patrick.net

It would be cheaper and less costly to themselves to blow you instead of robbing you, so they will do that. It's a matter of coming up with things that you'd like them do for you. E.g. paying someone $60 to clean your house every week is much less expensive than buying a robot to do that, for now anyway.

Reality says

to blow you instead of robbing you, so they will do that

Ok, but when I have a robot, who looks like Raquel Welch, (Sophia Loren, Marilyn Monroe, or some-other-super model ), why would I let someone onto my premises? That's a security risk.

And this would be a Raquel Welch, who's interested in listening to Led Zeppelin with me, along with providing BJs. I'd never get bored.

Reality says

paying someone $60 to clean your house every week is much less expensive than buying a robot to do that, for now anyway.

Same issue, a human being is a security risk. And the Roomba exists today for $300-$500. In the future, that equivalent of $400 would provide a much better cleaning experience.

Rin says

Millennials will be the 1st generation to see the end of work

In order for that statement to be true, the Millennials will also have to be the first generation to see the end of war, and I doubt that will be true.

However, I do agree that we are rapidly automating most functions and that in order for our society to prosper, the bounty of automation must benefit all persons equally, not just a few owners who didn't do jack to build the automatons. In other words, the profits of automation should be dispersed to all persons over 18 equally as a guaranteed income.

That is not how life works. The simple truth is that people find stuff to do, if you try and prevent that then the stuff they do will be you. APOCALYPSEFUCK will be the new norm.

Dan8267 says

the bounty of automation must benefit all persons equally

Spoken like a true Apparatchik, yes I'm sure you're right.

Oh noes! This is so bad! People need jobs! We don't know what it is we want them to be doing, but goddamit, they must work!

Rin says

Millennials will be the 1st generation to see the end of work

NO Obama's master plan will be thwarted by the next two elections.

Automation can bring us cheap resources to keep us fed, clothed, and sheltered. However, when life's necessities are easily obtained, boredom often results. I foresee a day (soon) when these necessities are guaranteed by the state, but extras for entertainment are extra. Well, maybe not cable tv. They want you to have that if you're poor and dot have a job so they can pipe the required propaganda into your hovel.

What's never going out of style is creative work. Someone needs to create new things, exciting things. Someone needs to dream up new devices we are all going to want, write stories we will want to hear or see on the screen, make new taste experiences, new fashion, new things to do, new games to play, and so on. Creativity will be the measure of success rather than hard work, so much. Although it must be said that creativity needs to be coupled with perseverance to attain proficiency. Whether it be photography or quilting or rug weaving in Afghanistan, creative work will be the new gold standard

What value is making a film?

Rin says

Thus, Millenials despite all their adoration for smart phones and automation tools, will see that their actual work is of no value

Thus Millenials, despite all their adoration for smart phones and automation tools, will see that their actual work is of no value

Kids these days! Why can't they be perfect like we were?

Why won't they stay off my lawn?

Quigley says

Automation can bring us cheap resources to keep us fed, clothed, and sheltered. However, when life's necessities are easily obtained, boredom often results. I foresee a day (soon) when these necessities are guaranteed by the state, but extras for entertainment are extra. Well, maybe not cable tv. They want you to have that if you're poor and dot have a job so they can pipe the required propaganda into your hovel.

At first it will be a guaranteed minimum income, but over time, as the majority of people become unemployed due to automation, they will demand a lower middle class standard of living for their guaranteed income or at least for prices to drop to the point where they can afford a comfortable life on their monthly check. It's one thing to expect the majority of people to save up if they want to take a cruise on their 20th wedding anniversary. It's another to have them worrying about whether or not they can afford to see the dentist when they have an extremely painful tooth ache. When the majority can no longer find gainful employment and the oligarch's lackeys can't hide the fact behind cooked up data, the guaranteed income will rise to provide basic creature comfort, not just survival, or there will be hacktavists sabotaging the system.

Rin says

Ok, but when I have a robot, who looks like Raquel Welch, (Sophia Loren, Marilyn Monroe, or some-other-super model ), why would I let someone onto my premises? That's a security risk.

To manufacture, program, and maintain said robot ... that's a lot of work. When Raquel gets sick, you are either going to pay for a house call, or go someplace to have things worked on.

Additionally, we are just on the start of the curve of development for robotics like this. That means each year there will be a newer improved iBimbo ... if that's what you want. The changes and evolutions happening will be significant.

Even when there are machines tending machines ... you are still going to need someone to tend the machine tender ...

... until someday the singularity comes.

The amount of gadgets and things we are all buying these days, my god, a flipping iPhone a year for a huge number of people, and we are saying there is no work? There is an absolute boooooooom of tech work that has been going on for greater than a decade.

This is not really any different than what happened during industrialization. Yes, some jobs die, but others are born.

Rin says

A certain percent of them, like 1% to 3%, will be architects of high end robots/AI tools but a vast majority, will be getting laid off, in place of automated systems, which can do former white collar tasks like market analysis and portfolio management.

I think you greatly under-estimate how much work will need to go into making said robots. This isn't a snap your fingers and manual labor is dead sort of thing. We still haven't heavily automated any major points of sale, outside the gas pump, and self check out with watchful eye by employee.

When a McDonald's franchise has 2-4 employees only at a location ... and the food ordering and service is fully automated, then you can start worrying about the collapse of "work". You can see this coming, sure, but my god, we have maybe another 200+ years before that occurs. I think there is a good chance humanity may get thrown off this major progress trail too.

That type of automation is radically expensive still, and once in place, it doesn't change much with culture and taste very well. People are far cheaper and more adaptable ... and ... just plain smarter.

Rin says

Thus, Millenials despite all their adoration for smart phones and automation
tools, will see that their actual work is of no value

If this occurs, then we should expect to see demand for universities drop off significantly. What's the point of incurring herculean levels of student debt if there's no work afterwards? That would be horrible return on investment.

Rin says

Millennials will be the 1st generation to see the end of work

I don't see that really happening. Jobs where people ineract with people will continue. And I believe the number of jobs lost to automation will not exceed 50% for a long time.

The solution is government jobs, but they must be productive. This flies in the face of those who believe government investment in anything other than military and security can never be productive.

A big part of the reason that government jobs are the answer, is the so called multiplier effect. People must be kept occupied, and the incomes they receive mostly go back in to the economy.

The question is what should these jobs be ? Education ? Arts, Science ? Social work ? Security (local) ? Maintenance ? Infrastructure maintenance and replacement (construction)?

SOme will argue that there isn't enough wealth or value created by these to justify their cost. But if most of the cost is salaries, that are spent back in to the economy on things of value, why can't this work ?

It sounds radical, and I'm not suggesting it would be easy. We would need a functional government that isn't wholly owned by the oligarchs for starters, but something along these lines seems inevitable if we are to flourish long term.

There will always be a segment of the population that is relatively poor. But how poor is that ? And how do they spend their time ?

commie pinko economists: http://multiplier-effect.org/

Rew says

To manufacture, program, and maintain said robot ... that's a lot of work. When Raquel gets sick, you are either going to pay for a house call

Ok, but the technician, possibly a 'bot itself, will still need to get through my security sentry, to work on Raquel's orifices or curves. Raquel is only a bodyguard, if the sentry is deactivated.

Rew says

I think you greatly under-estimate how much work will need to go into making said robots. This isn't a snap your fingers and manual labor is dead sort of thing.

The thing is that back in the 80s/90s, the idea of embedding objects into other office tools, like Excel sheets inside Word docs, etc, almost made it look like we needed most ppl, instead of studying material science, biology, etc, study computer science. Well today, a lot of that stuff is mature and maintained globally. And likewise, every subsequent wave will not require the entire graduating class of science/engineering students worldwide, but a subset of them. At some point in time, software will write or at least modify software and then, the critical mass of technical personnel will start to go down, with each wave.

Back in the 1920s, it was predicted that the job market for telephone operators would grow by leaps and bounds. Thirty years later, despite the exponential growth of telephony, much of that work was automated, with probably 5% of that workforce leftover.

Rew says

You can see this coming, sure, but my god, we have maybe another 200+ years before that occurs.

What you're talking about are fundamental shifts in areas like surface chemistry, material science, and so forth, where present day science/engineering paradigms are limiting their applications. Thus, it's highly unlikely that we'll be able to manipulate matter, in a way different than how we already do it now, for another century. This even includes 3-D printing which is really just applying software to do a cascade of manual types of jobs. And thus, nanotechnology is a distant future, as present-day applications are basically add-ons to preexisting ideas of miniaturization.

marcus says

A big part of the reason that government jobs are the answer, is the so called multiplier effect. People must be kept occupied, and the incomes they receive mostly go back in to the economy.

Marcus is a good Apparatchik as well.

These mutts actually believe this shit, oh Magoo you are good.

Quigley says

What's never going out of style is creative work. Someone needs to create new things, exciting things. Someone needs to dream up new devices we are all going to want, write stories we will want to hear or see on the screen, make new taste experiences, new fashion, new things to do, new games to play, and so on. Creativity will be the measure of success rather than hard work, so much. Although it must be said that creativity needs to be coupled with perseverance to attain proficiency. Whether it be photography or quilting or rug weaving in Afghanistan, creative work will be the new gold standard

Agree -- what automation will get rid of is many of the low-skill/low-education jobs where people are basically drones already. Things that require thinking and analysis will still often need a warm body. This is bad for blue collar automatons, but good for those who have skills and can adapt to new things.

As Rew said, automation will require a lot of work, and there will be many many jobs in designing, building, and repairing robots. Even now, many industrial robots aren't allowed to roam among people and must be in safety cages because we can't guarantee safety without doing so.

corntrollio says

Things that require thinking and analysis will still often need a warm body.

Spin offs, from projects like IBM's Watson, could also replace an entire actuarial dept for an insurance company.

The company will only need to maintain two actuarial fellows, to monitor the work and then, sign off on the work, for the clients & for legal reasons.

That'll save at least $6M-$10M per year in headcount for high end salaries. And if the licensing fee for that is $500K/yr or less, why wouldn't an executive VP not go for it?

My hope is that there be heavy tax and regulation on dumping old obsolete technology gadgets(including robots) that eventually has to go out in the trash. This might be an impediment to robots replacing human labor. It's bad enough that we send so many old devices (phones, computers, etc), toxic to boot, to landfills without even considering how dumped robots would add to that volume of toxic waste.

Rin says

Millennials will be the 1st generation to see the end of work

Once the top 0.01% has robots to do the job, they will send drones to exterminate the rest of the insects that plague this planet.

Rin says

they were the generations which had actually experienced an era where one's labor was of value to society

No: Struggling to survive is what gives life true meaning, and its true savor.

Rin says

Millenials despite all their adoration for smart phones and automation tools, will see that their actual work is of no value.

Millenials will be uploaded in computers, their bodies disposed of, and they can work tirelessly for Google till the end of times to answer searches for the next generations, or what remains of it.

Rin says

Today, Gen X, as it's entering full adulthood, will be seeing many jobs disappear by retirement.

If job losses were due to automation, which should see a huge spike in productivity, which we don't.

Give people a computer and they spend time on Facebook and Patnet. Hardly added productivity.

Low job and wages growth in the US is due to trade. China is like 500 millions robots doing jobs for us.

The economy grows in new ways after a correction/recession, the problem starts when the government prevents the nascent growth to occur. Yous like government does not know how this is going to occur, and only shits on it when it tries.

Rin says

Spin offs, from projects like IBM's Watson, could also replace an entire actuarial dept for an insurance company.

The company will only need to maintain two actuarial fellows, to monitor the work and then, sign off on the work, for the clients & for legal reasons.

So, Watson will come up with new insurance products and how to model them?

corntrollio says

what automation will get rid of is many of the low-skill/low-education jobs where people are basically drones already. Things that require thinking and analysis will still often need a warm body. This is bad for blue collar automatons, but good for those who have skills and can adapt to new things.

This is a very narrow vision of what computers will do in the future.
I wouldn't bet on warm bodies being needed.

corntrollio says

Watson will come up with new insurance products and how to model them?

The two certified actuarial fellows come up with products and give next gen Watson the go-ahead, to model 'em for optimization and suggested alterations. Before, that work was done by a whole dept.

Heraclitusstudent says

Give people a computer and they spend time on Facebook and Patnet. Hardly added productivity

You've answered the question right there, we don't need ppl.

Our hedge fund did not hire a $400K tax consultant. Instead, that fixed cost was used for a prop trader.

We've automated the tax server, bring in a contractor periodically to check the work, prior to submitting it to the auditors. In fact, we're on the phone all day with clients. At my firm, everyone who's not trading, is a salesmen including the receptionist.

Why work when you can simply flip houses for $$$$$$$. In the future, labor will be done by robots. People will earn money by flipping houses.

Rin says

did not hire a $400K tax consultant. Instead, that fixed cost was used for a prop trader.

We've automated the tax server, bring in a contractor periodically to check the work, prior to submitting it to the auditors.

Just to give you the cost savings ... the full timer is $33.3K per month. The contractor, on the other hand, charges $250/hr and bills us 10-20 hrs/month or $2.5K-$5K. Thus, tax server automation has saved a lot of money right there, as we won't have a full timer, sitting around reading Facebook all day, since his actual work is not that special, once you factor in computer automation.

Rin says

we won't have a full timer, sitting around reading Facebook all day, since his actual work is not that special, once you factor in computer automation.

Right now, this connection to PatNet is via private VPN.

On my other console terminal, I have an IM with clients. I'm glued to that and the telephone, all day long, ready to go into meetings, at any time.

If a wannabe full timer, let's say a technical or financial person, doesn't do his job plus being a salesman for the mothership, we don't extend an offer. The only exception here are prop traders, who're executing orders and need undivided attention on the markets.

Rin says

On my other console terminal, I have an IM with clients. I'm glued to that and the telephone, all day long, ready to go into meetings, at any time.

If a wannabe full timer, let's say a technical or financial person, doesn't do his job plus being a salesman for the mothership, we don't extend an offer. The only exception here are prop traders, who're executing orders and need undivided attention on the markets.

Investing could well be a fully automated function.
Given enough information, programs will take over.

Heraclitusstudent says

Investing could well be a fully automated function.

Given enough information, programs will take over.

The further one moves up in a company, sales becomes the only thing which seems to matter.

From my perspective, in terms of corporate hierarchy, this is probably the highest echelon I'll reach in life, as I'm a junior partner here with an equity stake, the "starting dozen".

Whenever I meet folks, who're actually worker bees like equity analyst, tax consultant, etc, part of what they do is project this *aura*, that their knowledge is secret, elite, and so-forth. For the most part, it's not. It's just that they've carved a niche, based upon business leaders being too scatterbrained to care or to take into account how this *excess headcount* is generating revenue or is just a drain on a cost center.

Thus, as this firm took off, one of my main contributions, aside from being in the starting crew, was that I'd guided the senior partners to not rely upon industry experts, so that fiefdoms don't grow, reducing the P/L statement. The idea was that in order to attract and retain the best prop traders, the guys who bring home the bacon, the bonus pool had to be skewed in their favor over a cascading hierarchy of so-called experts. The strategy has apparently worked and we've been doing quite well for the past few years.

So once you're not a trader, then what's one's role? It's all sales because we need to corral clients monies and give 'em a sense that they're special. We play this game, day after day, month after month. In the end, our traders have more capital to work with, the P/L & bonuses grow (of course traders getting more of it than us), and our book value increases with the hope of a merger with a larger firm down the road.

Rin says

Whenever I meet folks, who're actually worker bees like equity analyst, tax consultant, etc, part of what they do is project this *aura*, that their knowledge is secret, elite, and so-forth.

Rin says

what's one's role? It's all sales because we need to corral clients monies and give 'em a sense that they're special.

In other words you cut people who are doing commodity jobs by not buying into their sales pitches, and then turn around and do a sales pitch to your own client to project that *aura* that your special, elite, etc...

I guess human beings not being very rational, there will always be money to be made BSing.

What percent of hedge funds beat the SPY consistently?

Heraclitusstudent says

Investing could well be a fully automated function.

Given enough information, programs will take over.

I dissagree, that is, I don't see that as a certainty, any more than I think that one day there will not be humans who can consistently beat the best computer chess programs.

But the best human traders will use trading programs extensively.

Heraclitusstudent says

What percent of hedge funds beat the SPY consistently?

What does that even mean ? Protracted bear markets occur. During those times, a majority of hedge funds will beat the SPY. Obviously, in a year that the stock market goes up 20% you wouldn't even expect many hedge funds to do better.

Heraclitusstudent says

In other words you cut people who are doing commodity jobs by not buying into their sales pitches, and then turn around and do a sales pitch to your own client to project that *aura* that your special, elite, etc...

I guess human beings not being very rational, there will always be money to be made BSing.

That's not the point.

The point was that executives, on the whole, do not like this notion of employees. Thus, the idea that software can automate roles/tasks is enticing to most business owners & their executive suites. This is why I'd made this thread. Ppl do not control whether or not they have a job. It's the top dogs in corporations who set the trends and if/when tools like IBM Watson infiltrate the white collar space, watch out! We'll be seeing a mass dystopia among formerly secure white collar professions.

Heraclitusstudent says

What percent of hedge funds beat the SPY consistently?

Usually, under 15%, I believe, esp during bullish cycles.

marcus says

any more than I think that one day there will not be humans who can consistently beat the best computer chess programs.

Humm... you don't think computers consistently beat humans at chess?

Heraclitusstudent says

marcus says

any more than I think that one day there will not be humans who can consistently beat the best computer chess programs.

Humm... you don't think computers consistently beat humans at chess?

Wasn't chess settled already, back with Deep Blue and Kasparov in the 90s.

THe best chess players against the best computer chess programs ? Draw at best, for the computers (usually). So no, I don't think the best computers beat the best chess players consistently.

If a human was allowed to use a computer, against a computer, and the human computer team would certainly win.

Likewise trading will be done by humans with computers as tools. It already is.