The AI Will Steal Our Jobs!

They say that starting a post with a bolt statement is a good idea, so here you go: Artificial Intelligence will destroy our current economic structure. How’s that?

While that statement may seem like a gross overreaction and sound a little nutty, it is quite possibly true. As we move forward, AI will take more and more of the tasks we currently do ourselves. Right now they are mostly in highly repetitive tasks, such as manufacturing. These robots have already displaced many workers, they are cheaper and more accurate. But the presence of those robots have also opened up new opportunities in research and development as well as in maintenance. Here’s the catch: displaced employees cannot afford the new education necessary to go into these fields.

In the past, new technology has largely been geared towards making human beings more efficient at their jobs. If one person makes more stuff, the price of the stuff goes down and makes it available to more people. This has been the driver of our economic growth and high standard of living. Thus far technological progress has been the facilitator of our modern world.

But we are at a moment when this status quo is changing. Artificial intelligence is becoming better than we are at tasks we once considered exclusively the domain of human beings. This means that the jobs that were more nuanced and variable, are going the way of the dodo as those get replaced as well.

For awhile there will be new jobs created by this boom, but eventually those will be taken over as well. Eventually there will be very little, of anything, that human beings need to do.

So now it is not only the ‘unskilled’ laborers who will be out of jobs, but the more technical fields as well. The only people who will be able to make money will be those selling the products that the robots make, this will soon include such diverse things as health care and art to add to the products they manufacture today.

That won’t last long, if no one is earning, no one is spending.

So, now that I have completely depressed you; let me tell you why this could actually be awesome, and what we have to do to make sure that it is.

If you think about it, if robots are doing all the work and there is plenty of everything to go around, why should anyone ever have to go without? The only way this would happen is if we stay on our current economic course. If people need to trade their labor for money to trade for goods and services.

However, if we eliminate the need to pay for those goods and services, why do we panic over the loss of income? In other words, if we make those basic necessities available to all, it won’t matter if the robots do all the work.

Here we get a choice, how do we create an equitable system?

Option 1: Necessary goods and services are provided to all, and money is used to buy luxury goods.

This option is a good middle ground, and very likely to be the solution, but as I see it being implemented, it would be in a simple reactionary way. Like refugee camps, or homeless shelters. Necessities are covered, but living conditions are appalling with no visible path out of the situation.

If we plan ahead, we could create this as a positive way to keep everyone happy and healthy. But it would still leave the wealthy with power and influence over those who just get by on the basics with little upward mobility.

Option 2: Basic universal income.

The results of this option would be very similar to the plan ahead version of option 1. People would get some support, (although that income may not cover everything they need depending on health, implementation, and local economic variation.) but would still struggle to grow. Any growth would depend on the movement of currency to people from all walks of life. This would require that anyone attempting to improve their station from subsistence would have to advertise essentially, to gain the attention of those who do have money to burn. It would just be redistribution of the wealth between the wealthy.

Option 3: Preemptively create a non-monetary based system. No money means that all basic services would be available to all add needed. And anyone willing to grow would not need to convince someone else to part with their money, but only to show that they are providing some benefit to society. Without competition, the existing barriers of the economy would break down.

Everyone could be required to work a certain amount of time in service to community or society as we grow to reach the time of robots doing all of the work. As robots take on more of the workload, the required human workload would be readjusted and distributed equally. Less work for humans would not result in lost jobs creating starvation in a land of plenty.

As a bonus to this idea, if we got rid of money, there would be a huge number of ‘jobs’ that surround the redistribution of wealth that would disappear with it. This means that the starting workload for each person would be much less work than we currently do today. These jobs would include things like cashiers, loan specialists, stock traders, bankers, accountants, investors, and sales to name a few.

Even if we only eliminated that workload and required a lot less work to keep the status quo, I suspect that we would actually make progress toward a work-free future faster. Without all that time spent on the redistribution of wealth, the free time that people would gain would go towards hobbies.

Everyone has a few things they enjoy doing in their free time, and some of those have the potential to drive us to the future. Some people enjoy listening to music or watching movies. Some people enjoy creating neat things. Some people enjoy robotics and coding in their free time. Giving people more free time, and unlimited access to education (one of the most basic services provided) would spawn a massive outpouring of growth in many areas, including STEM. There are many people caught in the day to day grind of living paycheck to paycheck who could do so much for our world if we can unchain them from the money train.

This does require a whole new way of thinking. But in a world without scarcity, we do not need to create a system of artificial scarcity, which is how money works.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Renewable Energy

Hey America! Fossil Fuel is not the answer. Even Nuclear Power is unnecessary. Let’s set aside the debate over whether or not global climate change is happening or if it caused by man. It does not matter. There are enough reasons to stop using fossil fuels without that.

The argument about the technology not being ready has been made since the 1970s. The technology is there now. We have the ability. Yes, batteries are still the weak point, but there are very promising possibilities there too (Tesla) (Hydrogen). The potential energy that is out there is astonishing. The power from the sun alone provides more than we need.

Many countries are making great headway towards completely eliminating the use of fossil fuels (Germany) (Austria) (China). If this is possible so quickly after starting down this road, why is America vowing only to reduce our output by a small percentage over the next several decades? Those in power are making this seem like it is an incredibly difficult goal to attain and is going to make a huge difference.

The only reason that this is challenging is because of the power that the existing structure has to prevent any change. Our current model is to the benefit of a few who will pay a lot of money to keep it the way it is.

What about the other objections people raise? One of the strangest to me is that the technology is not nice to look at. For one thing, what is more important? The future of the planet or the color of your roof? Another thing, the methods of getting fossil fuels are a lot less pretty. solar_vs_fossil_fuels

Ok, so you don’t want solar panels or wind turbines in your backyard and you are willing to pay for the line loss. There are other possibilities too.

Or you could just use your clear windows! There are many projects out there, big and small.

In fact keeping energy production closer to home can solve lots of problems. As far as I can tell the main reason that we are currently using large wind and solar farms rather than investing more in at-home systems is because the power companies still get their cut this way.

Ok, what about those job losses we hear so much about? Renewables create more jobs than it replaces.

A few more arguments that are worth discussing.

Ok, so this is more like a list of outside info than a real post, but seriously, the information is out there. I don’t need to repeat it.

The Hard Work Fallacy

In America, everyone has the opportunity to make it big. All it takes is hard work, a goal, and determination. That is the principle that made America unique. This principle is still taught in schools and propagated by the media. But it is false today. Before America, a person’s station in life was pre-determined by their family’s position. If you were born to the right person, you had power. Today it is not rank or station, but the inheriting of money that makes this true.

There have been times in our history when people can move up simply by hard work, but today that is not the case. Every time I hear an interview with any influential or famous person, the question comes up in some form, ‘How did you get where you are today’. Inevitably they will give themselves credit, ‘hard work and determination.’ Rarely do you hear people say ‘luck’ or ‘my parents’. The people who are in these positions believe that they are there because they worked harder than the others, so they deserve it more. This is what they need to tell themselves in order to make them feel entitled to what they have.

Some of them I have no doubt worked very hard, maybe even more than their peers. I do not believe that the fact that the CEO of the company who had their child ‘work their way up’ happened to have a child who got to CEO by chance too. It is a good thing that Jr. has experienced different jobs that they now supervise, but I have a very difficult time believing that their career was not fast-tracked. I do not believe that Justin Beiber worked harder for his ‘career’ than Joe Blo who quit his day job to practice in his garage and play every gig he can.

In the real world, people work as much as they need to. Many of them put a lot of effort into moving up their companies, or at improving their craft. What a person needs to survive comes down to some very basic things; shelter, food, and water. The people who have to work 40+ hours a week to get these things for their families work very hard. To quote David Siegel, CEO of Westgate, “I can no longer support a system that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive.” (Daily Kos). He is referring to the supposedly ‘socialist’ planned policies of Obama that support the worker by taxing the wealthy. He literally says that the people who work under him are ‘unproductive’ and that he, as the boss, is the ‘productive’ one. I’m sorry, but WTF?! By definition, the people producing things are being productive. The people he is insulting are the very people who are working so hard that he can afford his mansion.

The scary thing is that Mr. Siegel, and others like him actually believe that they work harder than the people who work under them. This is a twisted interpretation of the ‘hard work reaps rewards’ fallacy. This belief is what allows people to not pay their workers a decent wage. The boss thinks that because these people have not reached the same level of status and wealth, that they are lazy. This is what allows CEOs to make hundreds of times more than their employees do, because this is what makes is so that the CEO does not feel guilty about it.

I am not saying that the principle is bad. I strongly believe that everyone should get an even shot at success, and that effort should be rewarded. I am not posing a solution to the problem at the moment, but rather bringing attention to the fact that people believing the story for their own peace of mind is part of the problem.

I wrote a while back that I did not know why I continued to watch Undercover Boss. I think that I watch it because I hope that this experience will teach the bosses about the fallacy they have been living. What I keep seeing though is entitled people who think that the hardworking, struggling people that they meet are the exception, rather than the rule.

Even though I understand why those in power believe what they believe, I do struggle with why they cannot see that they were mistaken. In the last several years there has been a lot of media coverage and research that shows that people do struggle, and do work hard. I do not want to believe that the people in power are just evil, greedy thieves who want to watch the world burn. I think that they truly believe that they are right, and are justified in what they are doing. It is the challenge of admitting that they are wrong that keeps them clinging to something beautiful in principle, blissfully unaware that they are actively breaking down that principle with every check they cash, every pay raise that they refuse, and every time they think that just because they know someone that person is the best person for the job.

I would love to start a conversation about how we can go about bringing awareness to the powerful without the tried and failed method of simply shoving how wrong they are in their face.