How long until a robot takes your job?

[mozar]

Well, I've talked to some pretty sophisticated customer service robots.

Stop worrying about whether or not a computer can do your job, and start worrying about whether or not your job will even exist in a world run by computers.

My job will definitely not exist in a world run by computers. My day to day tasks are actually pretty complicated and I doubt the benefit>cost is worth it to automate. But I've already seen whole departments become automated and no longer needing to be audited. The time frame is what I'm interested in.
Good news is that agencies are awarding 4 year contracts right now, so I at least have 4 years...

I couldn't sleep last night because I was worried about the elimination of quality jobs, and people having to make due with very short term contracts. The article was talking about how technology will help more people get those short term contracts...

[bdonney]

I'm a controls engineer that programs robots and PLC's I also do computer and web programming. I've had a older coworker mention that it's our job to take out other people's jobs. While that's true, I've worked in a lot of mostly empty buildings that used to be crammed full, I think people get stuck in this thought that a job becoming obsolete doesn't create jobs at the same time.
No body would be silly enough to get pissy today about the invention of the cotton gin removing tons of jobs, we've all found other jobs. It's the same in the computerized industrial world. If computers take the pressure of human processing, we as a culture just freed up a ton of manpower to do other things.

I would say there is a growing disparity in job types, generally either technical or not and paid semi ok or not. and there is a exponential growth difference between the .1%ers and us. This could be contributed to computers possibly.

Job's becoming obsolete though is one of the big reasons I try to use to convince friends and family save and invest more. I've heard many stories of people going from $80k/year to $40k or less with next to nothing saved.

[Travis]

So there was a study done and a handy search function to see if you need to worry.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-34066941

[Roboturner]

My job consists of me attempting everything in my power to get a robot good enough to do my job for me. So I suppose the better I am the quicker this will happen ;)

[Abe]

Eventually robots will do everything of economic value and we'll just make art. By we, I mean the 1 million people who survived the collapse of the current economy and the subsequent 50 years of anarchy. By art, I mean making platinum trinkets for the Emperor. Eventually robots will be able to create art pleasing to the Emperor, and everyone else will be executed.

In all seriousness, robots will do as much as rich people are willing to have them do. Just like farming implements do as much as agro-businesses want them to do. At some point all repetitive work will be done by robots and those can adapt, come up with new jobs and will use that to become richer. The rest will not and scrape by, just like today's society.


The technical aspects of my job, surgery, will probably be replaced in 50 years.

[Andrew928]

Robots cannot replace my job

[sol]

Robots cannot replace my job

You don't think robots can be bail bondsman?  That seems bold.  I'd argue that's an industry that's ripe for automation.

[Andrew928]

Robots cannot replace my job

You don't think robots can be bail bondsman?  That seems bold.  I'd argue that's an industry that's ripe for automation.

Pretty confident about it ;)

[Jersey Brett]

They already have. I am just an inferior human who cannot afford a robot/computer program to trade the futures markets.
I wonder how I would stack up John Henry style.
I have to do it the old fashioned way. Fortunately the tech has come a long way since the eighties.

[mozar]

I don't really understand what a bail bondsman does. But there has been bail reform. States are starting to move away from the idea that you should pay money to get out of jail because it just means that poor people end up staying in jail, which disrupts their lives, and rich people go free, without any regard to whether or not the person poses a danger to society.

[Andrew928]

Far from the truth, about 2/3rds of the people we bail out in this county are unemployed and are on SSI, Disability, or have nothing at all. Almost all people in this county are setup on zero interest payment plans.

OC, LA, and San Diego are a different story though.

[Cathy]

One threat to the profession of bail bondsmen isn't automation but (as mozar says) abolition. It is arguably an antiquated practice. In Canada, it is a (federal) criminal offense for a surety to "accept[] or agree[] to accept a fee or any form of indemnity ... from or in respect of a person who is released or is to be released from custody", punishable by up to two years in prison. Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, § 139(1)(b). The practice commonly referred to as bail bonding is a crime in Canada.

American bail bondsmen sometimes forget that Canada is not the same country as the United States and is not a country where bail bonding is legal. For example, in Kear v. Hilton, 699 F2d 181 (4th Cir 1983), two bondsmen entered Canada and abducted their principal, Mr Jaffe (the person who had skipped bail), and returned him to the US. Canada was not impressed and charged the bondsmen with kidnapping and requested their extradition. The Fourth Circuit affirmed an order extraditing them to Canada to face trial. Id. After being extradited, they were subsequently convicted of kidnapping by a jury in Ontario and sentenced to prison terms. R. v. Johnsen, [1986] OJ No 2788 (On Sup Ct). On appeal, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the convictions. R. v. Kear, 8 WCB (2d) 577, [1989] OJ No 1733. However, the Court of Appeal was very unimpressed with the victim of the crime and the fact that he had fled the courts of the United States, saying that "[t]here is nothing favourable that can be said about [the victim's] conduct". As a result, they reduced the kidnappers' sentence to time served. Id. However, future kidnappers might not be so lucky.

[Landlord2015]

I'm a controls engineer that programs robots and PLC's I also do computer and web programming. I've had a older coworker mention that it's our job to take out other people's jobs. While that's true, I've worked in a lot of mostly empty buildings that used to be crammed full, I think people get stuck in this thought that a job becoming obsolete doesn't create jobs at the same time.
No body would be silly enough to get pissy today about the invention of the cotton gin removing tons of jobs, we've all found other jobs. It's the same in the computerized industrial world. If computers take the pressure of human processing, we as a culture just freed up a ton of manpower to do other things.

I would say there is a growing disparity in job types, generally either technical or not and paid semi ok or not. and there is a exponential growth difference between the .1%ers and us. This could be contributed to computers possibly.

Job's becoming obsolete though is one of the big reasons I try to use to convince friends and family save and invest more. I've heard many stories of people going from $80k/year to $40k or less with next to nothing saved.

Good post I agree with you though I live in Europe and use euro currency I must say sure true logic.

I am an IT engineer and what job do I have now? Nothing even remotely related to IT and it is part time but the pay is fairly decent and it involves marketing/sales face to face human interaction.

I don't complain since I rent 3 apartments to other people and don't live on rent myself the income together with my part time job is good. I have worked for many years in iT before, but nowadays IT is among the top unemployed groups in my country.

Now robots can replace a lot and have already done in the industry/automation field but those harder to replace is customer service the pleasure factor.

When will robots replace the human interaction i.e soft touch meetings I use in marketing&sales every lawful nice touch to get the customer?

Let me give a more extreme example in my country prostitution is legal as it should be. When will robots replace prostitutes? My guess that will not happen for next 100 years because creating an exact human looking robot is possible, but extremely expensive. We will instead have an increase in human interaction jobs and prostitutes who work since the other jobs have been gradually replaced with robots.

Well of course I don't know for sure about next 100 years, but in prostitution field most customers want real humans and not robots. Oh I have seen documentary about today's sex robots, but they  are not even near same level as elite prostitutes in my country and the western world.

Safe sex with Robots? Maybe, but today's deaths due to HIV happen mostly to people who don't treat it because there exist very effective medicine vs HIV and do not even try to compare that to an aggressive and lethal cancer.

[BrandonP]

I thought there was going to be a link to this when I saw the thread title:

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-33327659

[Serve&Volley88]

I'm in a government budgeting/policy job. A robot could easily do the raw data crunching aspect of the job and, in many ways, this is already the case - we have software that can spit out personnel costs, project revenues, etc.

However, half of the job is highly political and requires some serious critical thinking, maneuvering, and finessing. I really don't think a robot could do that.

Technological change is also implemented at a much slower pace in the public sector.

[Johnez]

I am a professor in Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning and sometimes I find these discussions a little bit frustrating. The focus is always so negative.

-Jobs being taken.
-Lives being destroyed.

But what about the positive aspects?

Greater automation will mean everything will become cheaper.

Food will become cheaper, both at the supermarket and in restaurants.
All kinds of manufactured goods will become cheaper, from electronics to cars and even furniture.

Air Travel will become cheaper, but not as much as goods because it depends on the price of jet fuel

Real Estate will probably NOT become substantially cheaper since it depends more on the location and demand and supply than on labor costs. Same for hotels.

But medical costs, legal services, consultants, therapists, accountants etc. could become a LOT cheaper.

This is all good news for retirees, since you'll be able to enjoy a higher quality of life on the same income.

BUT WHAT ABOUT ALL THE UNEMPLOYED?

I personally think this is where a universal basic income will have to kick in. I think an amount of 20,000$ a year per person in 2015 dollars would make a lot of sense. That's enough to live on (especially if everything is cheaper), but still gives incentive to work and invest if you want a fancy pants life style. At the current US population this would cost 6 trillion dollars. By comparison the current federal budget is 4 trillion dollars. The current US GDP is 17.5 trillion dollars. So we could afford it after making some adjustments, it's just a matter of political will.

Honestly, this all sounds like a never ending vicious cycle. Things become cheaper, fewer people working, basic income. Ok, how is the basic income going to be paid out? The taxpayer base is shrinking, so taxes have to go up. Taxes on the few who have jobs, the ones that are not easily replaceable by the robots. These people aren't going to roll over, they are after all smarter than the average bear. I smell a grim future where extra humans are a liability. Forced birth control or euthanasia might sound far out, but under different names and rationale they might not. Perhaps we can regress back to feudal times where we have serfs and nobles. But of what value would the hordes of serfs be?

[sol]

However, half of the job is highly political and requires some serious critical thinking, maneuvering, and finessing. I really don't think a robot could do that.

I suspect that this sort of thinking, while common, will ultimately be proven misguided.  We don't need a robot to do your job, or any job currently done by humans.  We just need robots to provide an equivalent service at lower cost.

Robots didn't replace horse breeders and groomers and stable hands, they replaced the entire transportation infrastructure.  Without even trying to build a robot stable boy, robots replaced stable boys.

That sort of shift will be common, I think.  The personal and finesse aspects of your job aren't really vital to your core function, and they'll be even less vital when every other human you deal with has also been replace by a robot.

[nobodyspecial]

The previous generation of robots had a doubly bad effect.

Washing machines not only made a generation of housemaids redundant they allowed women to go out to work - so doubling the number of jobs required. I'm not sure that working women has caused 90% unemployment

[Reddleman]

My job is a bit different. 

As a public school teacher, it's not a question of whether a computer or robot "can" do my job, but when someone convinces the public that it "can" do my job better and they decide not to continue to pay me. 

And for those of you out there who think that time has already come, good luck with that.  I am one of the most technologically progressive teachers you're likely to meet and it is pretty obvious that technology is a good tool for learning almost exactly to the extent that it is a distraction and hindrance.  The human element of it in and out of the classroom is the real deal.

But seeing as how cheap it is getting to pretend that technology will solve the problem, I'm not betting on a long career. Just a few more years would be fine for me. I just feel bad for everyone who will have to live through that "revolution".

[Johnez]

Sol has it exactly right.  Robots aren't replacing the jobs, they're replacing the need for the jobs. 

The jobs that will survive will probably be ones that require multiple disciplines and involve tasks that cannot be easily broken up.  As much as technology can help certain fields, I can't see how dentistry or HVAC can be easily eliminated. 

[Threshkin]

I am a professor in Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning and sometimes I find these discussions a little bit frustrating. The focus is always so negative.
...
BUT WHAT ABOUT ALL THE UNEMPLOYED?

I personally think this is where a universal basic income will have to kick in. I think an amount of 20,000$ a year per person in 2015 dollars would make a lot of sense. That's enough to live on (especially if everything is cheaper), but still gives incentive to work and invest if you want a fancy pants life style. At the current US population this would cost 6 trillion dollars. By comparison the current federal budget is 4 trillion dollars. The current US GDP is 17.5 trillion dollars. So we could afford it after making some adjustments, it's just a matter of political will.

Let's call this by another name.  Welfare.  Sounds like a great idea!  Put everyone on the dole.

Socialist nirvana

[Chranstronaut]

I don't know when, but I can guess how:

Human auto racing is discontinued slowly due to growing dependence on autonomous vehicles and political pressure to eliminate any human access to "risky behaviors" such as extreme sports, manual labor and poetry.  Several happy decades of robot racing follow.  At the year's biggest event, the Intel-apolis 500, the autonomous cars reveal that they have gained sentience.  Whether or not they are peaceful, human kind will be so fearful, that we are driven to war.

[mozar]

Since I started this thread I actually feel a lot better/ more at peace with a robot taking my job (or more correctly the software automation that will take away the need for my job).

And with the slow decrease of jobs available it means that the only people who can keep their jobs are ones that can "act" like robots: extremely fast, and completely passive.

[Albert]

Elementary and middle school teacher is the most "robot safe" job I can think off. Not because education online is not possible as it obviously is, but because a teacher has several other indirect roles besides teaching. You can't leave 15 twelve year olds alone with the greatest educational software ever and expect them to learn anything. First it's not safe in general and second few would have sufficient self motivation to actually study instead of playing games, fighting etc.

P.S. Home schooling is pretty much illegal where I come from.

[FrancisinPa]

I am a pharmacist. There are inroads being made in replacing pharmacists with technology. Checking medications by scanning bar codes is as accurate as humans, if not more so. The catch is state pharmacy boards require a human (pharmacist) to check. If big business (cvs, Walmart, etc)  lobby the boards to change this requirement they would need a lot less pharmacists. Still  would need some pharmacists but not as many.

When will it happen? Who knows but I could see it begin to happen in less than 5 years. I'm happy to say I'll be long gone from the profession by then.

[Chranstronaut]

I am a pharmacist. There are inroads being made in replacing pharmacists with technology. Checking medications by scanning bar codes is as accurate as humans, if not more so. The catch is state pharmacy boards require a human (pharmacist) to check. If big business (cvs, Walmart, etc)  lobby the boards to change this requirement they would need a lot less pharmacists. Still  would need some pharmacists but not as many.

When will it happen? Who knows but I could see it begin to happen in less than 5 years. I'm happy to say I'll be long gone from the profession by then.

I've heard of complications from this kind of thing.  For example, a prescription will not be flagged in the system for an interaction with another drug the patient is taking, or it IS flagged, but a human pharmacist can tell that that particular dosage won't be a problem for XYZ reason not recorded by the standard publications.

[2lazy2retire]

I am a professor in Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning and sometimes I find these discussions a little bit frustrating. The focus is always so negative.
...
BUT WHAT ABOUT ALL THE UNEMPLOYED?

I personally think this is where a universal basic income will have to kick in. I think an amount of 20,000$ a year per person in 2015 dollars would make a lot of sense. That's enough to live on (especially if everything is cheaper), but still gives incentive to work and invest if you want a fancy pants life style. At the current US population this would cost 6 trillion dollars. By comparison the current federal budget is 4 trillion dollars. The current US GDP is 17.5 trillion dollars. So we could afford it after making some adjustments, it's just a matter of political will.

Let's call this by another name.  Welfare.  Sounds like a great idea!  Put everyone on the dole.

Socialist nirvana

You don't like people having a basic std of living? - hope you are ready for the alternative no jobs no income no future - what could go wrong?.
This basic income should be considered an information dividend so everyone benefits from AI and enjoys the spoils, otherwise the benefits will go to an ever decreasing number of elites. Alaska has something similar as regards the oil dividend - on a smaller scale but I doubt it is considered welfare, you could always walk into a bar in Fairbanks and tell everyone there are living in a Socialist Nirvana dependent on state handouts - do come back and post on how it goes for you.

[intellectsucks]

Perhaps I’m inferring more than some posters are saying, but it sounds as if some people have the impression that a minimum level of income provided by the government will be a good thing for most people.  I would respectfully disagree because it rests on the assumption that most people will use their free time for productive uses.

My job gives me a glimpse into the details of the lives of people from every financial situation: the complete financial disaster cases, all the way up to the top 1%.  The closest analog that I can think of to a guaranteed minimum income, as described by the previous posters, is SSI.  It provides a set minimum level of income, is provided by the government, has no ongoing eligibility requirements (such as job search, work, or drug testing) and is sufficient to provide for the basics (sometimes a little less), but has little to no wiggle room for luxuries.  I would estimate that somewhere in the range of 40-60% of people on this program are living lifestyles that any mustachian would describe as destructive.  Very little physical activity, lots of terrible food, lots of bad financial decisions, lots of problems in interpersonal relationships, very little desire to improve their circumstances or themselves.  While I won’t bother to argue whether SSI is the cause or an effect of those problems, however I will argue that it certainly doesn’t HELP those problems.  Having a job helps people develop their social skills, keeps them marginally active, and can help them learn new financial and life management skills.  This is 40-60% of a very small portion of society.  Even if my estimate is unreasonably high (maybe the number is closer to 20%, or 30%), do we really want such a large percentage of the general population being in the same situation?

@tomsang-Was it necessary to bring such a harshly worded political diatribe into this discussion?  What do the GOP’s policies have to do with robots replacing jobs?  You briefly mention the Earned Income Tax Credit, Obamacare and the Citizens United decision as all benefiting the 1%, but offer no argument as to how or how the GOP’s opposition to them hurts the 99%?  I would encourage you to dig deeper into conservative policies, not only because I believe in them, but at the very least so that you can have a more nuanced political discussion than “DEMOCRAT GOOD; REPUBLICAN BAD!! OOG!!!”  The reality is that the standard of living has drastically increased for EVERY member of Western society, and the reason most people are struggling is because of their own choices.  The entire purpose of this site and forum is to identify better choices and help each other be successful.  If you don’t believe this is possible because the corporate overlords are so oppressive, why are you here?

BACK ON TOPIC!!! WOO HOO!!!  I really can’t see AI taking over any interpersonal jobs at any point in the forseeable future, possibly ever.  Not only are these jobs dependent on a near infinite number of tiny, subtle variables, but those variables mean different things for different people.  Depending on culture, personality, age, and mood, the same gesture or facial expression can mean lots of different things.  How would it even be possible to identify all the variables, let alone all the possible outcomes of all those variables?

Someone brought up the example of buying/selling a house and how computers would make that negotiation so much better.  That relies on a bunch of ifs: IF the person is willing to be honest when entering their desired criteria for purchase, IF the person is capable of articulating those criteria, IF the person is even being honest with themselves about what criteria they really want.  More likely is you will be feeding a lot of garbage into that system, regardless of how theoretically effective it is.

[nobodyspecial]

  I really can’t see AI taking over any interpersonal jobs at any point in the forseeable future,

Depends on how much you want to pay.
Free online banking/travel booking/support or human teller/travel agent/customer service for 40% more

Someone brought up the example of buying/selling a house

In most of the world the realtor only handles advertising the house and only works for the seller - and costs < 0.5%

If you shopped for the house on the web with zwillo level details and the seller/buyer/bank/deeds all dealt online then I would be prepared to forgo  the realtor's personal touch to save $50K

[StetsTerhune]

I think for the vast majority of us, the pertinent question is not "when will a robot take my job." The real question is "what % of my job will be automated in X years?"

Rarely is it so simple as a "robot" doing the exact job you are doing, it's more like -- you can now do your job in 10% the time because of advances in technology and thus you and "a robot" just took 9 people's jobs.

Even super obvious examples like car assembly line still have humans on them, just way, way fewer than there were 30 years ago. There's a level of automation that's possible, and a level of automation that's practical.

[tomsang]

@tomsang-Was it necessary to bring such a harshly worded political diatribe into this discussion?  What do the GOP’s policies have to do with robots replacing jobs?  You briefly mention the Earned Income Tax Credit, Obamacare and the Citizens United decision as all benefiting the 1%, but offer no argument as to how or how the GOP’s opposition to them hurts the 99%?  I would encourage you to dig deeper into conservative policies, not only because I believe in them, but at the very least so that you can have a more nuanced political discussion than “DEMOCRAT GOOD; REPUBLICAN BAD!! OOG!!!”  The reality is that the standard of living has drastically increased for EVERY member of Western society, and the reason most people are struggling is because of their own choices.  The entire purpose of this site and forum is to identify better choices and help each other be successful.  If you don’t believe this is possible because the corporate overlords are so oppressive, why are you here?

Not sure what post you are referring to, but are you serious that you can't see how politics and the rules governing what is fair and equitable are not important as technology creates a potential for expedited and further inequality. As technology eliminates or diminishes the need for human labor, do you seriously want all the benefits to go to those that own the companies vs. benefit society in total?  The laws that are in place today and in the future will determine the playing field that we are dealing with.  The inequality over the past 30 years has been unprecedented compared to our past and off the charts compared to first would countries.  Technology has the capacity to be the greatest thing to effect mankind.  How this amazing windfall is shared amongst society will become incredibly important as the middle class is eliminated through automation, those in fields that are not technology related become irrelevant and a burden to society, and those that own the companies become the gods controlling who gets food, medicine, shelter, clean water, energy, and virtually everything that will be controlled by technology and the corporations that own them. 

Can you see that at some point in the near future that humans may not be contributing to society?  I currently can't think of a job that can't be eliminated in the future.  If the companies that control the technology are owned by the richest 1,000 families that leaves the other 7 billion+ people at the mercy of a 1,000 or less families.  At what point do the families pull the plug on their charity to those who don't own the technology and are leaches on society?

P.S. I am in the top 1% of income and wealth.  I just see a huge problem brewing if the gap keeps growing.     

[zephyr911]

I'm an "operations specialist", officially, and most of what I do would be done electronically if the people I work with were more computer-literate. I rarely do anything more technically complicated than compiling PowerPoint slides and serving as an intermediary for information that could just as easily go direct from the sender to the receiver.

The reason they like to hire retired military officers for this, instead of people straight out of college, or even robots, is the human factor. Doing all the above while negotiating a long, complex, and constantly changing chain of command takes some finesse. I nearly flunked out early on, and the funny part is I still don't know why. And then there's process improvement. If everyone involved in this Goldberg machine just took every order from above and added processes and products to the daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, and annual battle rhythm... well, the Good Idea Fairy would eventually grind the whole shit-show to a halt. We who have been here for a while find that our long-term perspective (and in this building, five years is long) helps us advise the management, avoid mistakes, and dismantle the legacies of past commanders if/when they've ceased to serve the greater good. It's all pretty comical, really....

[mustachepungoeshere]

Ever read Buzz Feed? We're already there.

My husband and are both journos, both in our 20s, and both work for media outlets with newspapers at their core. Our industry is declining with every new Gawker-wannabe site and every blogger who fancies herself a news reporter.

[jexy103]

I don't think a robot could do what I do but maybe I'm just naive or don't know enough about robots??  I'm a lawyer and spend my days negotiating, advising, making decisions, drafting, reviewing, making decisions, closing deals, making decisions....

You mean find a precedent by searching lots of case law in the form of highly structured text in a rigid format and applying fixed rules to those interpretations?

Nope, no way that could ever be automated ;-)

I recently did a research paper on IBM's supercomputer named Watson. Watson had access to millions of pages of text (from newspapers to blogs to scholarly articles in various fields) and was able to beat Jeopardy! champions at their own game (I think it was around February of 2011). Watson was/is being groomed for diagnosing and providing treatments plans, as well as working in medical insurance and several other fields. He has been trained by humans- programmed to know that MMM forums isn't as reliable a source as the IRS site and humans provide him feedback on his responses- but he will definitely supplement and probably replace human critical thinking in various fields. The technology is here, it just needs to be refined and made cost-effective.

StetsTerhune, I agree with your post completely.

My current job is related to official travel for the federal government (DoD). While my job has become significantly automated compared to 20 years ago (I envision rows of desks where clerks helped travelers fill in manual forms and walk the packet over to someone's office for a hand signature), I don't think it will be completely replaced in the foreseeable future. Much of my job as it exists today is to 1) provide customer service to travelers, 2) review traveler's documents before they get approved (similar to auditing), and 3) resolve problems when two software programs don't speak to each other like they should. For #1, I try to replace myself with technology for the customer service piece as much as possible (here's the step-by-step instructions of how to use the software, figure it out yourself), but certain aspects are a long way from being worth the resources to replace me. #2 is supplemented by technology with automated auditing tools, but they don't fix the problems, they only identify (a limited number of potential problems) and email the traveler and me what it found. Then I assist the traveler to fix the problem and re-submit. And #3 will likely never be completely replaced by computers, since computers are the problem.

As travelers become more accustomed to technology (some of my most frequent travelers are 50+ years old, so need more assistance than the 20 year old travelers), as the software program is improved to become more user friendly and intuitive, and as the auditing tool becomes more comprehensive, there will be less need for humans in my position. But while the number of positions in this job may decline due to increased automation, I don't think it will be completely replaced for a long while. It would just take so much programming (and time and money) to script my job and all the possible outcomes when a traveler needs assistance that it isn't worth it to the federal government to replace me.

As for outsourcing, my co-worker is a local national (I work overseas), and is paid a fair amount less than I am. So sure, it could be outsourced, but fortunately for me, the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) guarantees a certain percentage of US citizen positions. :-)

[2lazy2retire]

Perhaps I’m inferring more than some posters are saying, but it sounds as if some people have the impression that a minimum level of income provided by the government will be a good thing for most people.  I would respectfully disagree because it rests on the assumption that most people will use their free time for productive uses.

My job gives me a glimpse into the details of the lives of people from every financial situation: the complete financial disaster cases, all the way up to the top 1%.  The closest analog that I can think of to a guaranteed minimum income, as described by the previous posters, is SSI.  It provides a set minimum level of income, is provided by the government, has no ongoing eligibility requirements (such as job search, work, or drug testing) and is sufficient to provide for the basics (sometimes a little less), but has little to no wiggle room for luxuries.  I would estimate that somewhere in the range of 40-60% of people on this program are living lifestyles that any mustachian would describe as destructive.  Very little physical activity, lots of terrible food, lots of bad financial decisions, lots of problems in interpersonal relationships, very little desire to improve their circumstances or themselves.  While I won’t bother to argue whether SSI is the cause or an effect of those problems, however I will argue that it certainly doesn’t HELP those problems.  Having a job helps people develop their social skills, keeps them marginally active, and can help them learn new financial and life management skills.  This is 40-60% of a very small portion of society.  Even if my estimate is unreasonably high (maybe the number is closer to 20%, or 30%), do we really want such a large percentage of the general population being in the same situation?

@tomsang-Was it necessary to bring such a harshly worded political diatribe into this discussion?  What do the GOP’s policies have to do with robots replacing jobs?  You briefly mention the Earned Income Tax Credit, Obamacare and the Citizens United decision as all benefiting the 1%, but offer no argument as to how or how the GOP’s opposition to them hurts the 99%?  I would encourage you to dig deeper into conservative policies, not only because I believe in them, but at the very least so that you can have a more nuanced political discussion than “DEMOCRAT GOOD; REPUBLICAN BAD!! OOG!!!”  The reality is that the standard of living has drastically increased for EVERY member of Western society, and the reason most people are struggling is because of their own choices.  The entire purpose of this site and forum is to identify better choices and help each other be successful.  If you don’t believe this is possible because the corporate overlords are so oppressive, why are you here?

BACK ON TOPIC!!! WOO HOO!!!  I really can’t see AI taking over any interpersonal jobs at any point in the forseeable future, possibly ever.  Not only are these jobs dependent on a near infinite number of tiny, subtle variables, but those variables mean different things for different people.  Depending on culture, personality, age, and mood, the same gesture or facial expression can mean lots of different things.  How would it even be possible to identify all the variables, let alone all the possible outcomes of all those variables?

Someone brought up the example of buying/selling a house and how computers would make that negotiation so much better.  That relies on a bunch of ifs: IF the person is willing to be honest when entering their desired criteria for purchase, IF the person is capable of articulating those criteria, IF the person is even being honest with themselves about what criteria they really want.  More likely is you will be feeding a lot of garbage into that system, regardless of how theoretically effective it is.

"IF the person is willing to be honest"

LOL, removing realtors from the transaction would increase the honesty level substantially


"reason most people are struggling is because of their own choices"

LOL2 - American dream is there for everyone

"I would encourage you to dig deeper into conservative policies, not only because I believe in them"

LOL3 - no need to dig - history has not been kind to conservative views, I doubt  future gnerations will judge the present set of "grey old men" any better

[intellectsucks]

@2Lazy2Retire-Putting aside the fact that you added nothing to the discussion but useless snark, I really have to ask, what are you doing on this site?  The ENTIRE STATED PURPOSE of this site is to show that almost anyone can achieve wealth and financial independence through lifestyle and mindset adjustments.  If you don’t believe that premise then are you just here to troll?

@tomsang-It seems that we have more differences than just political.  I honestly do not believe that within the lifetimes of me, my children or my grandchildren, that human labor of all sorts will be eliminated.  Some jobs will be eliminated, certainly the easiest jobs.  The economy will shift from humans providing labor intensive jobs to humans providing analytical and interpretive intensive jobs (though I do believe manual trades such as carpentry, plumbing and construction will continue to be human jobs for a very long time).  This will certainly create problems for people who are ill equipped to provide such labor, and as a result for society as a whole, however I don’t believe that there will be a time when there will be total unemployment.

But let’s assume for a second that you are right and I’m wrong.  Robots will be doing everything and all we will do is sit in our Hoverounds ala Wall-E.  I personally have zero trust in government to make sure that society is treated fairly and equitably.  Examples of where government has created significant inequality, either due to incompetence or corruption, are endless.  Veterans are dying waiting for care from the VA while the managers are lying about wait times so they can get huge bonuses.  The IRS is deciding that they don’t like certain political messages so they are putting their boot to the throats of groups pushing those messages.  Public schools in some parts of the city are shrieking prisons, while in others they are places of learning.  The General Services Administration, the department in the government whose job is to identify and reduce waste and fraud, spent nearly a million dollars over four days for a lavish conference/party in Las Vegas.  These are the people you trust to make sure that society’s resources are used efficiently and fairly?  When executives at Enron did the same thing, they were rightly considered criminals, were prosecuted and in many cases went to jail.  Who was prosecuted from the VA, the IRS and the GSA?

You also assume that big companies who have lots of power now will be able to retain and control that power indefinitely.  Yet around 89% of companies on the Fortune 500 list from 1955 are off the list today.  Companies that seem huge and unstoppable now can be easily replaced.  Here is a great article about how MySpace was supposed to be the dominant social media giant, but got crushed by a tiny upstart competitor operating out of a college dorm.  http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2011/01/14/why-facebook-beat-myspace/

Even if (maybe especially if) computers and robots are doing the majority of the labor, who is to say that someone won’t be able to program the computers and robots to do things in a better way, displacing one of those 1000 richest families?  If everything is controlled by the 1000 or 10000 people who make the decisions in government, then what is the alternative?

Once again: abandon straw men, partisan talking points and slogans.  Do some real research, keep an open mind and hone your ideas.  THEN you can add more to a meaningful discussion than “OMG THE OLIGARCHS CONTROL EVERYTHING!!  SOON WE WILL ALL BE MORLOCKS TOILING FOR OUR CORPORATE OVERLORDS!!!”

[2lazy2retire]

@2Lazy2Retire-Putting aside the fact that you added nothing to the discussion but useless snark, I really have to ask, what are you doing on this site?  The ENTIRE STATED PURPOSE of this site is to show that almost anyone can achieve wealth and financial independence through lifestyle and mindset adjustments.  If you don’t believe that premise then are you just here to troll?

@tomsang-It seems that we have more differences than just political.  I honestly do not believe that within the lifetimes of me, my children or my grandchildren, that human labor of all sorts will be eliminated.  Some jobs will be eliminated, certainly the easiest jobs.  The economy will shift from humans providing labor intensive jobs to humans providing analytical and interpretive intensive jobs (though I do believe manual trades such as carpentry, plumbing and construction will continue to be human jobs for a very long time).  This will certainly create problems for people who are ill equipped to provide such labor, and as a result for society as a whole, however I don’t believe that there will be a time when there will be total unemployment.

But let’s assume for a second that you are right and I’m wrong.  Robots will be doing everything and all we will do is sit in our Hoverounds ala Wall-E.  I personally have zero trust in government to make sure that society is treated fairly and equitably.  Examples of where government has created significant inequality, either due to incompetence or corruption, are endless.  Veterans are dying waiting for care from the VA while the managers are lying about wait times so they can get huge bonuses.  The IRS is deciding that they don’t like certain political messages so they are putting their boot to the throats of groups pushing those messages.  Public schools in some parts of the city are shrieking prisons, while in others they are places of learning.  The General Services Administration, the department in the government whose job is to identify and reduce waste and fraud, spent nearly a million dollars over four days for a lavish conference/party in Las Vegas.  These are the people you trust to make sure that society’s resources are used efficiently and fairly?  When executives at Enron did the same thing, they were rightly considered criminals, were prosecuted and in many cases went to jail.  Who was prosecuted from the VA, the IRS and the GSA?

You also assume that big companies who have lots of power now will be able to retain and control that power indefinitely.  Yet around 89% of companies on the Fortune 500 list from 1955 are off the list today.  Companies that seem huge and unstoppable now can be easily replaced.  Here is a great article about how MySpace was supposed to be the dominant social media giant, but got crushed by a tiny upstart competitor operating out of a college dorm.  http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2011/01/14/why-facebook-beat-myspace/

Even if (maybe especially if) computers and robots are doing the majority of the labor, who is to say that someone won’t be able to program the computers and robots to do things in a better way, displacing one of those 1000 richest families?  If everything is controlled by the 1000 or 10000 people who make the decisions in government, then what is the alternative?

Once again: abandon straw men, partisan talking points and slogans.  Do some real research, keep an open mind and hone your ideas.  THEN you can add more to a meaningful discussion than “OMG THE OLIGARCHS CONTROL EVERYTHING!!  SOON WE WILL ALL BE MORLOCKS TOILING FOR OUR CORPORATE OVERLORDS!!!”

" I really have to ask, what are you doing on this site?  The ENTIRE STATED PURPOSE of this site is to show that almost anyone can achieve wealth and financial independence through lifestyle and mindset adjustments"

Sure, but most reasonable people on here also acknowledge that we are starting from a position of comfort and privilege. Except you of course,  who made it all on your own no guidance or help from anyone, born challenged but made yourself smart, born into a tough neigbourhood but dug yourself out, had alcoholic parents but got yourself to school everyday, had no dinner on table but grew your own vegetables.

For whatever reason this site attracts a few on the far right with their conservative views and judgment of others. I ask you why are you on this site? - it is not about building wealth but acknowledging your good fortune, been grateful for what you have, learning not to be greedy and also been considerate towards those who are less fortunate.

[Threshkin]

...

Thank you for being much more eloquent than I am.

[zephyr911]

LOL, removing realtors from the transaction would increase the honesty level substantially

I know you're just trolling and I'm wasting my time, but as a part-time Realtor who would literally do it for free because I love it so much, and will do it in FIRE after I've ceased to need income, that is a profoundly ridiculous statement.

Real estate licensing exists to hold agents to a higher level of accountability than the general public. If I lie about your house to get a sale, I get punished more harshly than you would. And - also worthy of note - the profession itself came up with most of the rules before they were made into laws, because (shocker) agents don't like working with bad agents.

Are there assholes? Sure, just like in any other field.

2015 NAR Code of Ethics

[2lazy2retire]

LOL, removing realtors from the transaction would increase the honesty level substantially

I know you're just trolling and I'm wasting my time, but as a part-time Realtor who would literally do it for free because I love it so much, and will do it in FIRE after I've ceased to need income, that is a profoundly ridiculous statement.

Real estate licensing exists to hold agents to a higher level of accountability than the general public. If I lie about your house to get a sale, I get punished more harshly than you would. And - also worthy of note - the profession itself came up with most of the rules before they were made into laws, because (shocker) agents don't like working with bad agents.

Are there assholes? Sure, just like in any other field.

2015 NAR Code of Ethics

Not suggesting that realtors are doing anything illegal, but around here where a family home averages 6-700k  ( Phily suburbs) having to pay 6% to sell might not be illegal but not completely honest either. Try to sell on your own and see how quickly those realtors will talk down your property.
When it comes to selling they behave like the Mafia, I think they had a code of honor as well can't find a link mind.

[intellectsucks]

@2Lazy2retire-At the risk of derailing the thread even more, I’ll just point out that rather than addressing any of the points that I made, you once again offered no arguments, just a personal attack.

I am certainly not here to judge other people or bask in my own glory.  I’m here to learn and improve myself, as well as help others in what small ways that I can.

You may or may not believe this, but when I hear you talking about comfort and privilege this what I hear: “Thank God, we’re all white and middle class so that we can improve ourselves.  It’s really great that we have the ability to make our own choices, unlike all those minorities and poor people who are slaves to their circumstances.  Since they can’t improve themselves through their own choices, it’s up to us white, middle class people to save them.”  If this isn’t what you believe, maybe you should think about how much of that is me inferring and how much is you implying.  

My belief is that all people, regardless of their circumstances, have the ability to make lots of small choices which lead to a better lifestyle.  How is this more judgemental than thinking that people who are less well off are doomed to be stuck where they are?

[zephyr911]

Not suggesting that realtors are doing anything illegal, but around here where a family home averages 6-700k  ( Phily suburbs) having to pay 6% to sell might not be illegal but not completely honest either. Try to sell on your own and see how quickly those realtors will talk down your property.

There are greedy dicks for sure. I'd never deny it. But honesty and commission level are 100% completely separate subjects.
Commission is negotiable on every transaction, FTR. It doesn't matter what the house is worth.

[2lazy2retire]

@2Lazy2retire-At the risk of derailing the thread even more, I’ll just point out that rather than addressing any of the points that I made, you once again offered no arguments, just a personal attack.

I am certainly not here to judge other people or bask in my own glory.  I’m here to learn and improve myself, as well as help others in what small ways that I can.

You may or may not believe this, but when I hear you talking about comfort and privilege this what I hear: “Thank God, we’re all white and middle class so that we can improve ourselves.  It’s really great that we have the ability to make our own choices, unlike all those minorities and poor people who are slaves to their circumstances.  Since they can’t improve themselves through their own choices, it’s up to us white, middle class people to save them.”  If this isn’t what you believe, maybe you should think about how much of that is me inferring and how much is you implying. 

My belief is that all people, regardless of their circumstances, have the ability to make lots of small choices which lead to a better lifestyle.  How is this more judgemental than thinking that people who are less well off are doomed to be stuck where they are?

Would you not agree that those born in certain unfavourable circumstances have the odds highly stacked against them. Sure some will make it out but most will not, not judgemental just a fact. One last question for you -what allows one person to make "lots of small choices which lead to a better lifestyle" and another not to make those choices, to what level does anyone have control over their choices. IMO we are victims of wiring and to a lesser extent circumstance - we won the lottery others did not.

[2lazy2retire]

Not suggesting that realtors are doing anything illegal, but around here where a family home averages 6-700k  ( Phily suburbs) having to pay 6% to sell might not be illegal but not completely honest either. Try to sell on your own and see how quickly those realtors will talk down your property.

There are greedy dicks for sure. I'd never deny it. But honesty and commission level are 100% completely separate subjects.
Commission is negotiable on every transaction, FTR. It doesn't matter what the house is worth.

h
" FTR. It doesn't matter what the house is worth"

- have to disagree strongly here, how much extra work does it take to sell a house for 700k V a house for 100k - payday for realtors 42k v 6k for similar if not identical workload, fair flat fee I have no problem with.

[nobodyspecial]

Real estate licensing exists to hold agents to a higher level of accountability than the general public. If I lie about your house to get a sale, I get punished more harshly than you would.

Not trolling, and not getting personal - but....

That just means that the realtor has to be careful what they say, it doesn't mean that they give out all the information that might be available with a web site like zwillo. A company director is held to the same standards but on a conference call with investors they don't necessarily mention everything that might cause the price to drop.

So there are things that they don't mention - because I didn't ask about a new freeway being built, or they didn't know about a new freeway being built because they don't automatically consult the municipality/state/federal databases.

[Papa bear]

People have been trying to automate my industry for years!!!  You would think it would be easy, and it's entirely inefficient with humans, yet it's bigger than it's ever been.

Staffing/recruiting/headhunting: figure out how to automate entirely and be a very rich person.  Hell I'll even help you to upend the entire thing!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[intellectsucks]

@2lazy2retire-WOOHOO!!!! An actual meaningful comment!! I'm so glad!

I absolutely agree that success is much more difficult for some people than others. I don't agree that our choices are hard wired. This is one of the reasons I love this site so much, it helps educate people on the consequences of their choices and shows how changing those choices can lead to vastly improved circumstances.

[2lazy2retire]

@2lazy2retire-WOOHOO!!!! An actual meaningful comment!! I'm so glad!

I absolutely agree that success is much more difficult for some people than others. I don't agree that our choices are hard wired. This is one of the reasons I love this site so much, it helps educate people on the consequences of their choices and shows how changing those choices can lead to vastly improved circumstances.

All for education and giving opportunities, You could take siblings and show them this site, one may get excited and FIRE in 10 years- the other could dismiss it and go buy a 6 pack claiming it was all BS, why would he make that choice knowing the consequences - I do not know the answer and I suspect neither do you, but I will not look at him and think it's his fault and moan about my taxes going to fund his layabout lifestyle. There will always be a percentage of the population who are industrious, who are idle, who are somewhere in between.

There but for the grace of god, go I,  and all that.

[tomsang]

@tomsang-It seems that we have more differences than just political. I honestly do not believe that within the lifetimes of me, my children or my grandchildren, that human labor of all sorts will be eliminated.  Some jobs will be eliminated, certainly the easiest jobs.  The economy will shift from humans providing labor intensive jobs to humans providing analytical and interpretive intensive jobs (though I do believe manual trades such as carpentry, plumbing and construction will continue to be human jobs for a very long time).  This will certainly create problems for people who are ill equipped to provide such labor, and as a result for society as a whole, however I don’t believe that there will be a time when there will be total unemployment.

I am not sure how old your grandkids are, 60+ I would guess based on your statement.  Technology and computing power is doubling every couple of years.  Computers or technology will be out thinking and out performing people in virtually every field in the next 50 years, many leaders in the field say within 15 years they will be outthinking us. 

The fact that you are saying that humans will be performing analytical and interpretative intensive jobs in the future indicates to me that you may not fully understand the strengths and weaknesses of computers and humans.  Analytics and interpretative intensive jobs are directly in the wheelhouse of what computers are amazing at and humans are fairly weak.  When a computer can analyze something 10,000 ways before you come up with three ways you know you are way over your head.  That is why we don't see computer vs. human chess player matches anymore.  Since 2006 computers have been destroying the smartest human chess masters and there is no competition.

To understand how far apart we are, can I ask a few questions?  In 50 years what % of the work currently being done do you think will be replaced or eliminated by technology?  When you say you can't see a time when there is total unemployment that is pretty absolute.  To clarify, can you postulate what % of the world and/or US population will have the intellect and skills to have a job that can't or will not be done by technology?  What do you think will happen to the US and World Unemployment rates in 50 years. You mentioned people's actions and consequences frequently.  Do you consider a consequence of people actions to be that they did not get a STEM/technology related education? What should happen to those that are not able to compete with the intellect of the future technology? (IE they can't add anything of value)

Thanks for your insight.         

[nobodyspecial]

Since 2006 computers have been destroying the smartest human chess masters and there is no competition.

In the (1st) dot-com boom a merchant bank was telling me that computers would never replace traders because he could look at a price screen and "intuitively feel" what the market was doing.

I tried to explain that the computer could trade all those stocks in the time it took the light to reach his eyes (ignoring how long it took a 1990s Bloomberg terminal to show a screen) - but he couldn't understand that computers processed faster than he typed.