# What do we do when we run out of labour? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 19, 2005, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-do-when-we-run-out-of-labour/285566 "2005-01-19T17:02:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-do-when-we-run-out-of-labour/285566/1 "2005-01-19T17:02:22Z")
The common catchphrase from the anti-luddite group is that mechanization has allowed those who have been displaced to find “other, more fulfilling jobs” with more efficiency et cetera. Now, this may have certainly been true in the 1800’s, but it seems not inconcievable to me that in the not too distant future, advances in mechanization will make it such that for a certain proportion of people, theres nothing that they can do which cannot be done faster and cheaper by machines. Even now, it appears that much of whats left of unskilled labour requires face-to-face interaction because that has proven to be the hardest thing to automate. But even that is starting to go with automated check out counters, online booking etc. So what will we do with this growing class of unemployables? The left won’t let us kill them and the right won’t let us give them enough money to live comfortably. Do we just persist in keeping them in a state of low income drudgery and politely ignore the problem? ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-do-when-we-run-out-of-labour/285566/2 "2005-01-19T17:04:35Z")
> [@Shalmanese](#): > > So what will we do with this growing class of unemployables? The left won’t let us kill them and the right won’t let us give them enough money to live comfortably. Do we just persist in keeping them in a state of low income drudgery and politely ignore the problem? Yes, I believe that is the plan. Welcome to America, the world’s newest developing nation. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-do-when-we-run-out-of-labour/285566/3 "2005-01-19T17:33:36Z")
> [@Shalmanese](#): > > So what will we do with this growing class of unemployables? The left won’t let us kill them and the right won’t let us give them enough money to live comfortably. Do we just persist in keeping them in a state of low income drudgery and politely ignore the problem? that’s the plan. The right will keep the safety net for the unemployables as close to nothing as they can. Some tiny percentage of unemployables will escape from the system, they’ll be touted as examples that all other unemployables should follow, despite the fact that such niches will only accommodate a tiny number of unemployables. In much the same way, the Romans used to play up the fact that some slaves were able to get legally freed big time, despite knowing that for the mass of slaves, lifetime slavery was their fate. Welcome to compassionate conservatism II: electric bugaloo. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-do-when-we-run-out-of-labour/285566/4 "2005-01-19T18:12:33Z")
> [@Shalmanese](#): > > The common catchphrase from the anti-luddite group is that mechanization has allowed those who have been displaced to find “other, more fulfilling jobs” with more efficiency et cetera… Anti-luddites? Are there any luddites left these days? 🙂 > [@](#): > > …So what will we do with this growing class of unemployables? The left won’t let us kill them and the right won’t let us give them enough money to live comfortably. Do we just persist in keeping them in a state of low income drudgery and politely ignore the problem? I think you need to flesh out your hypothesis more. What evidence is there that the need for labor is decreasing? Even in the US, unsilled workers continue to risk their lives to sneak into this country illegallly. China and India, both with enormous and still growing polulations, have economies that soak up labor. I don’t doubt that your scenario is possible sometime in the distant future, but I just don’t see the evidence that it is goig to be a near term problem. What I read about is the growing shortage of unskilled labor (people, not work as you seem to mean in the thread title) in Japan and Europe due to negative population growth. The US would easily be in that camp if we had immigration rules as tight as they do, no? So, maybe the first answer to your question is that the US clamps down on immigration (legal and illegal). But again, what projections are you working from, and what timeframe are we talking about? BTW, I hope you were just kidding with your implication that if it weren’t for “the left” the right would advocate killing “them”. You were kidding, correct? ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-do-when-we-run-out-of-labour/285566/5 "2005-01-19T18:28:35Z")
> [@Shalmanese](#): > > The common catchphrase from the anti-luddite group is that mechanization has allowed those who have been displaced to find “other, more fulfilling jobs” with more efficiency et cetera No one said the new jobs will be more fullfilling. Ok, this argument has gone on since the first caveman figured out that he could make fire by rubbing two sticks together instead of waiting for a forest fire caused by lightning. “Og! What fire-runners do for work now everyone make own fire?!” Society always has work to do. We use machines and technology to free up workers from work that is too heavy, complex, dangerous, or tedious for a human. Some jobs can never be replaced by a machine. I think society has an obligation to make sure people have the opportunity to train to be productive members. That said, your question almost becomes “what should society do with those who are too incompetant or lazy to learn a productive skill?” When in history, whether it was farming, blacksmithing, machining, or computer programming did someone with no skills or education expect that they could earn a decent living? ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-do-when-we-run-out-of-labour/285566/6 "2005-01-19T22:11:55Z")
Not to hijack, but I suspect what’s really happening is not that low-level workers are being thrown out of work by automation, but rather that a seemingly limitless supply of dirt-cheap laborors will ultimately put the brakes on the trend to automation, and the question should be how to maintain an acceptable standard of living when work has so little market value. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-do-when-we-run-out-of-labour/285566/7 "2005-01-19T22:34:12Z")
:dubious: Very, very bad thread title, **Shalmanese!** It implies the problem is we’re about to run out of **workers,** which is the exact opposite of the topic. Anyway, here’s an argument from the tail end of “The Case for a Living Wage,” an article by Michael Lind, _The New Leader,_ October 1, 2001, [http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&DocID=564:](http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&DocID=564:) > [@](#): > > Here is a heretical thought: What’s wrong with technological unemployment? The substitution of technology for human and animal labor is the basis of the prosperity of advanced societies like the United States. In 1800 almost everybody in the U.S. was a farmer. Today almost nobody is, even though the U.S. produces far more food per capita, thanks to tractors and other devices. Assembly-line workers are also an endangered species, now that four out of five Americans work in the broadly defined service sector jobs. Increasingly, too, many service-sector jobs, like those of receptionists and accountants, are being automated. In every generation, all the way back to when the first industrial revolution produced the first anti-industrial revolution in the form of the machine-smashing English Luddites, there have been predictions of mass unemployment caused by technology. Certainly the transitions have frequently been painful, but the children of displaced workers—albeit not all of their parents—have usually obtained more comfortable and often more intellectually demanding employment. > > A case can be made, then, that the replacement of labor by machinery as a result of a higher minimum wage (or anything else that increases labor costs) is a positive step, not an evil to be avoided. Orthodox economists are curiously schizophrenic about this issue. On the one hand, they recognize that advances in technological productivity made possible by investment—as opposed to, say increases in the labor supply or raw materials—are the major sources of overall growth in modern economies. On the other hand, when they discuss wage rates orthodox economists warn that a higher minimum wage might create an incentive for employers to …gasp, horror!..invest in more productive technology. > > During the boom of the late 1990s, labor shortages in some parts of the U.S. compelled grocery stores to replace semi-skilled cashiers with automatic checkout machines supervised by a technician. From the point of view of grocers and their customers, this was as good as the old system, perhaps better. An increase in the minimum wage would have had the same effect as the temporary labor shortage. That brings us to the key question: Will those who might have been cashiers be able to find work in different sectors of the economy—or will a new, high minimum wage prevent them from being employed anywhere? > > One of the fastest growing sectors in the economy of the U.S. and similar countries, thanks to the rapid graying of the population, is health care. Much of this industry in labor-intensive, and will remain so at least until robots can provide tender loving care. If a higher minimum wage creates technological unemployment where machinery can easily replace humans, there is reason to be optimistic that technologically-unemployed people with limited skills can be vacuumed up by the rapidly multiplying job openings for nurses’ aides, hospital orderlies and other health care workers. > > What difference does it make for the economy as a whole whether grocery store checkout stations are automated or not? The economic powers of the 21st century will be the “robot powers.” Despite all the chatter about globalization, the corporations that dominate world commerce in such fields as automobiles and aerospace remain those that can use their superiority in the vast domestic markets of populous nations like the U.S., Japan and Germany as springboards for expansion into foreign markets. Obviously the home market for national robot industries will be much greater in countries where employers in many traditionally labor-intensive sectors are compelled to invest in ever more sophisticated robots by high wages and tight labor markets. > > That is why the majority of us who earn much more than the minimum wage should support the campaign to raise it. As a way of combating poverty, the living wage is neither better nor worse than a generous EITC. But as a means of promoting technological progress in the American economy by encouraging the automation on many labor-intensive industries, the minimum wage is greatly preferable to the EITC. In fact, because it subsidizes primitive enterprises, the EITC may actually retard technological progress in the United States, at least to some degree. > > By creating an incentive for employers to replace workers with robots and computers, a living wage would ultimately benefit all Americans, thanks to the spillover impact of technological progress in various industries It is all the more unfortunate, therefore, that most advocates of a living wage continue to make the sophistic argument that higher wages will not produce significant unemployment or encourage employers to replace labor with skilled with capital investments. As long as low-skilled workers can find jobs in innately labor-intensive sectors like health care, the tendency of a higher minimum wage should be treated not as minor side effect but as a major selling point. > > The sooner John Henry is replaced by a drill, the better. John Henry’s children, and John Henry himself, can do something more rewarding with their lives. ---
**Author:** ![aahala](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a88e4f/32.png) [@aahala](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aahala)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-do-when-we-run-out-of-labour/285566/8 "2005-01-19T22:49:07Z")
> [@Shalmanese](#): > > So what will we do with this growing class of unemployables? Assuming they can scrape up $14.95, they can follow our lead and become charter members. ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-do-when-we-run-out-of-labour/285566/9 "2005-01-19T23:27:43Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > I think society has an obligation to make sure people have the opportunity to train to be productive members. That said, your question almost becomes “what should society do with those who are too incompetant or lazy to learn a productive skill?” When in history, whether it was farming, blacksmithing, machining, or computer programming did someone with no skills or education expect that they could earn a decent living? It’s not a question about laziness or will, I’m talking about the eventuality that people simply end up not mentally capable of competing with a machine. The problem is theres a lower limit to wages a human can work at and if a machine can do better, then theres no way to compete. When you physically can’t buy enough calories in 24 hours of work, then you’ve reached that limit, and given that some jobs that provided a living wage can now be done for pennies, it’s not implausible. **BrainGlutton:** The rather conventional argument is made in your thread, namely, because it didn’t happen in the past, it won’t happen in the future. But, I think this is deeply flawed, this is not the case of the same thing happening again, it’s the pushing of an existing trend to the extreme. The case is made that extra jobs will be found in healthcare. But it seems to take a rather naive view of automation and human nature. First of all, healthcare is not a sinkhole for the unskilled, I’m guessing that most jobs in healthcare are ones that do require quite a bit of skill and those which don’t are the ones that are easily automated. Lets take a hypothetical, imagine a person who was just unremittingly dull. You’ve all met them, theres nothing wrong with them, they just don’t have any vitality to them and you can’t hold a conversation. Now, unless he possesses some talent particularly out of the ordinary, I can’t imagine much that could not be automated by, say 2040. The Robocup project is to have a robot that can beat the current world cup soccer team by 2050 and all the people I’ve spoken to seem fairly optimistic about the target. I assume by 2040, we would have mastered all the basic problems to do with dexterity, pattern recognition, mobility etc. The only thing I have doubts about is realistic human interaction because that’s more of a psychological thing than a technical thing. **John Mace:** Let’s say it’s a far fetched, hypothetical extrapolation. I’m saying that a society could exist where people with the equivilant mindset of the right today could advocate such things as matter of course. A lot can happen to acceptable moral standards in 40 years. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-do-when-we-run-out-of-labour/285566/10 "2005-01-19T23:57:30Z")
> [@Shalmanese](#): > > **John Mace:** Let’s say it’s a far fetched, hypothetical extrapolation. I’m saying that a society could exist where people with the equivilant mindset of the right today could advocate such things as matter of course. A lot can happen to acceptable moral standards in 40 years. To put that in perspective, since the early '90s, some Brazilians have been dealing with the problem of homeless children in their cities by forming or hiring death squads to hunt them down and kill them. See [Street Children in Brazil 2](http://pangaea.org/street_children/latin/sheper2.htm) and [BBC NEWS | Americas | Brazil death squads denounced](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3167296.stm). ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2005, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-do-when-we-run-out-of-labour/285566/11 "2005-01-20T00:11:53Z")
[QUOTE=Shalmanese] **John Mace:** Let’s say it’s a far fetched, hypothetical extrapolation. I’m saying that a society could exist where people with the equivilant mindset of the right today could advocate such things as matter of course. A lot can happen to acceptable moral standards in 40 years.[/QUOTE I know you’re “saying it”, but on what basis? Sketch it out for us. What is unique to “the mindset of the right” that could lead folks to advocate murdering poor people as a means of reducing welfare requirements? On the right we have: the death penalty On the left we have: abortion, assisted suicide I can’t see that one side is more easily extrapolated to “let’s kill poor people” than the other. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2005, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-do-when-we-run-out-of-labour/285566/12 "2005-01-20T00:14:31Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > On the right we have: the death penalty > On the left we have: abortion, assisted suicide > > I can’t see that one side is more easily extrapolated to “let’s kill poor people” than the other. You’re not kidding, are you? You really can’t see it. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2005, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-do-when-we-run-out-of-labour/285566/13 "2005-01-20T01:56:41Z")
If the machines can do all the work for us, why not just let them do all the work for _everyone_ and let everyone be free to enjoy life in their own way? In this instance, we will have outgrown capitalism. We won’t need it anymore. The only reason communism has failed so far is because of human nature. If we have machines to manage all our labor the barrier of human nature that prevented communism from being effective (I.E “why should I bust my ass for other people who work less hard?”) will be removed. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2005, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-do-when-we-run-out-of-labour/285566/14 "2005-01-20T03:44:12Z")
> [@Shalmanese](#): > > It’s not a question about laziness or will, I’m talking about the eventuality that people simply end up not mentally capable of competing with a machine. The problem is theres a lower limit to wages a human can work at and if a machine can do better, then theres no way to compete. When you physically can’t buy enough calories in 24 hours of work, then you’ve reached that limit, and given that some jobs that provided a living wage can now be done for pennies, it’s not implausible. Obviously you can’t compete with the machine. I’m saying that people will have to train for jobs that machines can’t do. We are a long way from a world where machines can think creatively or interact with other people like humans do. Machines still need people to command them and tell them what to work on. The “laziness” is not a lack of ability to outwork the machine, it’s a failure to train or prepare for careers that are actually in demand. This means that we may need some drastic changes to our higher education system so that those without the means to pay for higher education don’t become stuck in a perpetual underclass. ---
**Author:** ![Demorian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demorian/32/7273_2.png) [@Demorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Demorian)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2005, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-do-when-we-run-out-of-labour/285566/15 "2005-01-20T04:14:19Z")
> [@Shalmanese](#): > > in the not too distant future, advances in mechanization will make it such that for a certain proportion of people, theres nothing that they can do which cannot be done faster and cheaper by machines. I’m curious. What, in your mind, prevents either commercial jobs for these people, or vocational training? Are they too stupid? Inferior genetics? ---
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2005, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-do-when-we-run-out-of-labour/285566/16 "2005-01-20T05:22:08Z")
In answer to the OP: People could all be employed part-time, or if there isn’t any work at all for humans to do, they can just be on an endless holiday - but they still should vote. (rather than let computers decide what the government should do) ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2005, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-do-when-we-run-out-of-labour/285566/17 "2005-01-20T05:46:33Z")
Yes, I believe that some people are inherently more stupid than others. But lets reverse the question, what do you believe is a job that absolutely anyone could do but would be impractical for a computer to do? **John Mace:** History is replete with examples of a rich elite not giving a shit about the conditions of those they deem inferior. From Medevil nobility and peasantry to Southern farmers and blacks to modern day Westerners and the 3rd world. You might be physically holding a gun in your hand but the effect is still the same. ---
**Author:** ![Nametag](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nametag/32/406_2.png) [@Nametag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nametag)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2005, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-do-when-we-run-out-of-labour/285566/18 "2005-01-20T05:47:33Z")
> [@Shalmanese](#): > > What do we do when we run out of labour? C-section, usually. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2005, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-do-when-we-run-out-of-labour/285566/19 "2005-01-20T15:31:34Z")
This topic isnt nearly as farfetched as you all seem to think. The race is on for a robotic hand that can do everything a human hand can do, and once we have that, we will have robotic hands that can do everything a human hand can do, only 100 times as fast. Software is already replacing human beings – “calculator” used to be a job description, not a cheap handheld adding machine. Doctors already have AI programs that can perform diagnostic exams on patients, or at least, do a lot of the basic work. I give it 50 years max before all human labor is unnecessary for production. Now, if a few wealthy capitalists can own what’s needed to produce all the clothing, housing, food, gimcracks and geegaws for, what will they need or want the rest of us for. There is always work to be done of some kind, but when wealth is concentrated as it is likely to be in such a scenario, what motive do they have to distribute it to all but the very few people who directly render them aid and comfort? ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2005, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-do-when-we-run-out-of-labour/285566/20 "2005-01-20T17:43:25Z")
Huh? I’m not sure I understand your scenario. OK, the capitalist opens a factory to produce widgets, and employs proletarian workers. Gradually the factory becomes more and more automated, so more and more workers are thrown out on the street. The factory becomes completely automated, needing no human intervention. Then the capitalist stops selling the widgets and just has them all delivered to his house so he can fondle them like Scrooge McDuck. It makes no sense. The capitalists shut down the factories that produce goods and services…why? Even today, a capitalist can only eat so many steak dinners and wear so many fancy suits and drive so many fancy cars. Why doesn’t Bill Gates shut down Microsoft, fire all the employees and retire to his mansion and refuse to sell operating systems any more? After all, he has enough wealth to literally live like a king for the rest of his life, and his descendents’ lives, and their descendents’ lives. Even if Bill Gates shut down the factories and fired his proletarian developers, it would just mean that we would use other operating systems, and the developers would go to work for other software companies. There would be short-term pain as everyone had to transition, but in the medium term his competitors would step in and produce what he used to produce. And those new operating systems would probably be free or nearly free. That would be a big win for computer users, wouldn’t it? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-do-when-we-run-out-of-labour/285566.md?page=2)