A workless society.

[ivan77]

I have been thinking for a while now about what will happen in a few decades when we can effectively automate many of the tasks that make up the bulk of workforces in the world. Things like: stacking shelves, driving buses, checkout clerks, call centres, security, cleaning, waiters, fast food industry, factory work etc could all become jobs of the past, only creative positions would remain and people could have exceptionally short working weeks while still keeping the economy booming. Here are some of the question to think about:

 

How would this impact on peoples perception of money?

 

What would people do?

 

Would goods become so cheap to make that we could have things without even working for them?

 

Would people receive money just because they are there?

 

Could the world end up as a communist utopia that actually works?

[-Demosthenes-]

Even if the machines worked all by them selves they would still take energy and that would cost money, and some tasks can only be done by human beings, unless a super small robot was made.

[Silencer]

If anything, all that would just piss people off and cause a revolution.

 

People don't like being put out of work by machines, nor do people like giving money to others when they could get the same work done by something that doesn't need money.

[calbiterol]

I have been thinking for a while now about what will happen in a few decades when we can effectively automate many of the tasks that make up the bulk of workforces in the world.

 

 

Here's one way things might unfold:

1. All the people with IQ's of less than 2 (in other words, half of America) start to think that they don't have to work.
   
2. All of those people become couch potatoes.
   
3. Then they get really, really overweight.
   
4. Then, they all die due to complications.
   
5. There goes half of America. Oh, darn.
   
6. Suddenly, the remaining Americans start to realize that natural selection is good.
   
7. The extremely stupid people in America suddenly "dissapear."
   
8. The population of America is reduced to about 700.
   
9. The world becomes a better place.
   
10. The 700 remaining people in America realize that they need jobs to survive.
    
11. Jobs return.
    

Just kidding!

To be honest, I think that it won't really have much effect. It won't happen overnight, so people will gradually transition into those jobs that simply cannot be automated. More emphasis would be placed on education because the remaining jobs will require knowledge.

 

 

 

 

How would this impact on peoples perception of money?

Like I said, I don't really think it would. Energy costs to keep the automation process running would be a big issue, and prices wouldn't go down all that much. Plus, people would still want the "next new thing" -- and when it comes to technology, a lot of times it is extremely difficult to fully automate the production, packaging, shipping, and sale of brand new items.

 

What would people do?

 

We would probably see an increase in obiesity because of increased laziness, but this seems unavoidable. Why is it that people are so lazy? *growls and shakes fist* But other than that, I think they'd just find other jobs. A lot of people wouldn't know what to do with themselves if they no longer had a job.

 

Would goods become so cheap to make that we could have things without even working for them?

 

Nope. Think of maintenance costs, the cost to procure the raw materials to make things, and energy costs. Prices wouldn't ever get that low.

 

Would people receive money just because they are there?

 

Nah. That would kill capitalism. Then where would we be? The corporations wouldn't allow it. People in power never want to give it up. Money gives people power. Giving people free money makes it harder to get power. You do the math.

 

Could the world end up as a communist utopia that actually works?

 

You know, I've pondered how a true, working communist utopia would work. A better term to use would be socialism. Communism is basically Marxism, which requires violent and bloody revolution to create a working system. I'm not joking in the least about that. However, I doubt that French Utopian Socialism, or any other form of socialism or communism, would ever take hold. There's too much fear and resentment about it, especially in America. Although they're great in theory,these forms of government are inherently bad when put to practice. I don't really think the problem here is economic. The problem is that people always find a way to abuse the system to get power. That wouldn't change any with a "jobless society." Without major renovations and a new name, communism and socialism will never actually work. There's just too much animosity and too much hunger for power.

[-Demosthenes-]

The definition of Communism does not include a bloody revolution, or any revolution at all. Communism is kind of like socialism, except no one owns anything, they are owned by the public, and you work what people think your best at, and work your fair share, and everything is distributed evenly between the people.

The problem with Communism is that the it is WAY to easy to be taken advantage of by the government. Pretty soon the public doesn't own everything, now it is the government that owns everything. It becomes a clever way to control the people. Pretty soon it is only the government and their benafacters who are benifiting. There is also the problem with resentment between the workers who think they work more, and the scholars and researchers who think their work is more valuable.

[Cadmus]

How would this impact on peoples perception of money?

Money might disappear.

 

Would goods become so cheap to make that we could have things without even working for them?

If energy were free, then that is possible. Will the development of workable fusion create such a scenario?

 

Would people receive money just because they are there?

Money will probably be out, but people might receive an allotment just for being there. This is not new to history.

 

Could the world end up as a communist utopia that actually works?

Based on my experience, I believe that communism does not lead to utopias.

[calbiterol]

The definition of Communism does not include a bloody revolution, or any revolution at all. Communism is kind of like socialism, except no one owns anything, they are owned by the public, and you work what people think your best at, and work your fair share, and everything is distributed evenly between the people.

 

That isn't what I said. I said communism is basically Marxism. Marxism is defined as the beliefs of Karl Marx, who believed that the only way to create a successful Marxist/Communist government would be through violent and bloody revolution. The term "Communism" arises from Marx's The Communist Manifesto, which detailed his views - including the violent and bloody revolution part. Marx created the term communism by fusing the stems/roots commune- and -ism.

 

True Socialism, also known as French Utopian Socialism (Utopian comes from Thomas More's Utopia), came first. There are some very fine differences between Marxism and Socialism, but the biggie is that French Utopian Socialism (F.U.S.) does NOT require the "violent and bloody revolution." Instead, F.U.S. believes that the change can be brought about within self-sustaining communities isolated from the outside world. Marx thought that this was too isolationist and too slow, among other things, and started writing The Communist Manifesto. Chronologically, it was F.U.S., then Marxism, then Communism (the name changed, but most everything else stayed the same in Communism as it was in Marxism).

 

Sorry if I wasn't clear the first time around.

[TimeTraveler]

The is not enough natural resources left on the planet to make this reality. Unless, humans can figure out how to gain a vast amount of resources outside of Earth in such a way that it doesn't cost us more resources than we would gain, as would be the case with our current technology. If that were to happen then there would be your answer to as what humans would do.

[Phi for All]

When I was in high school in the 70's, all the scientists were predicting that automation and technological advances would guarantee a 25-hour work week, we wouldn't need to spend hardly any time with home maintenance, etc. Guess what?

 

None of it came true.

 

If anything, we work even harder to afford all the technology, with most homes requiring two incomes working 40-55 hours per week. Advances in housekeeping haven't improved the time it takes to manage a household either. I remember a study done 20 years ago that showed that only the automatic washing machine and the vacuum cleaner have improved housekeeping since the beginning of the 20th century. All the fancy cleansers and products were just more expensive and did nothing to improve or automate the time it takes to keep house.

[syntax252]

I probably go back a little farther than most of you, having entered the labor market in 1954.

 

The main difference that I can see over the past 50 years--and here I am talking about blue collar work--is that things are, on an average a lot cheaper that they used to be. The result is that us po folks have considerably more that we had then.

 

I started working in a box making shop for $1.55 pr. hr. Now that same job pays about $16 pr.hr.

 

A gallon of gas was about 25 cents, so I could buy 6 gallons for an hour's pay. Now, at $2 pr gallon, the guy doing that same job can buy 8 gallons. Blue jeans were $4 a copy for levis, that was 2.6 hrs pay. Now levis are about $20--that is unless you want them pre worn out--that is about 1-1/4 hrs pay. I could go on and on.

 

We didn't have a color TV. We didn't have a car for each member of the family. We didn't have a cell phone for each family member. We didn't have a jet ski. We didn't have snowmobiles. We didn't take carribian boat trips. And we didn't have computers so that we could argue with people who live in Europe.

 

You get the picture I am sure.

[coquina]

but I will have it coming out of my ears - building the machines so you can sit on your ditty boxes. Also - someone will have to be on hand to repair them.

 

I have computer numerical controlled milling machines and lathes, and I swear they are just like mischievious children. They are programmed to run automatically, but the minute you turn your back and walk away, something happens. Most often, a tool (drill or tap for example) breaks.

 

The machine is programmed to drill a series of holes - the drill breaks on hole number 5 and half of it is left in the hole. The machine continues to run and but doesn't drill any holes, since it only has a stub left in the holder.

 

Then it changes tools and gets the tap out of the carousel. It taps (cuts threads in ) holes number 1 thru 4 perfectly - then your $50 tap runs into the remains of the drill stuck in hole number 4, and is immediately busted to bupkuss. The machine doesn't care - it continues to run, happily doing nothing.

 

All of the examples you gave will require human supervisors, programmers, maintenance people, as well as people to build newer, faster machines. I expect it will take more people, performing more technical work to have the world operate in the scenario you suggest.

[Phi for All]

You know, the more I thought about it, the list of work that would be automated is what's wrong with this scenario. Before I could answer your questions, I think you'll have to ammend the list:

 

stacking shelves: before they come up with a machine to stock shelves, they would probably get rid of the shelves altogether, delivering your pre-ordered goods right to your home. I've seen models of refrigerators that had a way to track what you took out of them for inventory control and sent out a grocery list to your supermarket at the end of the week. A delivery person dropped the food off in an outside chiller bin using a one-time key code and you stockeed your fridge up when you got home from work.

 

driving buses: not until they come up with AI for vehicles that the insurance companies signed off on. Don't look for this in your lifetime.

 

checkout clerks: they have automated checkout now and it's only used for quick purchases and still requires one person per 4 checkouts to supervize.

 

call centres: there will always be a need for human contact somewhere along the line. Even people who are used to automated telecom operations run into problems there are no buttons for.

 

security: nothing will ever replace people completely in the area of security. Period.

 

cleaning: only if people stop collecting small things to put on display will automated cleaning ever be a reality. The only thing that could clean a modern home as well as a person is a robot built like a person. Building humanoid robots brings on a whole other set of problems. See Asimov.

 

waiters: as long as people view meals as a chance to relax and eat well-prepared food, they will always want to be waited on. The personal touch of a really great waitperson can't be duplicated by a machine.

 

fast food industry: here's your best bet yet. Just drive up, tilt your head back and let the machine squirt a glop of pre-chewed junk-food that tastes good into your mouth. Just swallow, drive away and get on with whatever was so important you couldn't take time out to eat decently.

 

factory work: see Coquina's response above.