Federal report: AI could threaten up to 47 percent of jobs in two decades

Artificial intelligence may also widen the inequality gap among workers.

Read the whole story

 

[S_T_R]

AdamM[/url]":1pqku87s]This should really be a major question people ask themselves when choosing a career field. Will this job be here in 20 years or at the very minimum will there be fewer jobs?

Also, where you plan on living. You can specialize in AI itself, but if you're working for the only company in Bumfuck, Overflight that does any kind of analytics, it's going to be tough if they ever go under, get bought, or otherwise change in a way that makes you redundant. You are far from any large network and you skills may fall behind without you even knowing it.

Regional depression isn't about outsourcing or automation. It's about people that don't move along with industry. Advanced manufactures are mostly located near (but not necessarily in) larger cities. They still need machinists and welders, and most have a shortage of workers. Many are hiring back workers in their late 50's to 60's that previously retired. Meanwhile, nobody is hiring in Appalachia, because nobody is moving their plants there (because management and other professionals don't want to live there).

Rural unemployment will only stabilize when there's roughly as much supply of labor as there is demand. Demand isn't changing, so the supply must move. Which means we not only need retraining, but relocation initiatives.

 

[S_T_R]

unequivocal[/url]":k5p2muia]

Sajuuk[/url]":k5p2muia]At least the robots will never replace doctors, lawyers, drivers, StarCraft pros. I'm of the, completely amateur opinion, that we're about to witness a fundamental economic shift away from neoliberal capitalism. Markets fundamentally cannot work when there is no middle class to buy.

"The Hamptons is not a defensible position".

I disagree - I believe the problem is that productivity gains have gone solely to owners in the current capitalist approach. If productivity gains could be shared more broadly (in the way *productive outputs* are currently distributed), we could have a road out of this mess. That would involve a very big alteration of the current system, but it seems more attainable than abandoning markets altogether.

Not really a big alteration, just an more equal distribution of profits to all stakeholders. We actually have this already, it's called profit sharing, and I've worked at companies that provided this in lieu of a 401k. All you need to do is up the % share (so that it works more like an executive bonus and supplements normal income instead of just being retirement income) and you've got an answer. It even helps businesses by automatically reducing costs during recessions (no profit = no profit share) which should reduce cyclical layoffs. Wages are sticky, most employees don't like it when they get a pay cut, even if they know it will keep their friends employed.

Admittedly, I'm not the first to advocate this. In fact, it was one of Clinton's main platforms for addressing this issue. It's a good idea (one of the few good ones to come from the campaign), albeit tricky to incentivize.

raxx7[/url]":k5p2muia]A simple formula:
natural resources + human labour => goods and services.

That's a very antiquated way of viewing economics. You do *not* need raw materials to create economic outputs. Services can result in other services, all of which create a virtuous circle of wealth. This is one of the underlying ideas of intellectual property. Intangibles count.

 

[S_T_R]

JonathanSmith[/url]":b35dukt2]
This is one of those very odd things I've noticed. I grew up with my family moving around, and it was just one of those things I understood - you go where the work is. It's not like my parents were transient workers or something, either - my dad was a firefighter, and could get a job just about anywhere. He went where he could get promotions, until he hit the top.

My friends in the city I currently live in have huge job troubles, but refuse to move. They talk about how long they've been out of work, how nobody's hiring, but if I ask if they've applied to places in Alberta they look at me like I've got an extra head. I'm not even sure that relocation money would help. Leaving their hometown is just something that doesn't occur to them as an option. I don't know how you'd even go about fixing that.

Yes, because where you live is *not* solely about where you work. Communities, support networks, proximity to family are all important. If we become a solely transient country, we'll have a lot of people who are now far less vested in how well any single location is maintained. This will feed institutional rot, which is the last thing we need right now.

Which is why I'm not talking about covering moving expenses. I'm talking about *targeted* moving incentives. I'm talking about uprooting whole families, transplanting them, and setting the whole lot up for success in their new prosperous location. Think wagon trains of settlers seeking the open west for opportunity.

goddog[/url]":b35dukt2]
perhaps if the cities succumb to global warming side effects the two issues will work themselves out.

Nope, that will simply lay waste to trillions in capital investments and depress the newly abandoned coastal cities as much as the rural wastelands. Think Detroit, but underwater. Everybody loses in the short term. In the long term, everyone moves to the remaining cities still above water. Maybe a few new cities are founded/grow in prominence.

 

[S_T_R]

Hack-n-Slash[/url]":qhtyc91l]

slipleft[/url]":qhtyc91l]
Take automobiles as an example; the average price is much lower than the 1970s even while the average quality is much higher. The drop in their prices was caused by production efficiency.

http://cars.axlegeeks.com/stories/12558 ... ost#4-1970

1970: $21,625 (inflation-adjusted)
1980: $21,787 (inflation-adjusted)
2016: $25,449

Quality? Yes. Price? No.

Just as an aside, I look at those numbers and what jumps out is the 20% rise between 1980 and 2016. I don't doubt the figures, I'm sure the car itself cost those amounts. However, interest rates were much higher 30-40 years ago (16-18% in 1980, which is higher than most credit cards today). Factor in the cost of the LOAN and I suspect all 3 numbers will be about the same.

In fact, we might see a marginal decrease. My last two car notes (one last decade, one this) came out to 1.5% and 0% respectively. That actually *decreases* the real cost (not the nominal*) of my vehicle purchase, as my last payment will be discounted by inflation. 5 years of inflation come out to a 10.4% discount at 2% inflation per annum.

http://www.carloanpal.com/car-loan-blog ... rest-rates

*Econ terms: nominal = unadjusted for inflation, real = inflation adjusted.

 

[S_T_R]

JonathanSmith[/url]":241mlcum]I understand the importance of relationship networks, but to be blunt if you can't eat, you can't live. Sometimes our available choices narrow, and I find the tendency to hold on to your town over any quality of life consideration to be quite mad.

I disagree intensely that people moving to where the work is will 'feed institutional rot.' If anything it would help stabilize things as employment improves and already strained civil support systems are unburdened.

See, the thing about families is that they are more resilient that individuals. You may not work, and by yourself you cannot eat, but so long as *most* of the family is earning, others can be between work or handling tasks which are both necessary and poorly paid (like childcare). When you break that up, sure, you might increase GDP, but the individuals are worse off without that economy of scale that comes with a support network.

And yes, the more transitory a given population is, the less they care about where they live. If you're busy moving, you're not sitting down and getting to know the nuances of the local government and community groups. Nuance takes time. Networking takes time.

You might not even try because there's little vested interest in it. And vested interest is the crux of good neighborhoods. Ever live in an apartment vs a condo building? Vested interest is why they're so different.

ziegler[/url]":241mlcum]Quality yes? ...... yeah, I'd say that is debatable as well. But I may be prejudiced because I equate durability with quality.

A modern car should, simply by keeping up with scheduled maintenance (including oil changes as seldom as once every 10,000 miles), run a quarter million miles or more effortlessly. How many cars from the 70's can say that? Precisely none. You'd probably be on the 3rd engine at that point.

You're not prejudiced so much as confused. Modern cars are safer, more comfortable, and vastly more reliable while being easier and cheaper to maintain.

 

[S_T_R]

JonathanSmith[/url]":ja5j23fy]You pay taxes where you are, and those feed the institutions. It's not like Family A earmarks their tax dollars for a new school now, either.

I'm starting to think that you're not so much misunderstanding the opposing argument as simply ignoring it. This does *not* address the point I, or the other poster, have raised.