The computer engineer who thinks we're doomed
It was a fullish moon when I picked up a new book called "The Lights in the Tunnel," thinking that the title was sure to lift my spirits on All Souls Day.
Perhaps I should have picked me up some Dostoyevsky.
It's not that "The Lights in the Tunnel" isn't thoughtful or interesting. The author, Martin Ford, is a computer engineer who has clearly spent many hours considering the true effects of technology on society.
It's just that a rough summation of those effects might be described as "really bloody terrible."
Essentially, he believes that technology is the direct cause of job losses that will never return. In fact, his fear is that even in those industries that are currently still labor intensive, job losses are inevitable. Which just might mean that there will be vast numbers of people all over the world who will have no money to spend at Zara. Not even at Old Navy.
Naturally, Ford has found himself in a spirited debate with economists who seem to think his arguments border on loonism.
A chap named Robin Hanson seems rather hurt that Ford isn't in the thrall of economists' thinking--you know, the optimistic stuff about how technology will always produce more jobs and more wealth because we humans are, well, so clever.
Perhaps I paraphrase a touch, but economists such as Hanson tend to believe that economic inequality might be a politically difficult thing, but it doesn't portend economic disaster: because, as Hanson says, "producers can focus on giving the rich what they want, and innovation and growth is just as feasible for elite products as for mass products."
(Credit:
CC Firepile/Flickr)
Now of course, I'm not going to argue with economists about human behavior because it's generally akin to arguing with a hockey color commentator about creme caramel.
However, Ford, the techie whom economists dismiss, has a very interesting solution to his rather bleak human scenario. He seems rather keen on a consumption tax, or a direct tax on business that would attempt to capture the income that people would have earned if they had had a job. Then he would incentivize the unemployed to contribute to society according to their own talents and society's needs.
You need a strong heart and stomach to read Ford's book, but some small part of me cannot help but wonder whether his rather miserable prognostication might have some truth to it.
"Glenn Beck would scream," Ford told me in an e-mail. Which made me immediately wonder why his publishers hadn't put that quote on the book cover.
Strangely, Ford isn't some sandal-wearing socialist wagging his finger at the money lenders.
"Capitalism has worked out fairly well for me, and I'd like to keep it around. If the ideas in the book are correct, then I really wonder if the system will be sustainable without some type of intervention," he told me.
Here is a computer engineer who's genuinely worried about, well, human beings.
"If that underclass increases relentlessly over time, and if you start seeing more educated people getting dragged into it, then we are going to have a huge problem. I think that may happen as machines and computers keep getting better until eventually they can do the jobs of even people with lots of education and training. At that point I think you have to do something," he added.
Unfortunately, the history of the world doesn't necessarily offer too much hope for the implementation of the kind of intervention that Ford is suggesting.
So one day, you, me, Ben Affleck, Bruce Willis, Billy Bob Thornton, and Liv Tyler might be seated in a devastated landscape muttering: "How were we to know we were supposed to listen to bloody Martin Ford? He was just some computer engineer."
Chris Matyszczyk is an award-winning creative director who advises major corporations on content creation and marketing. He brings an irreverent, sarcastic, and sometimes ironic voice to the tech world. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. 
It doesn't matter how many buggy whip makers see their productivity increased orders of magnitude with every innovation, they continue to use imaginary crises as an excuse to exert the control of central planners.
A great way to stamp out the creativity that stems from individual freedom and incentive...
Now, all right, it's clear you haven't actually read Player Piano -- can't say I blame you, it's not one of Vonnegut's better books -- but have you ever actually read any Vonnegut, at all? Because he was pretty big on the whole "creativity that stems from individual freedom and incentive" thing. Maybe try googling "Harrison Bergeron" before you go running off at the mouth about how Kurt freaking Vonnegut, of all people, wanted to suppress individuality and make everyone the same.
Token asked if this Ford guy is repeating Vonnegut, and I responded that he (Ford) is rehashing the same tired anti-progress ideas that have been proven wrong the last ten generations or so.
The first reason for these views is a misunderstanding of basic economics: if people are turning away from your product, it's because someone has offered a better alternative. If this is due to technological progress, then the old laborious task has been replaced by capital that will make your labor more valuable. If you spend all day making one buggy whip, you've added very little value to the world so you can't possibly be paid much. If you run a machine building 100 cars, you've created a whole lot more value.
Since Ford is a computer engineer, he's presumably somewhat intelligent, and should know all this. That puts him in the camp of those far worse than ignorant: he's one of those who dismisses the effects of freely interacting individuals, using claims of perpetual "crisis" as a tool to replace personal freedoms with compulsion and control.
In other words, a whole lot more of the same.
I wonder if he has read "Economics in One Lesson." There are several examples given in that book by author Henry Hazlitt, which make clear that technological innovation while perhaps eliminating jobs in some sectors, also simultaneously creates jobs in others. Plus, the productivity increases lead to big price drops in once-expensive goods and services, so that more and more and more people can afford them. At some point, demand increases along with technologically-based productivity to the point that MORE people end up being employed in the process of providing a particular good or service, than were tossed out of work by the original technological innovation (see the author's example of socks in Britain).
What I am saying is that Ford must have done some truly deep and unique analysis to refute Hazlitt and a whole throng of common-sense economists and economic writers. If he has, I want to see it. But I am not expecting to have the world be turned upside down. Usually, when someone comes along with dire predictions of this type, they are missing something big. If Ford is not, he will be the first in my life, so I'm excited to see what he's produced.
Yes, but what happens when computers and robots get so good that they start taking THOSE jobs too? We might be creating machines that are actually making humans obsolete. Are we fsck'd then?
Now you think this is foolishness, right? OK, lets not do that, we consume like we already are - what happens to the productivity gains? We can build the same amount of "stuff" with ever fewer people... Who buys it? Clearly this isn't sustainable either.
Economists don't know jack - they got us into the current mess, you get two of them together and they have three opinions on everything. Economics isn't a science.
You fear the Sociaslim, you rather fear Skynet!
Maybe google has enough computing power to make communism actually work.
Not sure what definition of "work" is required for mass slavery to do it.
It means that robots do the work a d humans do the consumption. ;) I guess we'll all end up like the humans in Wall-e
Well, gee, if that's the case he's arguing, it should be no surprise at all considering that's exactly what crony Religious Capitalism (i.e. where Mammon becomes elevated as a false "God" and tolerates not one whit of dissent and competition to its own entitlement to hold dominion) does in its 1,700 year long end-game: it ultimately self-terminates from its own hubris once it becomes "too big to fail" and promptly slits it own throat for its inability to offer solutions to a crisis it does not (and never will) see as a crisis at all (i.e. its own greed weighed in contrast the widening gap between the "haves" and "have-nots" it inevitably causes) but instead SOP ... business as usual ...
You are right, all new technologies have done this. The key difference here is one of scope - IT does this for all sectors.
It happened in the 18th and 19th century with division of labour and the steam engine.
It's happening today with cheap transportation and communication resulting in outsourcing. And automated robotic manufacturing. This is just a new phase in the industrial revolution.
And luddites were complaining in the 18th century too, about machines putting craftmans out of a job.
But you know what? It freed labour up for entrepreneur to use, to produce new types of products and services.
This is all just history repeating. It is a good idea to read this wikipedia article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite
But the real threat is not increases in the efficiency of labour. It's rather whether we have a big enough planet to supply the economy with the food and resources it will need. Will we be forced to scale back by nature? Now this is an entirely new problem.
Comparisons to luddites are not as incendiary as they may seem. The luddites were not against technology, but against the loss of jobs they entailed and the fact the benefits of new looms accrued only to the rich few. The response of the English power elite to the luddite rebellion (which tied more soldiers than Napoleon did) was to make breaking a loom a capital offense, and people were actually hanged for it.
There is nothing sad about this. I am happy to design web sites and would not like to shovel horse manure in a stables thank you very much and I am very comfortable that there will come a time when my computer and Wacom tablet will seem primitive hard work to a future human.
This engineer who claims to think about the future of people's jobs seems to lack imagination and thinks the sky is falling because all the jobs he can imagine can eventually be done by a machine. Problem is that no matter how good his vision he cannot see the unexpected twists and turns of future societies and technologies that will produce forms of work that are utterly new. No one can. Yet despite the natural limitations of future visions this latter day socialist would have companies like mine pay money for non-existent jobs and thus damage our ability to survive.
Sounds like a load of horse manure designed to enable those who work to give money to people like him to be paid by us so he can sit around and do little more than moan about how bad the world is. The lazy and the incompetent are going to love this theory.
Where will inexperienced and less experienced get their experience? not everyone is capable of programming and hardware repair.
as automation takes over repetitive tasks, and companies squeeze more productivity out of less labour and more automation, finding stuff to do to make a living becomes more difficult. eventually the unemployed and underemployed won't be hard pressed to be able to live anywhere.
I guess there's always flipping burgers, facebook and other productive tasks...
will computers or remote verification operators be allowed to watch live per say you repairing an electrical line? (compliance issue of course)
http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0635.html?printable=1
The point is that Capitalism is what will stop his scenario not the cause. If the State gets involved they will force companies to make poor choices (for short term benefit, short term as in decades), as the unions in cahoots with the government did to the auto industry.
Capitalism constantly looks for a need to fill, perhaps it will become more "frivolous" i.e. better ice cream or more extreme i.e. mining the moon for ore.
- by Bobnla November 8, 2009 9:34 PM PST
- You all are assuming all jobs are equal.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(26 Comments)Taking an assembly line job and moving that person to be a waiter or a cashier while giving a person a job, does not give the person the same standard of living. Nor does it give the economy a boost.
So education and training will allow you to move to a new job, but no longer as lucrative. How many programmers are now on help desk.
the more people that can do the job, the less pay. (By the way, this is why traditional women's jobs have been paid lower. For the most part they require less physical labor and there fore BOTH men and women can do them, increasing the available labor supply. Where physical capability is not an issue, the genders are paid the same.)
So I would like to see Ford's book to see what jobs he sees being replaced.
And davidmacelroy, great point that you are only employed if you add value.
Example: Had an argument with Firm administrator at a law firm He said all of IT secretaries and HR were overhead and did not contribute to the bottom line. I replied, then fire us. If you can get along without us, then fire us. But that means billable lawyers and paralegals will have to do the work. I didn't have your turn of phrase to say we add value by allowing Them to bill at obscene rates. Thanks.)
So we have a jobless recovery with small businesses pulling back and fewer jobs with lucrative salaries (Have you seen pay for network admins on craigslist lately? No wonder there are no computer school commercials anymore. Just makeup and cooking schools)
So what is the solution?
Find a profession that can not be sent overseas by the internet and that few people can do or that require a lot of training.
Anyone have any suggestions?