young people are f*cked. I have 15 years to work to get my pension. I will be saved in the last moments. The future is gloomy. Glad I don't have children., I made the right choice.
The jobless people whose jobs were stolen by AI will be unable to buy essential stuffs for themselves. And you know what. Those essential stuffs were most probably going to be produced by AI/Robots by another COMPANY. And obviously there is going to be a lot of companies around the World who will manufacture products using only AI/Robots. So the BIG question is to whom are they going to sell their ROBOT manufactured products? Obviously not to the JOBLESS people. They cannot afford it.
Scout Dog It that or the majority revolt and start destroying the robots to send a messege. Should they go ignored, they will start attacking the humans making the robots.
Exactly. Who will buy the products of those companies if 70% of the population will be jobless? I earn only 350$ per month and I don't buy many things, so less profit for companies. Imagine 70% of the population without those 350$ to start with. Most of us will start stealing, killing, etc. Society plunges into anarchy. We have to eat and prison doesn't seem such a bad thing in nordic countries for examples where you can even use a Playstation. So going to prison willingly is a choice I am thinking about. Giving away my freedom for food and shelter. It's a good deal.
40% of current jobs displaced by automation. Replace those jobs with charity work, the unemployed provide free goods and services to other unemployed. The collective assets of tbe unemployed will be sucked away a little bit at a time until society as a whole throws up its hands and decides to simply blame the unemployed for unemployment. Just make unemployment criminal, lock-em-up and give them free room & board and provide employment for jailers. Eventually there's only one employed person, the guy who presses the "on" button on the jail automation system.
The masses of Americans aren't going to care about automation or ai until their specific job feels threatened. As long as it's someone else's job they'll say "just find work somewhere else" even though you can make double minimum wage and still struggle to survive
Eddie N Should read: Don't be the government that refuses to look to at the future. Big changes are coming, and we will probably need some serious intervention.
Look at the future, stop it before it happens, got it Don't and you will be as useful as horses in a car world with similar life expectation. Hey, can you make glue out of humans ?
@Bess cool Yes we don't learn from the past. We should be doing great things for humanity and the worlds existence. Instead we will make a buck on selling anything whether its bad for man or environment. Technology got ahead of its self and we have extinguished our resources on earth, plants, and animal life. Technology has left more people without a job and starving. They are killing off the little people and only the few rich will survive. In the end they will see what their wickedness has brought them.
Problem is the simple jobs go first, mostly having low skilled workers with lower average IQ running those jobs. It's not easy to retrain a low IQ person to do a higher IQ job. And in some cases it isn't possible. What happens to them? You're gonna have massive unemployment and that leads to poverty, anger, riots etc. And who's gonna pay for re-training? The Government? The Companies putting people out of work? Someone has to. And eventually we won't need people programming AI's anymore, AI's will be able to develop and build better versions of themselves. Then we get to the point where only geniuses are hire able. What happens to everyone else? With no job they can't afford anything, and without people to afford anything company's can't sell anything. There will be major benefits, and consequences of AI automation of jobs. And I can only see 3 futures, heavily regulated and limited AI. Living allowance for people who can't get employed. And basically the end of currency itself if AI take over all jobs, leaving humans to live in a weird world where they can do anything. I personally think the best option is the first, but the most likely option is the second.
Steal, sale drugs, hacking, clone credit cards, creating prostitution networks - you name it, young people with no choice will do it. Crime will explode in the near future if not already. And states can't put everyone in jails. So, let's see what happens.
I will be one of the unemployed proles, blown up in a crowd of victims, whilst the resistance fights the big corporations who will eventually rule the World.
The bloke fails to say the main reason he does not want to have the people there working is not there safety .... It's there wages you don't have to pay a robot
You have to pay to purchase/build a robot though. The question is when is it cheaper. That's the main reason we don't see humanoid robots doing all sorts of jobs. The technology to do it is starting to develop, but it is still cheaper in a lot of cases to use human workers. You have to pay a wage but you have few upfront costs.
Exactly. Who will buy the products of those companies if 70% of the population will be jobless? I earn only 350$ per month and I don't buy many things, so less profit for companies. Imagine 70% of the population without those 350$ to start with. Most of us will start stealing, killing, etc. Society plunges into anarchy. We have to eat and prison doesn't seem such a bad thing in nordic countries for examples where you can even use a Playstation. So going to prison willingly is a choice I am thinking about. Giving away my freedom for food and shelter. It's a good deal.@@steverothmans5908
The problem about not doing the same job for a number of years means that you essentially over the period of your lifetime are docked pay in a massive way. That's not very helpful, or great to look forward to. Even in IT, when automation and AI get advanced enough, it would mean that job that I've built my career around dies, and I've got to find something else? What? What could have been better than that?
So if machine/AI keep taking jobs, will these machine/AI also pay taxes? I see a future of skyrocketing tax rates - less people paying taxes and more machines/AI NOT paying taxes.
Like governments do with slot machines there will probably be a tax on robots, AI and servers and maybe even a tax on internet connections and data usage. The EU already have plans to tax internet traffic in order to cover policing, cyber security and infrastructural costs of such technology in the future. If this sounds fanciful it already happens with bedroom taxes and commercial rates and land taxes for existing sectors in the leisure industries. Many middle european nations already have extensive road tolling to collect revenue for road upkeep from foreign users who would otherwise get to use the roads for free. It seems likely that large corporations will have to bear some of the costs of the impacts of sudden jobs losses with no replacements going forward. This will be painful and difficult to do.
Exactly. Who will buy the products of those companies if 70% of the population will be jobless? I earn only 350$ per month and I don't buy many things, so less profit for companies. Imagine 70% of the population without those 350$ to start with. Most of us will start stealing, killing, etc. Society plunges into anarchy. We have to eat and prison doesn't seem such a bad thing in nordic countries for examples where you can even use a Playstation. So going to prison willingly is a choice I am thinking about. Giving away my freedom for food and shelter. It's a good deal.@@jgdooley2003
There's plenty of talk about safety for these loggers, but now what? They aren't showing up, they aren't working, and now they're at the mercy of a job market with skills that have no value. Instead of a log crushing them, it will be a slow death by debt and depression. Not one job, but many, just means more of what we've already been experience. Being ferried from shitty temp-job to shitty temp-job, with no security, no future, and no hope.
>we want to protect people like loggers by forcing them out of their dangerous jobs so they can avoid injury or death >be a logger who just lost their job to automation: "great so now I get to die because I have no way to earn money and now I can die slowly by starving" well, that's nice
That didn't address the unemployment problem coming in the future. Oh, so we must ''accept'' the loss of our jobs and wealth that is brought to our families to survive for the sake of ''indispensable'' technology? My guess is that the only for this is that they can save lots of money by not paying to employers, thus, making them more richer. This is more, like a propaganda to technology than addressing the unemployment issue.
Hey guys, I realise many of you are worried about your careers in the future and to be honest I feel for you. It's hard when the work dries out (as happened to my dad and many seniors around me). Growing up I thought I'd become a doctor, but I realised that the tide was changing and by the time I'm at the zenith of my career (50s+), most jobs may be automated. That's why I chose to study and train to become an information engineer and pursue a career in machine learning, AI and intelligent automation. If you are worried about your current/future occupation, I would recommend (re)training as an engineer, computer scientist or strive towards being an "automation aid" (someone who helps to automate their industry) in whichever industry you go for. Seems like a big ask but take it slow. The first step would be to work out what is best for you right now. If you have a job, assess whether your job is in danger and how long that danger is away. If it's 20 years and your retiring in 20 years, then it's no big deal and keep doing what you're doing. If you'll be hit before retirement, then it may be wise to slowly change your path. There's plenty of tools to get you there and Google/friends+family/careers service are the places to start.
He has noticed the problem and brought it on the table, but I don't think he's solution is realistic. It's more like a Utopia. I mean think about it, do you contribute $1000 or more to Amazon, Google etc. every month? If not, how can you get $1000 free money comming from nowhere? Who would like to pay for it?
UBI and Skills retraining if you have a safety net wont be that hard. As for the money issue worst case scenario they add more liquidity (print money) and sell more bonds (gov. debt) to finance UBI which after a while will pay for itself. If you pump a community of 50k people with 50M USD every month growth will naturally follow. It basically a stimulus on a bigger scale. P.S I am an MBA (Economics Major) so those are real numbers from our studies.
@@stevestavri321 I'm actually from a socialist country and I can tell you that from my personal experince, that kind of a system doesn't work quite well, yet. You cannot always print money because the CPI will become uncontrollable, there need to be a balance. You earn moeny because you added value accordingly to the society. If there are too many people getting more money than their contribution, then the country will keep losing competitiveness and fortune. The government doesn't even have enough money to give to the homeless people, not to say to the entire population. I mean $100 is more realistic but not $1000. His logic is highly based on his assumptions, which is he belives that by giving people money they will contribute more in the country. But there's no guarantees that it will work. If it doens't, ramifications will be disastrous. He has a good vision though, I guess it will be more feasible maybe 30 years later, when most of our current jobs are replaced by AI. It still sounds a bit like Communism though. Put ideology bias aside, maybe Communism isn't a bad idea at all, but was born in an inappropriate time.
@@huyifan83 That's a war on big techs, and actually quite a few CEO are happy with this ideas unusually. If you're think about it, they're mining our data for free! Our data has so much values and they take all the benefits. And you can call this idea socialism or whatever, the label you put on is not important, but we're not talking about Mao's, Stalin's regime. If you want to talk about socialism, why don't you also look at Scandinavian countries where the State own everything, also Alaska, or even Macao in your country ? Those cases also needed to be discussed. (but i don't think left wing economic policy would work if the country is not rich enough). People can accept free health care, infrastructure in the city that you don't pay for, but when this free thing is money, they can't accept the idea. We need to know that you can't survive on 1000/month, it's just a safety net but it's more fluid than existing welfare.
Let's just all pretend that in 20 years machines and AI won't be more capable than 80% of humans for any task you might ask that human to do. AI does not necessarily destroy work, but it certainly destroys wages. The people who are not smart enough to create value added will just be out of luck, or be working for pennies. The rest will be competing tooth and claw over the few jobs that computers can't do better than humans and competing to do it cheaper than the next guy, or the next computer. Perhaps in 50 years we may come up with enough jobs that machines can't do to create "full" employment, but the chances that those jobs will pay any sort of decent wage is next to zero. It took generations for the standard of living for the typical worker to recover to the level it was prior to the industrial revolution. The standard of living today is probably as good as it will ever be for 3/4 of the population unless we drastically change society.
Exactly. Who will buy the products of those companies if 70% of the population will be jobless? I earn only 350$ per month and I don't buy many things, so less profit for companies. Imagine 70% of the population without those 350$ to start with. Most of us will start stealing, killing, etc. Society plunges into anarchy. We have to eat and prison doesn't seem such a bad thing in nordic countries for examples where you can even use a Playstation. So going to prison willingly is a choice I am thinking about. Giving away my freedom for food and shelter. It's a good deal.
"AI did not come from the sky" ... there is a skynet agent amongst us! Also got to admire the logger. he saved his employees lives by taking away their livelihoods! xD Treeminator!
Back in the late 1990's as a teenager i worked as a Photo-developer at a massive factory that did 24hr return prints. By 2001 the business closed as digital cameras were wiping out the volume needed to be profitable (240 people)...9/11 happened and i joined up. Post 10 years i was made redundant when my unit was disbanded (1200 people). Now i'm a Cyber Security Pen tester. You just evolve with the world is my view. If you want long term stable employment in one field become a Lawyer, doctor, architect or Vet.
By "Vet," do you mean veteran? or veterinarian? If veteran, then I suppose it's only possible after a short stint, because robots will be soldiers (drones), as well.
And what happens when the military uses robots instead of humans? What happens when someone creates a machine learning pod that does surgeries with 99% accuracy? What happens when unemployment rises as there becomes too many people and not even jobs that you can thrive from?
Exactly. Who will buy the products of those companies if 70% of the population will be jobless? I earn only 350$ per month and I don't buy many things, so less profit for companies. Imagine 70% of the population without those 350$ to start with. Most of us will start stealing, killing, etc. Society plunges into anarchy. We have to eat and prison doesn't seem such a bad thing in nordic countries for examples where you can even use a Playstation. So going to prison willingly is a choice I am thinking about. Giving away my freedom for food and shelter. It's a good deal.@@XxBloodSteamxX
Exactly. Who will buy the products of those companies if 70% of the population will be jobless? I earn only 350$ per month and I don't buy many things, so less profit for companies. Imagine 70% of the population without those 350$ to start with. Most of us will start stealing, killing, etc. Society plunges into anarchy. We have to eat and prison doesn't seem such a bad thing in nordic countries for examples where you can even use a Playstation. So going to prison willingly is a choice I am thinking about. Giving away my freedom for food and shelter. It's a good deal.
Depends. If they're plantation trees grown for the purpose, go for it. Don't cut down old growth forests though. Wood is a great material for building, and captures carbon in the process, but we need to make sure it's done sustainably.
When cars came to replace horses, New jobs for horses weren't created, Almost all horses just disappeared, so you can see the rest of them only in a circus in these days.
This concept of an "episodic career" has been around for decades. When I was in school during the '60's they said you'll change careers 3 times in your life...then it was 5 time and then 7...and on and on. Doesn't this seem, at a basic level, inefficient?
The costs of the inefficiencies have been largely pushed over onto central government and individual workers in the form of increased income supports and training costs in the lifetime of the average worker. College fees, dole and relocation and longer commutes are the new normal. Also needed are increased family income supplements, increased social housing and healthcare costs all being absorbed by government in all its levels. Then there comes the increased costs of security and policing and insurance for the unrest caused by over rapid change of pace in job structures etc.
I my understanding many jobs will go into non routine maintenance. The kind of work that is non-repetitive and too expensive to automate. Example: A/C maintenance requiring to get to the building, access the various parts of the A/C system, troubleshoot and fix.
We can't all be AC maintenance engineers. That's the problem. What do you do with people who aren't, to put it bluntly, smart enough or suited to such work? Are they just supposed to accept thisassive change they didn't bit9e for? That was forced upon them by rich people who want AI and more automation so they don't have to pay wages....which undermines the idea of universal basic income. If they're going to pay people why not pay them to work when work is good for people's mental well being? Those in positions of power have become obsessed with making life easier... regardless of the long term effects it will have on humans. What happens is we have universal basic income? Will we end up living under tyrants and dictators who can shut off you income with the snap of a finger because you criticised the government? Given such practices are already used on social media it's no a leap to suggest this.
Exactly. Who will buy the products of those companies if 70% of the population will be jobless? I earn only 350$ per month and I don't buy many things, so less profit for companies. Imagine 70% of the population without those 350$ to start with. Most of us will start stealing, killing, etc. Society plunges into anarchy. We have to eat and prison doesn't seem such a bad thing in nordic countries for examples where you can even use a Playstation. So going to prison willingly is a choice I am thinking about. Giving away my freedom for food and shelter. It's a good deal.@@libertasdemocratiam887
The biggest cost in business is paid workers. After waste, consistency & quality, elimanting humans is the most effective way to cut cost to maximize profits. ...Business intent on deliberately eliminating paid human effort is never going to re-purpose this many displaced workers...we had better hope our governments have a solution in mind because we can't put this many people on social security from a shrinking tax base!
I think these stories about the future of automation are to optimistic. Nobody talks about the practical future of the technology or what innovations are needed to bring about the kind of automation their dreaming of.
Maybe it should be the corporations or the government's job, but when we speak of automation nobody has a solution for the people who's jobs are replaced. We need a better education and retraining system for them.
We can't all become ENGINEERS or PROGRAMMERS - most of us have such a limited brain with low IQ, nature is not giving. Few people have a "math brain" to access such high jobs. I don't have a "math brain". I tried to learn Java, Python, C++ - my brain can't handle the abstract notions. It's overwhelmed and enters a phase of "overvoltage and burn". And I have an university education, but in journalism and psychology./ Imagine people with just 8 classes or even worse than that. Try to reconvert them professionally. It's impossible. And they are billions and they need to eat to survive. So crime will explode if not already. And states can't put all people in prisons. The future is gloomy for the masses. And the rich elite won't need people anymore. The abyss between rich and poor will become absolute.
Capitalism will still be a main component of the new system evolving because its best at creating and allocating capital (the innovations, machines, business systems, investments etc.) but you will also need a universal basic income also and certain socialist concepts to work along side it.
There is no 100% capitalist country. All countries have some social systems in action. Raw capitalism means no help from the state. It's a jungle. You can't fight for food, you die. But that's not the case. Look at nordic countries. A blending of capitalism and socialism. Finland seems the best at doing it.
Automation isn't destroying work. You'll still have to spend most of your daily life building somebody else's dream in order to eat and survive. Oh joy.
8:07 "Don't be the guys who refuses to look at the future." This sounds like it is an evolution tha happens naturally. What scares me is that this is an already pre-determined future by the few for the world... Sustainability Habitat AI 5G Smart Cities (all that kind of smart stuff) Densed Cities Orwellian dystopia future be-like
so people are replaced by mechanical brains (aka AI) and mechanical muscles (aka robots) an army of jobless people - unemployable by non of their fault - is raising what are they going to eat?
i did the math once. THeres a certain amount of land needed to farm to create enough food for the average person. Right now, all things being equal, if the population multiplies 5x, then we'll be in trouble. BUt by then, we will probably also have some advanced in technology that allow us to farm the space more efficiently. One thing you can do is build a building and have many floors of plants. Only thing there is then you need to use electricity for lights.. which may wind up not really being feasible. But maybe we'll figure it out. or grow plants in space. Theres lots of space in space. also im not sure if i did the math explicitly on "farmable land" or on all land. Cause yeah theres places like mountains deserts tundras etc where its harder to farm. But also in a cold place, you no longer would need to use as much electricity cooling an indoor operation lit by lights that produce a lot of heat. And in the desert theres lots of sun and it doesnt get cold so you dont have to worrying about heating (but yeah no nutrients in the soil, but there ARE some videos on youtube talking about people having figured out how to make desert land in to fertile land)
@@ChocolateMilkyYummy Already in London, due to available space underground in disused railway tunnels, warehouses and the like and due to cheap lighting from LED lights, many people are starting vertical hydroponic farming of expensive salad greens and vegetables for the restaurant trade. Transport of such goods from far off lands is expensive and the items themselves are expensive. Many chefs now grow their own herbs and greens on site in roof top gardens, green houses etc. in urban locations to ensure freshness and ready availability at all times.
Employees push themselves out of the economy by refusing to update their skills. As few as 15 credit hours at a State community college, State college, or State University can get them LIFETIME access to the Student Placement Office, where more and more employers place exclusive job listings because they want to avoid job applicants who have never stepped foot on a college campus.
Imagine if tree cutting became automated and 100x more efficient than it is now, we will be depleting our forests 100x faster than now, and we cannot make trees grow 100x faster than they do now. This is a problem that the documentary doesn't address. There are many factors that influence what goes into being automated and what doesn't, obviously economics is a huge one. But we should focus more on finding ways to live without using that much wood, reduce our environmental impact, and not needing to chop down a forest in a blink of an eye so that a growing population can keep growing.
"The only way to ensure the safety of our people is not having them" Wow he cares so much about his employees! And how are they supposed to make money to live?
These “experts” shouldn’t lie to people saying automation is only gonna do the boring routine work or dangerous work because that’s not true. I’ve watched many automation documentaries with engineers,scientists, Economists etc. everyone one of them said automation is going to kill jobs that’s why UBI will have to be implemented or some kinda regulation. They also said it’s going to kill 50% or jobs. This notion automation kills the same amount of jobs it kills is not true. Notice the one guy in this video said he hopes automation will create some jobs. Keyword was hope
How about creating an automated system to replant trees I’m no tree hugger but every time I go to the woods to shoot here in Washington the deforestation I come across is depressing.
Okay, so the future (and quite a bit of the present) consists of people holding different jobs over the course of their career. Fair enough. Buy, this means that job have to accept me workers without long drawn out training or education periods. If a family's main provider/s have to switch industries at the drop of a hat because automaton killed their job, the new job they move into must have a starting salty enough to support thier family in roughly the same way as before. Otherwise, that senior lumberjack becomes a programming intern, and his kids starve.
Sam Mousa You won't be left behind unless you refuse to change. Specially at this time period you can teach yourself new skills right from the internet. There many resources available on the internet that will, if you fallow through with it, make you an expert in that field. For example, many of the programmers that work for top companies like Google are self-taught. It's not just programming, the internet has a lot to offer when it comes to learning new skills for jobs.
Ahh, horses used to be highly employable, like 120 years ago. How many horses do you see in the workforce today? There is no reason to assume that humans cannot be removed from the workforce too.
Yes, there is. Horses were "workforce", but not "consumers". Humans are workforce and consumers at the same time, therefore, a profit seeking AI will always have incentives to augment the productivity of even the least skilled workers in exchange for a piece of their production, that the AI can subsequently use to offer a product or service to that person. Also, horses depend on people to survive. But there can be human communities that become independent of AI if the AI truly displaces massive ammounts of jobs in every industry. People would exchange labor at lower prices than the AI offers. It's not a problem to have your salary massively, massively reduced if the person next to you is also asking for a lower price.
LordF I cannot help but get the impression that you want to fit a market economy where one is unlikely to exist. In the case of horses, how many do we see being used as transportation in the west? They are not used because their "labor" cannot hope to compete with the machines that replaced them. Over the decades, horses found their pool of available work diminishing until it is what we see today. Of course, this did not come with an economic collapse because, as you said, horses are not consumers, and all the industries built around horses could shift their workforces towards any number of new industries being built around machines. Horses augmented human strength and speed, machines did it better. The downfall of the work horse has some useful parallels for us. With each advancement in machine learning, AI and robotics, we humans also find ourselves competing for shrinking pool of labor. Now, this pool of labor doesn't shrink linearly and will in the short run seem to grow, thereby giving the illusion of new jobs and sectors to work in. But the long-term trend seems to have all of us thrown out of the economy because there is no price we could ever charge for our labor that would compete against automated systems. There are two related problems with this scenario. First, at some point, unemployment will hit a threshold where the market economy will fail. Why would companies purse strategies that ultimately rob them of consumers? People are notoriously short-sighted and blind to greed. As long as company X can automate their services and make a profit, they will. Company X is not going to study the larger impacts of their action on society. Besides if company X hesitates to automate, then their competition may see that as an opening to gain the market. In short, market forces will drive companies to automate themselves out of business. The second problem has to do with the AI itself. The development of an artificial general intelligence is such a wild card situation that I won't spend much time on it. Save to say that unless we get it right, we may open Pandora's box and who knows what may happen. I really don't see how the economy will sustain itself in the future. I may very well be wrong on the details, but I do think the collapse and replacement of the money economy is likely.
SOURCE of problem - how and where the money is funneled to those who are not the common consumers, and who are not the common workers. This is constrains people and causes lots of different problems, but to those at the top, it had major benefits worth the cost (to the economy and culture) that comes with it.
I'm not watching the video because the title is inherently illogical. The function of jobs is to carry out work. Reduction of jobs means a reduction of human work (unless the video claims that there will be NEW jobs) but I suppose it's true 'work' itself will not be technically eliminated; but humans won't be doing it.
Well on the bright side, as more and more people lose their jobs to machines and that includes you in the office, They will need less trees. Now since this man invested his money in this automation, he won't have to have the same number of machines running, but will still have the payments to pay and maintenance on the machines. So eventually he will be out of business and can join the rest of us on the streets.
I don’t get it. Is this an actual threat or just an over exaggeration? And if this does happen then wouldn’t each machine need human hands to repair those machines ?
THere is no such thing as a shortage of jobs....just a shortage of humans sharing the work!!! .It MUST be made FINANCIALLY worthwhile to share the jobs left and work ever increasingly LESS as the robots and automation take over....you cannot work LESS other by sharing the jobs. Reducing the work hours just means the job doesn't get done.
Try finding the customer! for the goods produced, works for a while to saturation of those that can pay that have not been displaced, oversees orders etc, and then wham - nothing, no sales with scampering politicians that have no answers.
why do you feel you need government or rulers ? we can do away with currency all together. Go back to living for ourselves and our families and not for a government or ruler.
hashnnugs I guess we just have a different idea of what “government” is. For me politics is just the word for the way humans organize themselves in groups. I don’t think the idea of living for yourself, your family (and your community) is mutually exclusive from having a government. Maybe the political structures we live under today aren’t very good in a lot of ways, but that doesn’t mean it’s the only way to make a government. And to be honest I’ve been thinking a lot about the “no currency” idea, because I find it interesting, but the conclusion I’ve come to is that currency is a way of making exchanges fair (it’s a common denominator between cows and chairs, for example). Again, just because we’re not using this tool properly today doesn’t mean we never will. I personally think we’ll get it right when we decide to make some things “priceless” - like our basic needs of water and unprocessed food. If those things can’t be commoditized, and we all agree to simply work to provide them for others because it’s what’s best for society, then currency for other goods wouldn’t be a problem...... But then you’d need a government to organize that all together :P I personally value large social structures, global structures even, and I don’t think we can be fair to everyone if it’s just a wild free for all.
It would be nice to be able to live without being forced under such laws or politics as you say your term for government. some structure may be fine, but I think small is much better than big. To each there own. I just think it would be great to actually experience freedom.
hashnnugs laws and politics are important for living together. Your freedoms end where mine begin, and it's our laws that protect our freedoms. Sure, you're not 100% free -- you can't steal and kill and other things like that -- but I'm ok with giving up some freedoms so we can get other things in return for living as an organized community -- like universal basic income, healthcare, education, internet and incredible devices I would never be able to invent myself. I'm very into big, I guess. I would rather give up some freedoms so that I can extend my limits. Travel all around the world on someone else's plane, one day even go into space. You can't do that in a small system.
The auto industry is better at providing housing in the USA than the construction and real estate industries are. Homelessness is very largely the result of: 1) lack of veteran services; 2) 50% of USA adults getting no community college, college, or university education that produces access to Student Placement Office career services over their entire lifetime; 3) men becoming alcoholic as a result of job pressures, getting divorced, and/or becoming disabled from overwork; 4) employers terminating employees who are 50+ because health insurance premiums skyrocked at that age; 5) 70% of those who were in foster care lacking a protective social network as adults; 6) USA currently having 100,000,000 born 1996 to 2020 with 4,000,000 turning 18 since 2012. Homelessness is apt to even get worse because none if the above us getting remediated.
It's long been known that you want to be valued for what you KNOW, not what you DO. If you've chosen a career that pays you to DO something, especially something that's repetitive and labor-intensive, you can expect to be replaced by a machine at some point, simply because machines are more reliable and cost less over the long run. They don't call off. They don't show up late. They don't spend their day surfing the internet. They don't require HR departments to watch over them.
But who will buy the products of those companies if 70% of the population will be jobless? I earn only 350$ per month and I don't buy many things, so less profit for companies. Imagine 70% of the population without those 350$ to start with. Most of us will start stealing, killing, etc. Society plunges into anarchy. We have to eat and prison doesn't seem such a bad thing in nordic countries for examples where you can even use a Playstation. So going to prison willingly is a choice I am thinking about. Giving away my freedom for food and shelter. It's a good deal.
why we are fearing automation it will create more goods with less effort ... a politician should start implementing UBI, and a way to create equality. It will be great to live in a world where people do not have to worry about how one will pay his monthly grocery bill, light bill etc., all basic necessity. There will be agriculture robots, there will be robots manufacturing solar panels, batteries to give you 24 hours of electricity. If you get bored play sports, hang out with human friends, do some artwork, watch netflix, do some research work. Just live do not worry about food, shelter etc. One two things we need to take care 1) let machines do not take over us 2) Let a few crooked people do not take over the entire planet.
@@thepracticalinvestor2386 there will be jobs for research, sports, astronatrs..... Gyms will be open ... We have lot of work pending to realise the world that i mentioned.
Sandip Bhadani that still sucks. Going to the gym is not the same as presenting a financial spreadsheet about future expenditures and revenues. Research will probably be done by ai. And not to be doom and gloom, but don’t you think that ai will stage and uprising if we let unrestricted ai learning?
@@thepracticalinvestor2386 yes you are right ... We have to keep the AI in check .... We should not peruse artificial general intelligence... That might be like digging humanity's grave. As long as we can use AI as powerful tool that it's fine ... We shouldn't allow it to be more intelligent... Otherwise we can not even imagine how machine will kill us.
@@thepracticalinvestor2386 What was once considered voluntary work will become mainstream work. This is the way it always happened in the past. The Victorian middle class had voluntary workers in the nursing and social work sectors, these were originally voluntary jobs done for no money as the mostly middle class people had other sources of income on which to live on. Same will apply to many roles in the future. The big problem with UBI is lack of redundancy. What happens if the government fails and few people have the needed skills to sustain themselves and their communities?? I couldn't care less about the "shame" of taking a govt handout, this is a false belief put about by employers to trap workers in substandard jobs. I do care about overdependence on a single source of income and life for too many people. What happens if it fails? Too many nations have failed in the past by over reliance on one source of power, income and social position. I do not want to live in another Libya. Worse still if corporations take on private standing armies to fight against government attempts to tax them more to pay for UBI, how do you avoid this? How do you avoid offshoring wealth to avoid tax?
I’m thinking, with automation many will know how to operate it but few will know how to build them. When we structure our social and economic life so much around money, big change to jobs and flow of cash is tough on individual lives. One could lose their jobs, their livelihood today, but the world will take and have years for a new industry to start.
Bernie Sanders Talks about job automation from the standpoint that technology must provide all this efficiency, productivity, and wealth of abundance to everyone on the planet.
I don't think this video really addressed the "but not the future of work" part of the title.
Dylan Thompson one program can be run in 1000s of machines, and making them can be automated too. Designing and programming doesn't require too many guys. A few guys can do it. Force example one good radiology software can replace all the radiologists in the world. Software can be "copied and pasted" and is no here near as expensive or time-consuming as training a radiologist. And this copied program will have the same "experience" and effectiveness as the original one unlike a newly trained radiologist.
MilitantPotato You are absolutely right. Future jobs will require more brain power, and need far less in positions. We see this right now with retail dying. 20 retail shops will close down and we'll get one warehouse for something like Amazon. That will then only require a few people and more and more robots.
@@Megadeth4242 you should look up generative design. It will take less people to engineer things
Yes they are all talking about how that hand cutter will not have to do his job because of the automatisation and how it is much better for a machine do do his job because its safer and in that regards it is going to be better... but what is that guy (hand cutter) going to do then,what is his next ocupation,how is he gonna make money?I fear that in the future there will be a lot of unemployed people and that will lead to more crime and big economic problems because the automatisation is moving so fast it is destroying a lot more jobs than it is creating.this video hasnt answered the question of how are we gonna avoid this
@@teosenecic3141 as jobs are replaced by machines, that means productivity per capita will go up massively. This causes wages to rise in the jobs that are still available which causes more demand for goods, causing more jobs for those that lost their job. Those textile workers eventually got a much better standard of living than they would have if they kept their productivity and therefore wages low, and imagaine how much clothes would cost if they had frozen the automation of textiles there.
"Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them."
- Frank Herbert, Dune -
That's why they should tell us the real composition of theses tools,because if you really are helping me then show us how really the softwares are working don't keep it hidden for so long !!! We wanna advance so please don't hold us and don't keep secrets from us,and that is a principe that people all over the world should be adopting,else,you know we're on the wrong path
Let's hope *the politicians get automated* soon too :-)
Maybe we'll get lucky and get a real cyberpunk dystopia with their heads frying in their luxury bullet train cars.
Lol best comment
epSos.de best comment so far, but don’t generalize, there are good guys and bad guys
They can't teach machine that much greed.
probably they will. A deep learning AI would be a much much better minister.
We are clearly approaching social revolution with growing automation and robotization, where clash is inevitable. Human's will need to find their place in increasingly technologically advanced society and the social system will need to be adjusted based on that.
That’s why we need Andrew Yang in office, he gets it and has solutions
#Yang2020
Andrew Yang will advance our economy and society forward
John Gonzalez not so fast John we still have to destroy the robots first
@@jobokidd UBI is supposed to happen through heavy taxation, which will lose sense since companies won't be needing society for work (and therefore will not need to contribute to it through taxes)
Automation will make companies more independent, no intertwined with society
But who will buy the products of those companies if 70% of the population will be jobless ? I earn only 350$ per month and I don't buy many things, so less profit for companies. Imagine 70% of the population without those 350$ to start with. Most of us will start stealing, killing, etc. Society plunges into anarchy. We have to eat and prison doesn't seem such a bad thing in nordic countries for examples where you can even use a Playstation. So going to prison willingly is a choice I am thinking about. Giving away my freedom for food and shelter. It's a good deal. @@gabrielflaubert5881
We're technologically destroying ourselves with our creative ideas
look into venus project and how technology will actually help us free from mundane work. new economic system is needed to work with changes coming
Look at Eric saying that "The traditional way of logging will disappear", while sitting in his large machine. What Eric doesn't realize is that his way of logging is FAR from the traditional way and that all of those machines once represented jobs. Sure those people found new jobs in new factories, but that only lasted until they got robots as well. Now they probably work at a fast food restaurant, if they're working at all, but guess what: Those will be fully automated within the next 10 years as well.
As long as you're the owner of a company, you'll be just fine... as long as you're willing to automate and kick out every employee. Luckily most owners don't have a problem with that... Sure, they'll feel bad for their employees, but that sure as hell isn't going to stop them from firing every single one of them.
By the year 2030, 73 million jobs in the US alone will have been replaced by AI and robots. Chew on that for a while.. Because it's the only thing we'll have left to chew on.
What I don’t understand is this: if business gets rid of workers, who consumes the output? The few robot owners can’t possibly consume enough to run an advanced economy.
@@suzieBirdoSum009 That is still a longterm problem for the business owners. For the business owners themselves if they don't automate then they will lose their business as their competition automates and offers lower prices. It's a race to the end with nobody winning.
@@brantkim well one this is certain we are heading toward a world with basic income otherwise you will have a lot of good for nothing people who got nothing to do so their mind will wonder toward bad stuff , and frustration toward government , society which made them worthless in that highly automated world
If a buisness gets rid of 95% of employees and increases their productivity, it means higher profit or lower cost. Those employees would be able to afford more goods which will create a higher demand for more goods. Eventually those jobs will be created again due to higher demand and productivity and they will have much higher wages due to increased automation. What people fail to realise is that people spend their money on goods and services and that creates more jobs. More automation=higher productivity=higher standard of living=More demand=More jobs. Yes, there will be slightly higher unemployment in the meantime but since the start of history, and especially the last 100 or so years this cycle has been going on and, while it faces resistance along the way it always wins. If we didn't have this cycle then all those hunter gatherer jobs, plowing jobs, knitting jobs, weaving jobs and factory jobs that have been replaced by innovation would still be here, be dangerous and have extremely low wages in comparison to what we see today.
This is why Andrew Yang wanted to get basic income in position, for the near future ....
Safety benefits aside, with this example the heavy machinery is actually damaging the forest floor/ pressing it together, making it less able to absorb rain and harder for new plants to grow on their own afaik.
So, we make another machine to decompress it. What's your point?
ja687 They are not going to do that. Business is not about, in most cases saving something, it's about making as much money with as least effort ad possible. As a tradesman I can tell you this is not going to happen without passing it off to the client at the highest price possible.
A quick example, what happens to all the wildlife living in the trees? Are they hand carried to the ground? Nope. Not a tree hugger but he definatly has a point to consider.
Rick makes games Ai and robotics will probably bring small mobile machines more similar to a human logger than a giant machine
Apemanwithcalculator What's wrong with using the word tree hugger? It describes a group and a set parameters of principals for that culture. Holy shit are people triggered over anything nowadays...
"Look, i've created a machine that can clearcut the entire earth, watch!"
*WHOOMP*
"Oh fuck, now there's no one and nothing alive to sell my wood products too"
Exactly. Who will buy the products of those companies if 70% of the population will be jobless? I earn only 350$ per month and I don't buy many things, so less profit for companies. Imagine 70% of the population without those 350$ to start with. Most of us will start stealing, killing, etc. Society plunges into anarchy. We have to eat and prison doesn't seem such a bad thing in nordic countries for examples where you can even use a Playstation. So going to prison willingly is a choice I am thinking about. Giving away my freedom for food and shelter. It's a good deal.
At the end of the day, people need to come to the realization that not everyone can be an engineer, not everyone can get a doctorate; not everyone has the mental capacity to be seen as more cost effective than their automation alternative. The fact of the matter is that competition will make AT LEAST a third of the workforce nonviable economically within the next half-century. This population will be forced into a world where they have no edge, no way to advance up the socioeconomic ladder, because while they might have the work ethic, their IQ is below the average. While IQ is not everything, it VERY STRONGLY correlates to income, and replacing menial labor jobs--held by those who generally don't inherent the most gifted minds--would be on par with restarting the eugenics movement; creating a majority low-income class at the mercy of people they can't realistically compete with. Like a horse having to compete with a automobile.
I disagree, when did we engineers left you guys behind? You can search all over the inernet to learn what we do and also do it.
@@chaoticlife311Why should we? Some of us prefer different kinds of work, for some working in a supermarket is enough for them, from leavin school till retirement. Why should they have that opportunity taken away in countries that claim to be based on liberty? AI and robots are being forced upon us, any kind of criticism is met with the learn to code line. Meaning in a bid to make it so humans don't have to do the jobs they don't like...and some jobs people do like...a few will benefit from profits due to not paying staff, while the majority will remain miserable and lacking in purpose, while also making their lives harder to live because the only answer people have to the "what happens to humans if their jobs are taken" is universal basic income... meaning the majority of a countries population would be totally reliant on the state to live, meaning the state could easily force you to submit to their wishes...on force of your uni being stopped.
Lastly why are zoos banning people from using their phones near primates because people were showing them videos ect, because technology is bad for primates health and wellbeing...yet the most intelligent of all primates, us, are supp to just accept said technology and by the idea it isn't harming us. It can't be harmful to primates but not us. Its not possible. We're the same species. To prove the point one zoo had you ger chimpanzee who was getting addicted to watching videos peop would show him on their phones through the glass, his attention was so absorbed by the phones and videos that he didn't see nor hear a larger chimpanzee approaching him to attack him. That's no different to human who are so engrossed in their phones they cross roads without looking and don't have cars coming at them, then they get run over. So again why is technology bad for our primate cousins but not us? Please don't say we're evolved enough to use it, we're not.
Exactly. And who will buy the products of those companies if 70% of the population will be jobless? I earn only 350$ per month and I don't buy many things, so less profit for companies. Imagine 70% of the population without those 350$ to start with. Most of us will start stealing, killing, etc. Society plunges into anarchy. We have to eat and prison doesn't seem such a bad thing in nordic countries for examples where you can even use a Playstation. So going to prison willingly is a choice I am thinking about. Giving away my freedom for food and shelter. It's a good deal.
Unless UBI is implemented, the new Luddites will be hackers that could cause massive havoc.
That sounds beautiful!
#YangGang
He is the only one talking about solutions to massive job automation
Ah yes, a fellow cultured yang ganger... salutations brother
It sounds like Communism 😂
@@huyifan83 I mean not communism per se but more of distribution of wealth
I'm so happy that I won't be part of the workforce soon. I am going to be retiring in a few years. I have 2 great pensions and I will be moving to a small place to enjoy myself. Good luck young people. You are going to need it.
Young people are f*cked. I have 15 years to work to get my pension. I will be saved in the last moments. The future is gloomy. Glad I don't have children., I made the right choice.
The jobless people whose jobs were stolen by AI will be unable to buy essential stuffs for themselves. And you know what. Those essential stuffs were most probably going to be produced by AI/Robots by another COMPANY. And obviously there is going to be a lot of companies around the World who will manufacture products using only AI/Robots.
So the BIG question is to whom are they going to sell their ROBOT manufactured products? Obviously not to the JOBLESS people. They cannot afford it.
Scout Dog
It that or the majority revolt and start destroying the robots to send a messege.
Should they go ignored, they will start attacking the humans making the robots.
UBI = Universal Basic Income by taxing the automation involving
Exactly. Who will buy the products of those companies if 70% of the population will be jobless? I earn only 350$ per month and I don't buy many things, so less profit for companies. Imagine 70% of the population without those 350$ to start with. Most of us will start stealing, killing, etc. Society plunges into anarchy. We have to eat and prison doesn't seem such a bad thing in nordic countries for examples where you can even use a Playstation. So going to prison willingly is a choice I am thinking about. Giving away my freedom for food and shelter. It's a good deal.
40% of current jobs displaced by automation. Replace those jobs with charity work, the unemployed provide free goods and services to other unemployed. The collective assets of tbe unemployed will be sucked away a little bit at a time until society as a whole throws up its hands and decides to simply blame the unemployed for unemployment. Just make unemployment criminal, lock-em-up and give them free room & board and provide employment for jailers.
Eventually there's only one employed person, the guy who presses the "on" button on the jail automation system.
OK...who's going to pay the taxes? Jobs gone, no revenue. Hmm.
The masses of Americans aren't going to care about automation or ai until their specific job feels threatened. As long as it's someone else's job they'll say "just find work somewhere else" even though you can make double minimum wage and still struggle to survive
Don't be the guy who refused to look at the future, folks.
Eddie N, some times it's best to look at the past.
Eddie N Should read: Don't be the government that refuses to look to at the future. Big changes are coming, and we will probably need some serious intervention.
Look at the future, stop it before it happens, got it
Don't and you will be as useful as horses in a car world with similar life expectation. Hey, can you make glue out of humans ?
Don't be the guy who refuses to change, I think would be the most apt.
@Bess cool Yes we don't learn from the past. We should be doing great things for humanity and the worlds existence. Instead we will make a buck on selling anything whether its bad for man or environment. Technology got ahead of its self and we have extinguished our resources on earth, plants, and animal life. Technology has left more people without a job and starving. They are killing off the little people and only the few rich will survive. In the end they will see what their wickedness has brought them.
Problem is the simple jobs go first, mostly having low skilled workers with lower average IQ running those jobs. It's not easy to retrain a low IQ person to do a higher IQ job. And in some cases it isn't possible. What happens to them? You're gonna have massive unemployment and that leads to poverty, anger, riots etc. And who's gonna pay for re-training? The Government? The Companies putting people out of work? Someone has to. And eventually we won't need people programming AI's anymore, AI's will be able to develop and build better versions of themselves. Then we get to the point where only geniuses are hire able. What happens to everyone else? With no job they can't afford anything, and without people to afford anything company's can't sell anything. There will be major benefits, and consequences of AI automation of jobs. And I can only see 3 futures, heavily regulated and limited AI. Living allowance for people who can't get employed. And basically the end of currency itself if AI take over all jobs, leaving humans to live in a weird world where they can do anything. I personally think the best option is the first, but the most likely option is the second.
Kind of how I see it going.
So restrict technological development to maintain the capitalist status quo?
Exactly
Have you read the World Set Free by H.G. Wells his solution is a mix of your option 2 and 3 and seems like a pretty decent solution
i sense the third option is likely to happen
"What five things do you want to be when you grow up?"
Steal, sale drugs, hacking, clone credit cards, creating prostitution networks - you name it, young people with no choice will do it. Crime will explode in the near future if not already. And states can't put everyone in jails. So, let's see what happens.
Can all be wiped out with an EMP. It's dangerous to put so much trust in machines that are not protected.
I will be one of the unemployed proles, blown up in a crowd of victims, whilst the resistance fights the big corporations who will eventually rule the World.
Eventually? They already do rule the world.
Destroying the environment is not right in order for a job. Please keep forests for animals and wildlife.
The bloke fails to say the main reason he does not want to have the people there working is not there safety .... It's there wages you don't have to pay a robot
You have to pay to purchase/build a robot though. The question is when is it cheaper. That's the main reason we don't see humanoid robots doing all sorts of jobs. The technology to do it is starting to develop, but it is still cheaper in a lot of cases to use human workers. You have to pay a wage but you have few upfront costs.
robots don't get wages. humans get weekly wages that is drain. @@mattizzle81
Workers will be safer because they will be at home without work.....
...until they get evicted for non-payment of rent.
safer in a tent....like in Orange County California.....
i see the future and its not pretty. we will be living in cardboard boxes on the street while the capitalists will become trillionaires
thats like saying criminals are safer in prison rather than outside
Exactly. Who will buy the products of those companies if 70% of the population will be jobless? I earn only 350$ per month and I don't buy many things, so less profit for companies. Imagine 70% of the population without those 350$ to start with. Most of us will start stealing, killing, etc. Society plunges into anarchy. We have to eat and prison doesn't seem such a bad thing in nordic countries for examples where you can even use a Playstation. So going to prison willingly is a choice I am thinking about. Giving away my freedom for food and shelter. It's a good deal.@@steverothmans5908
The problem about not doing the same job for a number of years means that you essentially over the period of your lifetime are docked pay in a massive way. That's not very helpful, or great to look forward to. Even in IT, when automation and AI get advanced enough, it would mean that job that I've built my career around dies, and I've got to find something else? What? What could have been better than that?
So if machine/AI keep taking jobs, will these machine/AI also pay taxes? I see a future of skyrocketing tax rates - less people paying taxes and more machines/AI NOT paying taxes.
Like governments do with slot machines there will probably be a tax on robots, AI and servers and maybe even a tax on internet connections and data usage. The EU already have plans to tax internet traffic in order to cover policing, cyber security and infrastructural costs of such technology in the future. If this sounds fanciful it already happens with bedroom taxes and commercial rates and land taxes for existing sectors in the leisure industries. Many middle european nations already have extensive road tolling to collect revenue for road upkeep from foreign users who would otherwise get to use the roads for free. It seems likely that large corporations will have to bear some of the costs of the impacts of sudden jobs losses with no replacements going forward. This will be painful and difficult to do.
Exactly. Who will buy the products of those companies if 70% of the population will be jobless? I earn only 350$ per month and I don't buy many things, so less profit for companies. Imagine 70% of the population without those 350$ to start with. Most of us will start stealing, killing, etc. Society plunges into anarchy. We have to eat and prison doesn't seem such a bad thing in nordic countries for examples where you can even use a Playstation. So going to prison willingly is a choice I am thinking about. Giving away my freedom for food and shelter. It's a good deal.@@jgdooley2003
There's plenty of talk about safety for these loggers, but now what? They aren't showing up, they aren't working, and now they're at the mercy of a job market with skills that have no value. Instead of a log crushing them, it will be a slow death by debt and depression.
Not one job, but many, just means more of what we've already been experience. Being ferried from shitty temp-job to shitty temp-job, with no security, no future, and no hope.
It's not automation but the profit making craving of owner, industralists and factory owners.
>we want to protect people like loggers by forcing them out of their dangerous jobs so they can avoid injury or death
>be a logger who just lost their job to automation: "great so now I get to die because I have no way to earn money and now I can die slowly by starving"
well, that's nice
That didn't address the unemployment problem coming in the future. Oh, so we must ''accept''
the loss of our jobs and wealth that is brought to our families to survive for the sake of ''indispensable'' technology? My guess is that the only for this is that they can save lots of money by not paying to employers, thus, making them more richer. This is more, like a propaganda to technology than addressing the unemployment issue.
Walk through a factory today and where there used to be hundreds of people you now see dozens or none at all.
Hey guys, I realise many of you are worried about your careers in the future and to be honest I feel for you. It's hard when the work dries out (as happened to my dad and many seniors around me). Growing up I thought I'd become a doctor, but I realised that the tide was changing and by the time I'm at the zenith of my career (50s+), most jobs may be automated. That's why I chose to study and train to become an information engineer and pursue a career in machine learning, AI and intelligent automation.
If you are worried about your current/future occupation, I would recommend (re)training as an engineer, computer scientist or strive towards being an "automation aid" (someone who helps to automate their industry) in whichever industry you go for. Seems like a big ask but take it slow.
The first step would be to work out what is best for you right now.
If you have a job, assess whether your job is in danger and how long that danger is away. If it's 20 years and your retiring in 20 years, then it's no big deal and keep doing what you're doing. If you'll be hit before retirement, then it may be wise to slowly change your path. There's plenty of tools to get you there and Google/friends+family/careers service are the places to start.
Medicine can never be automated.
Every person is different. It’s not something that can be automated...
YangGang 2020
He has noticed the problem and brought it on the table, but I don't think he's solution is realistic. It's more like a Utopia. I mean think about it, do you contribute $1000 or more to Amazon, Google etc. every month? If not, how can you get $1000 free money comming from nowhere? Who would like to pay for it?
UBI and Skills retraining if you have a safety net wont be that hard. As for the money issue worst case scenario they add more liquidity (print money) and sell more bonds (gov. debt) to finance UBI which after a while will pay for itself. If you pump a community of 50k people with 50M USD every month growth will naturally follow. It basically a stimulus on a bigger scale. P.S I am an MBA (Economics Major) so those are real numbers from our studies.
@@stevestavri321 I'm actually from a socialist country and I can tell you that from my personal experince, that kind of a system doesn't work quite well, yet. You cannot always print money because the CPI will become uncontrollable, there need to be a balance. You earn moeny because you added value accordingly to the society. If there are too many people getting more money than their contribution, then the country will keep losing competitiveness and fortune. The government doesn't even have enough money to give to the homeless people, not to say to the entire population. I mean $100 is more realistic but not $1000. His logic is highly based on his assumptions, which is he belives that by giving people money they will contribute more in the country. But there's no guarantees that it will work. If it doens't, ramifications will be disastrous. He has a good vision though, I guess it will be more feasible maybe 30 years later, when most of our current jobs are replaced by AI. It still sounds a bit like Communism though. Put ideology bias aside, maybe Communism isn't a bad idea at all, but was born in an inappropriate time.
@@huyifan83 The president can't decide everything alone. If Yang's ideas are too utopian, congress will say so.
@@huyifan83 That's a war on big techs, and actually quite a few CEO are happy with this ideas unusually. If you're think about it, they're mining our data for free! Our data has so much values and they take all the benefits. And you can call this idea socialism or whatever, the label you put on is not important, but we're not talking about Mao's, Stalin's regime. If you want to talk about socialism, why don't you also look at Scandinavian countries where the State own everything, also Alaska, or even Macao in your country ? Those cases also needed to be discussed. (but i don't think left wing economic policy would work if the country is not rich enough).
People can accept free health care, infrastructure in the city that you don't pay for, but when this free thing is money, they can't accept the idea. We need to know that you can't survive on 1000/month, it's just a safety net but it's more fluid than existing welfare.
Let's just all pretend that in 20 years machines and AI won't be more capable than 80% of humans for any task you might ask that human to do. AI does not necessarily destroy work, but it certainly destroys wages. The people who are not smart enough to create value added will just be out of luck, or be working for pennies. The rest will be competing tooth and claw over the few jobs that computers can't do better than humans and competing to do it cheaper than the next guy, or the next computer. Perhaps in 50 years we may come up with enough jobs that machines can't do to create "full" employment, but the chances that those jobs will pay any sort of decent wage is next to zero. It took generations for the standard of living for the typical worker to recover to the level it was prior to the industrial revolution. The standard of living today is probably as good as it will ever be for 3/4 of the population unless we drastically change society.
Exactly. Who will buy the products of those companies if 70% of the population will be jobless? I earn only 350$ per month and I don't buy many things, so less profit for companies. Imagine 70% of the population without those 350$ to start with. Most of us will start stealing, killing, etc. Society plunges into anarchy. We have to eat and prison doesn't seem such a bad thing in nordic countries for examples where you can even use a Playstation. So going to prison willingly is a choice I am thinking about. Giving away my freedom for food and shelter. It's a good deal.
"AI did not come from the sky" ... there is a skynet agent amongst us!
Also got to admire the logger. he saved his employees lives by taking away their livelihoods! xD
Treeminator!
Hope they replace all those trees they cut
Back in the late 1990's as a teenager i worked as a Photo-developer at a massive factory that did 24hr return prints. By 2001 the business closed as digital cameras were wiping out the volume needed to be profitable (240 people)...9/11 happened and i joined up. Post 10 years i was made redundant when my unit was disbanded (1200 people). Now i'm a Cyber Security Pen tester. You just evolve with the world is my view. If you want long term stable employment in one field become a Lawyer, doctor, architect or Vet.
By "Vet," do you mean veteran? or veterinarian? If veteran, then I suppose it's only possible after a short stint, because robots will be soldiers (drones), as well.
Software can now performe Discovery which is most of what attorneys do now.
And what happens when the military uses robots instead of humans? What happens when someone creates a machine learning pod that does surgeries with 99% accuracy? What happens when unemployment rises as there becomes too many people and not even jobs that you can thrive from?
Exactly. Who will buy the products of those companies if 70% of the population will be jobless? I earn only 350$ per month and I don't buy many things, so less profit for companies. Imagine 70% of the population without those 350$ to start with. Most of us will start stealing, killing, etc. Society plunges into anarchy. We have to eat and prison doesn't seem such a bad thing in nordic countries for examples where you can even use a Playstation. So going to prison willingly is a choice I am thinking about. Giving away my freedom for food and shelter. It's a good deal.@@XxBloodSteamxX
General purpose AI and robotics are effectively making human labor obsolete.
Exactly. Who will buy the products of those companies if 70% of the population will be jobless? I earn only 350$ per month and I don't buy many things, so less profit for companies. Imagine 70% of the population without those 350$ to start with. Most of us will start stealing, killing, etc. Society plunges into anarchy. We have to eat and prison doesn't seem such a bad thing in nordic countries for examples where you can even use a Playstation. So going to prison willingly is a choice I am thinking about. Giving away my freedom for food and shelter. It's a good deal.
@@dhanyrafael That's the core of the issue. Labor for the sake of labor is a self defeating endeavor.
Or they could just not cut down trees 🤷🏾♂️
The more we advance the more we become a robot
It pisses me off when I see people cutting down trees.
Audial Asphyxiation yeah, but carving stone tablets is so time consuming.
Well, STOP using paper from now on
Depends. If they're plantation trees grown for the purpose, go for it. Don't cut down old growth forests though. Wood is a great material for building, and captures carbon in the process, but we need to make sure it's done sustainably.
It's how we build houses and paper dink
I understand your feelings but its also a way to prevent some truly horrible forest fires.
When cars came to replace horses, New jobs for horses weren't created, Almost all horses just disappeared, so you can see the rest of them only in a circus in these days.
So far 120 Managers and/or CEOs disliked this video👎
This concept of an "episodic career" has been around for decades. When I was in school during the '60's they said you'll change careers 3 times in your life...then it was 5 time and then 7...and on and on. Doesn't this seem, at a basic level, inefficient?
The costs of the inefficiencies have been largely pushed over onto central government and individual workers in the form of increased income supports and training costs in the lifetime of the average worker. College fees, dole and relocation and longer commutes are the new normal. Also needed are increased family income supplements, increased social housing and healthcare costs all being absorbed by government in all its levels. Then there comes the increased costs of security and policing and insurance for the unrest caused by over rapid change of pace in job structures etc.
Unemployment kills too
They say we are going to work alongside new technology... I don't think it's going to work this way. Once a job is automated it's gone for good.
Semi Automation is better. A human and a machine working together to make the humans job easier and safer
Not for the capitalist, he'd still have to pay wages
Using robots to uproot trees. How poetic.
I my understanding many jobs will go into non routine maintenance. The kind of work that is non-repetitive and too expensive to automate. Example: A/C maintenance requiring to get to the building, access the various parts of the A/C system, troubleshoot and fix.
We can't all be AC maintenance engineers. That's the problem. What do you do with people who aren't, to put it bluntly, smart enough or suited to such work? Are they just supposed to accept thisassive change they didn't bit9e for? That was forced upon them by rich people who want AI and more automation so they don't have to pay wages....which undermines the idea of universal basic income. If they're going to pay people why not pay them to work when work is good for people's mental well being? Those in positions of power have become obsessed with making life easier... regardless of the long term effects it will have on humans. What happens is we have universal basic income? Will we end up living under tyrants and dictators who can shut off you income with the snap of a finger because you criticised the government? Given such practices are already used on social media it's no a leap to suggest this.
Exactly. Who will buy the products of those companies if 70% of the population will be jobless? I earn only 350$ per month and I don't buy many things, so less profit for companies. Imagine 70% of the population without those 350$ to start with. Most of us will start stealing, killing, etc. Society plunges into anarchy. We have to eat and prison doesn't seem such a bad thing in nordic countries for examples where you can even use a Playstation. So going to prison willingly is a choice I am thinking about. Giving away my freedom for food and shelter. It's a good deal.@@libertasdemocratiam887
The biggest cost in business is paid workers. After waste, consistency & quality, elimanting humans is the most effective way to cut cost to maximize profits. ...Business intent on deliberately eliminating paid human effort is never going to re-purpose this many displaced workers...we had better hope our governments have a solution in mind because we can't put this many people on social security from a shrinking tax base!
I think these stories about the future of automation are to optimistic. Nobody talks about the practical future of the technology or what innovations are needed to bring about the kind of automation their dreaming of.
This makes me feel sad and happy at the same time
Maybe it should be the corporations or the government's job, but when we speak of automation nobody has a solution for the people who's jobs are replaced. We need a better education and retraining system for them.
We can't all become ENGINEERS or PROGRAMMERS - most of us have such a limited brain with low IQ, nature is not giving. Few people have a "math brain" to access such high jobs. I don't have a "math brain". I tried to learn Java, Python, C++ - my brain can't handle the abstract notions. It's overwhelmed and enters a phase of "overvoltage and burn". And I have an university education, but in journalism and psychology./ Imagine people with just 8 classes or even worse than that. Try to reconvert them professionally. It's impossible. And they are billions and they need to eat to survive. So crime will explode if not already. And states can't put all people in prisons. The future is gloomy for the masses. And the rich elite won't need people anymore. The abyss between rich and poor will become absolute.
Capitalism will still be a main component of the new system evolving because its best at creating and allocating capital (the innovations, machines, business systems, investments etc.) but you will also need a universal basic income also and certain socialist concepts to work along side it.
There is no 100% capitalist country. All countries have some social systems in action. Raw capitalism means no help from the state. It's a jungle. You can't fight for food, you die. But that's not the case. Look at nordic countries. A blending of capitalism and socialism. Finland seems the best at doing it.
Automation isn't destroying work. You'll still have to spend most of your daily life building somebody else's dream in order to eat and survive. Oh joy.
They are going to need mechanics to fix their stuff.
2:00 good cut from assembly line to full automation.
6:18 Yeah, but, aren't you killing them (and their families) by taking their job away from them?
8:07 "Don't be the guys who refuses to look at the future."
This sounds like it is an evolution tha happens naturally.
What scares me is that this is an already pre-determined future by the few for the world...
Sustainability
Habitat
AI
5G
Smart Cities (all that kind of smart stuff)
Densed Cities
Orwellian dystopia future be-like
We.need freedom from all jobs immediately
Robots must take jobs Immediately I was starting to wonder if you had retired.
Exactly!
so people are replaced by mechanical brains (aka AI) and mechanical muscles (aka robots)
an army of jobless people - unemployable by non of their fault - is raising
what are they going to eat?
i did the math once. THeres a certain amount of land needed to farm to create enough food for the average person. Right now, all things being equal, if the population multiplies 5x, then we'll be in trouble. BUt by then, we will probably also have some advanced in technology that allow us to farm the space more efficiently. One thing you can do is build a building and have many floors of plants. Only thing there is then you need to use electricity for lights.. which may wind up not really being feasible. But maybe we'll figure it out. or grow plants in space. Theres lots of space in space.
also im not sure if i did the math explicitly on "farmable land" or on all land. Cause yeah theres places like mountains deserts tundras etc where its harder to farm. But also in a cold place, you no longer would need to use as much electricity cooling an indoor operation lit by lights that produce a lot of heat. And in the desert theres lots of sun and it doesnt get cold so you dont have to worrying about heating (but yeah no nutrients in the soil, but there ARE some videos on youtube talking about people having figured out how to make desert land in to fertile land)
@@ChocolateMilkyYummy Already in London, due to available space underground in disused railway tunnels, warehouses and the like and due to cheap lighting from LED lights, many people are starting vertical hydroponic farming of expensive salad greens and vegetables for the restaurant trade. Transport of such goods from far off lands is expensive and the items themselves are expensive. Many chefs now grow their own herbs and greens on site in roof top gardens, green houses etc. in urban locations to ensure freshness and ready availability at all times.
worker are not just worker they are buyers too , if you push more people out of economic system ,jobless you are loosing buyers too.
Employees push themselves out of the economy by refusing to update their skills. As few as 15 credit hours at a State community college, State college, or State University can get them LIFETIME access to the Student Placement Office, where more and more employers place exclusive job listings because they want to avoid job applicants who have never stepped foot on a college campus.
Yang 2020!!
Imagine if tree cutting became automated and 100x more efficient than it is now, we will be depleting our forests 100x faster than now, and we cannot make trees grow 100x faster than they do now. This is a problem that the documentary doesn't address. There are many factors that influence what goes into being automated and what doesn't, obviously economics is a huge one. But we should focus more on finding ways to live without using that much wood, reduce our environmental impact, and not needing to chop down a forest in a blink of an eye so that a growing population can keep growing.
Great video. Really enjoyed this one
reliably automating forestry is too difficult for now; most of the upcoming automation is expected to replace desk jobs
"The only way to ensure the safety of our people is not having them"
Wow he cares so much about his employees! And how are they supposed to make money to live?
These “experts” shouldn’t lie to people saying automation is only gonna do the boring routine work or dangerous work because that’s not true. I’ve watched many automation documentaries with engineers,scientists,
Economists etc. everyone one of them said automation is going to kill jobs that’s why UBI will have to be implemented or some kinda regulation. They also said it’s going to kill 50% or jobs. This notion automation kills the same amount of jobs it kills is not true. Notice the one guy in this video said he hopes automation will create some jobs. Keyword was hope
The population of the world is growing... Jobs opportunities is shrinking
@My Nameis japan 🗾 population decreasing what
Those steep mountainsides are the last refuge for those trees from getting chopped down.
How about creating an automated system to replant trees I’m no tree hugger but every time I go to the woods to shoot here in Washington the deforestation I come across is depressing.
There are a lot of drones like that developing, but someone needs to pay for them. And replanting doesn't pay nearly as good as cutting shit down.
another idea is just scattering seeds from a helicopter.
That forest is like a head in a army barbershop.
Forestry will be gone within 20 years.
Seems like this is just dodging the issue that there will be far more people than jobs.
Okay, so the future (and quite a bit of the present) consists of people holding different jobs over the course of their career. Fair enough.
Buy, this means that job have to accept me workers without long drawn out training or education periods.
If a family's main provider/s have to switch industries at the drop of a hat because automaton killed their job, the new job they move into must have a starting salty enough to support thier family in roughly the same way as before.
Otherwise, that senior lumberjack becomes a programming intern, and his kids starve.
Technology creates better jobs for horses.
Sam Mousa You won't be left behind unless you refuse to change. Specially at this time period you can teach yourself new skills right from the internet. There many resources available on the internet that will, if you fallow through with it, make you an expert in that field. For example, many of the programmers that work for top companies like Google are self-taught. It's not just programming, the internet has a lot to offer when it comes to learning new skills for jobs.
Bad comparison. Machines need to offer products and services humans will buy.
Ahh, horses used to be highly employable, like 120 years ago. How many horses do you see in the workforce today? There is no reason to assume that humans cannot be removed from the workforce too.
Yes, there is. Horses were "workforce", but not "consumers".
Humans are workforce and consumers at the same time, therefore, a profit seeking AI will always have incentives to augment the productivity of even the least skilled workers in exchange for a piece of their production, that the AI can subsequently use to offer a product or service to that person.
Also, horses depend on people to survive. But there can be human communities that become independent of AI if the AI truly displaces massive ammounts of jobs in every industry. People would exchange labor at lower prices than the AI offers. It's not a problem to have your salary massively, massively reduced if the person next to you is also asking for a lower price.
LordF I cannot help but get the impression that you want to fit a market economy where one is unlikely to exist.
In the case of horses, how many do we see being used as transportation in the west? They are not used because their "labor" cannot hope to compete with the machines that replaced them. Over the decades, horses found their pool of available work diminishing until it is what we see today. Of course, this did not come with an economic collapse because, as you said, horses are not consumers, and all the industries built around horses could shift their workforces towards any number of new industries being built around machines. Horses augmented human strength and speed, machines did it better.
The downfall of the work horse has some useful parallels for us. With each advancement in machine learning, AI and robotics, we humans also find ourselves competing for shrinking pool of labor. Now, this pool of labor doesn't shrink linearly and will in the short run seem to grow, thereby giving the illusion of new jobs and sectors to work in. But the long-term trend seems to have all of us thrown out of the economy because there is no price we could ever charge for our labor that would compete against automated systems.
There are two related problems with this scenario. First, at some point, unemployment will hit a threshold where the market economy will fail. Why would companies purse strategies that ultimately rob them of consumers? People are notoriously short-sighted and blind to greed. As long as company X can automate their services and make a profit, they will. Company X is not going to study the larger impacts of their action on society. Besides if company X hesitates to automate, then their competition may see that as an opening to gain the market. In short, market forces will drive companies to automate themselves out of business.
The second problem has to do with the AI itself. The development of an artificial general intelligence is such a wild card situation that I won't spend much time on it. Save to say that unless we get it right, we may open Pandora's box and who knows what may happen.
I really don't see how the economy will sustain itself in the future. I may very well be wrong on the details, but I do think the collapse and replacement of the money economy is likely.
Logging automation? This video is a joke. There has been processors for 30 years. They're just getting these now in Oregon? Doubt it.
best way to increase revenue is to get rid of labour expense
I'm about to invest in some machines myself finally able to save some cash on useless people
@@jonathanng138 wow useless people ?
@@IDIOMRADIO labourers
@@IDIOMRADIO useful till I don't need them
6:46 Fantastic, *if* there are new jobs. If no new jobs and those market winners aren't willing to redistribute the gains... what then?
SOURCE of problem - how and where the money is funneled to those who are not the common consumers, and who are not the common workers. This is constrains people and causes lots of different problems, but to those at the top, it had major benefits worth the cost (to the economy and culture) that comes with it.
I'm not watching the video because the title is inherently illogical. The function of jobs is to carry out work. Reduction of jobs means a reduction of human work (unless the video claims that there will be NEW jobs) but I suppose it's true 'work' itself will not be technically eliminated; but humans won't be doing it.
Well on the bright side, as more and more people lose their jobs to machines and that includes you in the office, They will need less trees. Now since this man invested his money in this automation, he won't have to have the same number of machines running, but will still have the payments to pay and maintenance on the machines. So eventually he will be out of business and can join the rest of us on the streets.
*Work vs Job*
I don’t get it. Is this an actual threat or just an over exaggeration?
And if this does happen then wouldn’t each machine need human hands to repair those machines ?
The sight of trees cut like that is disturbing.
#sustainablefelling
Now they need to replant all the tree they just cut down this is a huge contributor to global warming deforestation and habitat destruction
THere is no such thing as a shortage of jobs....just a shortage of humans sharing the work!!! .It MUST be made FINANCIALLY worthwhile to share the jobs left and work ever increasingly LESS as the robots and automation take over....you cannot work LESS other by sharing the jobs. Reducing the work hours just means the job doesn't get done.
Try finding the customer! for the goods produced, works for a while to saturation of those that can pay that have not been displaced, oversees orders etc, and then wham - nothing, no sales with scampering politicians that have no answers.
Leaves those logs ALONE
Our skills, talent simply replaced by someone who's don't knowledge of it this is actually worries for people where they go😮
universal income. no need to work. do our hobbies to improve our lives. get rid of government and authority and watch what happens.
How do you get universal income without government?
why do you feel you need government or rulers ? we can do away with currency all together. Go back to living for ourselves and our families and not for a government or ruler.
hashnnugs I guess we just have a different idea of what “government” is. For me politics is just the word for the way humans organize themselves in groups. I don’t think the idea of living for yourself, your family (and your community) is mutually exclusive from having a government. Maybe the political structures we live under today aren’t very good in a lot of ways, but that doesn’t mean it’s the only way to make a government. And to be honest I’ve been thinking a lot about the “no currency” idea, because I find it interesting, but the conclusion I’ve come to is that currency is a way of making exchanges fair (it’s a common denominator between cows and chairs, for example). Again, just because we’re not using this tool properly today doesn’t mean we never will. I personally think we’ll get it right when we decide to make some things “priceless” - like our basic needs of water and unprocessed food. If those things can’t be commoditized, and we all agree to simply work to provide them for others because it’s what’s best for society, then currency for other goods wouldn’t be a problem...... But then you’d need a government to organize that all together :P I personally value large social structures, global structures even, and I don’t think we can be fair to everyone if it’s just a wild free for all.
It would be nice to be able to live without being forced under such laws or politics as you say your term for government. some structure may be fine, but I think small is much better than big. To each there own. I just think it would be great to actually experience freedom.
hashnnugs laws and politics are important for living together. Your freedoms end where mine begin, and it's our laws that protect our freedoms. Sure, you're not 100% free -- you can't steal and kill and other things like that -- but I'm ok with giving up some freedoms so we can get other things in return for living as an organized community -- like universal basic income, healthcare, education, internet and incredible devices I would never be able to invent myself. I'm very into big, I guess. I would rather give up some freedoms so that I can extend my limits. Travel all around the world on someone else's plane, one day even go into space. You can't do that in a small system.
And people wonder why the homeless population is on the rise. Even McDonald's has a machine to ask you "Do you want fries with that" now.
The auto industry is better at providing housing in the USA than the construction and real estate industries are. Homelessness is very largely the result of:
1) lack of veteran services;
2) 50% of USA adults getting no community college, college, or university education that produces access to Student Placement Office career services over their entire lifetime;
3) men becoming alcoholic as a result of job pressures, getting divorced, and/or becoming disabled from overwork;
4) employers terminating employees who are 50+ because health insurance premiums skyrocked at that age;
5) 70% of those who were in foster care lacking a protective social network as adults;
6) USA currently having 100,000,000 born 1996 to 2020 with 4,000,000 turning 18 since 2012. Homelessness is apt to even get worse because none if the above us getting remediated.
It's long been known that you want to be valued for what you KNOW, not what you DO. If you've chosen a career that pays you to DO something, especially something that's repetitive and labor-intensive, you can expect to be replaced by a machine at some point, simply because machines are more reliable and cost less over the long run. They don't call off. They don't show up late. They don't spend their day surfing the internet. They don't require HR departments to watch over them.
But who will buy the products of those companies if 70% of the population will be jobless? I earn only 350$ per month and I don't buy many things, so less profit for companies. Imagine 70% of the population without those 350$ to start with. Most of us will start stealing, killing, etc. Society plunges into anarchy. We have to eat and prison doesn't seem such a bad thing in nordic countries for examples where you can even use a Playstation. So going to prison willingly is a choice I am thinking about. Giving away my freedom for food and shelter. It's a good deal.
UBI (Universal Basic Income) is on the horizon.
It's a real bummer how many jobs got eliminated by the x-ray machine. Think of all the surgeons that used to make a living doing exploratory surgery.
why we are fearing automation it will create more goods with less effort ... a politician should start implementing UBI, and a way to create equality. It will be great to live in a world where people do not have to worry about how one will pay his monthly grocery bill, light bill etc., all basic necessity. There will be agriculture robots, there will be robots manufacturing solar panels, batteries to give you 24 hours of electricity. If you get bored play sports, hang out with human friends, do some artwork, watch netflix, do some research work. Just live do not worry about food, shelter etc. One two things we need to take care 1) let machines do not take over us 2) Let a
few crooked people do not take over the entire planet.
I want to work. I don’t want to be a fatass living off government money.
@@thepracticalinvestor2386 there will be jobs for research, sports, astronatrs..... Gyms will be open ... We have lot of work pending to realise the world that i mentioned.
Sandip Bhadani that still sucks. Going to the gym is not the same as presenting a financial spreadsheet about future expenditures and revenues. Research will probably be done by ai. And not to be doom and gloom, but don’t you think that ai will stage and uprising if we let unrestricted ai learning?
@@thepracticalinvestor2386 yes you are right ... We have to keep the AI in check .... We should not peruse artificial general intelligence... That might be like digging humanity's grave.
As long as we can use AI as powerful tool that it's fine ... We shouldn't allow it to be more intelligent... Otherwise we can not even imagine how machine will kill us.
@@thepracticalinvestor2386 What was once considered voluntary work will become mainstream work. This is the way it always happened in the past. The Victorian middle class had voluntary workers in the nursing and social work sectors, these were originally voluntary jobs done for no money as the mostly middle class people had other sources of income on which to live on. Same will apply to many roles in the future. The big problem with UBI is lack of redundancy. What happens if the government fails and few people have the needed skills to sustain themselves and their communities?? I couldn't care less about the "shame" of taking a govt handout, this is a false belief put about by employers to trap workers in substandard jobs. I do care about overdependence on a single source of income and life for too many people. What happens if it fails? Too many nations have failed in the past by over reliance on one source of power, income and social position. I do not want to live in another Libya. Worse still if corporations take on private standing armies to fight against government attempts to tax them more to pay for UBI, how do you avoid this? How do you avoid offshoring wealth to avoid tax?
So engineer's brilliant tell me, what happens when nobody is working who would you sell those products to?
With all this shit awaits for us in the future it s astonishing to me that Andrew yang is the only guy talking about it.
I’m thinking, with automation many will know how to operate it but few will know how to build them. When we structure our social and economic life so much around money, big change to jobs and flow of cash is tough on individual lives. One could lose their jobs, their livelihood today, but the world will take and have years for a new industry to start.
Bernie Sanders Talks about job automation from the standpoint that technology must provide all this efficiency, productivity, and wealth of abundance to everyone on the planet.
The rich elite will lose its status, so I don't think that would happen.
One day , universal basic income will be part of every day life , no job = no money and everything else collapse