Bernie Sanders, Automation, and the Fate of the US

[paulthompson]

Last edited Wed Mar 30, 2016, 09:14 PM - Edit history (1)

My name is Paul Thompson. I used to post at DU a lot in the early 2000s, and Harper Collins published a book I wrote in 2004 called "The Terror Timeline." I stepped away from commenting on politics (including posting at DU) a few years after that for reasons I won't go into here, but I want to break my silence because I feel it's so very important that we elect Senator Bernie Sanders as our next president.

There are many reasons I believe Sanders is the best choice. However, I've been lurking at DU a long time now, and I haven't seen even Sanders' supporters talk much at all about what I feel is one of the very most important reasons, so I've written the essay below to explain it. It's a long, fact-based essay (sourced in the way I sourced my on-line Complete 9/11 Timeline), but I strongly encourage you to read all of it, because what it discusses is extremely important and will effect everyone's lives in a very major way. And, surprisingly, it's not an argument I've seen carefully explained in a political context anywhere else.

Bernie Sanders, Automation, and the Fate of the US

If there's one economic argument Sanders likes to make, it's that income inequality in the US is unfair and out of control. Secretary Hillary Clinton and some of her supporters have complained that he's been a one-issue candidate on that very issue. However, I would argue that, if anything, Sanders doesn't emphasize the issue enough! The reason? Income inequality is bad now, but it's likely to get much, much worse in the very near future due to the effects of automation. We need immediate, drastic action, exactly in line with the policies Sanders proposes, and the moderate policies Clinton proposes will do very little to help with the severe economic crisis to come.



This may sound like over-the-top hyperbole, but I truly believe we are coming to a fork in the road, and one path points towards utopia and the other points towards dystopia. There is a coming automation revolution that will lead to a drastic reduction in the amount of paid employment in the US and in fact the whole world. I will prove it below with what I believe is incontrovertible evidence.

If there is a drastic reduction in income inequality at the same time automation drastically changes the economy, then the benefits of new technologies will mean that the vast majority of people will be able to enjoy very high standards of living while working much less than ever before. It really could be a utopian, golden age unprecedented in human history. But if present trends continue, nearly all the benefits will go to the top one percent or less, and most everyone else will have a nightmarish, hopeless future.

Think of the 2013 sci-fi movie "Elysium" starring Matt Damon and Jodie Foster, where a small number of people live in a luxurious space station and everyone else stays on Earth in poverty, fighting for scraps. Except probably for the space station aspect, that is exactly the general direction we are heading, because all indications are that the rich will keep getting richer and everyone else will fall behind.

A study published by Oxfam last month revealed that the 62 richest billionaires own as much wealth as the poorer half of the world's population. Furthermore, the top 1% of people own more wealth than the other 99% combined. (Guardian, 1/18/2016) In the US, the bottom 80% of Americans have just seven percent of the nation's wealth, and the top one percent has 40%. (Business Insider, 6/15/2015)



Those statistics are very concerning in and of themselves. I've long considered myself a progressive, not a socialist, but one doesn't have to be a socialist to see that those numbers are way out of whack.

Furthermore, things are getting worse, fast. That same Oxfam report shows that the wealth of the world's richest 62 billionaires has risen by 44 percent in the last five years, growing by more than half a trillion dollars to $1.7 trillion. Meanwhile, the wealth of the bottom half of humanity has dropped 41 percent in the same time period, shrinking by over a trillion dollars. Since 2000, the poorest half of the world's population has received just one percent of the total increase in global wealth, while half of that increase has gone to the top one percent. (Salon, 1/21/2016)



These statistics show that the situation is changing faster than most people realize, and a lot of it is due to automation. We are standing on the edge of a cliff, where it is highly likely that tens of millions of American jobs will be lost in the next two decades and there won't be enough good jobs, or even jobs period, to replace them. Unless something drastic is done in the next few years, our economy could be plunged into another great depression. The evidence for this is overwhelming, and yet very few people are talking about it yet, not even Sanders.

I'm going to spend most of this essay trying to shock you into seeing just how serious the economic threat is, because I get the impression that while most people are aware that jobs are being lost to automation, they see it as more of a minor factor instead of a drastic game-changer.

In fact, if you're not scared shitless about how automation is changing the economy and society, chances are you don't know enough about the issue. And that's understandable, because the media hasn't covered it much, and there hasn't been any sort of national debate or discussion on it yet.

HALF OF ALL JOBS COULD BE LOST

A 2013 report by Citigroup and Carl Benedikt Frey and Michael Osborne of the University of Oxford predicts that nearly HALF of all current jobs in the US could be replaced by automation in the next twenty years. HALF! (The Atlantic, 7/2015)

Bank of America-Merrill Lynch recently published a report which agrees with the Citigroup-Oxford study that half of all US jobs could be lost to automation. (The Guardian, 11/5/2015)

Similarly, the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) predicts that by 2025 (so ten years instead of twenty years), up to a quarter of jobs will be replaced by either smart software or robots. The BCG is a multi-national management consulting firm that advises more than two-thirds of the Fortune 500. (BBC, 9/14/2015) Additionally, the BCG believes that automation will cut labor costs by 22 percent in the US by 2025, driving wages down even for those who keep their jobs. (Associated Press, 2/10/2015)

The Bank of England recently published a report warning that about half of all jobs in the US - over 80 million jobs! - plus half of all jobs in Britain could be lost in a similar time frame. Andy Haldane, the bank's chief economist, says that new technology has been widening the gap between rich and poor, hollowing out the middle class for some time now, but "technology appears to be resulting in faster, wider, and deeper degrees of hollowing-out than in the past. Why? Because twentieth-century machines have substituted not just for manual human tasks, but cognitive ones too. The set of human skills [that] machines could reproduce, at lower cost, has both widened and deepened." (The Guardian, 11/12/2015,
CNN, 11/13/2015)

The same trend is happening in other countries around the world. As just one example, the Nomura Research Institute in Japan predicted in a recent report that nearly half of all jobs in Japan could be performed by robots by 2035. (The Guardian, 2/1/2016)

Prominent politicians and business leaders haven't been talking about automation to the public, but most of them surely know what's going on. Every year, the world's political and business elite meet at the World Economic Forum, in Davos, Switzerland. Automation has been one of several official themes for the past few years, and in this year's meeting in January, the main official theme was "mastering the fourth industrial revolution," which is another name for automation and related technological advances.

This year's official report explained, "Developments in genetics, artificial intelligence, robotics, nanotechnology, 3D printing, and biotechnology, to name just a few, are all building on and amplifying one another. This will lay the foundation for a revolution more comprehensive and all-encompassing than anything we have ever seen." The report predicts millions of job losses in the next five years alone, and asks if economic trends which are "failing the middle classes" could lead towards “a world without work." (The Guardian, 1/19/2016)

Also in January, the Swiss bank UBS, considered the world's largest manager of private wealth assets, published a report that suggests new technology will generally widen the gap between rich and poor around the world: "Automation will continue to put downward pressure on the wages of the low-skilled and is starting to impinge on the employment prospects of middle-skilled workers. By contrast, the potential returns to highly-skilled and more adaptable workers are increasing." The report suggests that government intervention will be necessary to cope with the growing inequality. (The Guardian, 1/19/2016)

Many new inventions focus on reducing the amount of work needed to do things, and that naturally is seen as a good thing. But what if so many new technologies eliminate so much work that there aren't enough jobs to go around? A capitalist (or even a socialist) economy needs both buyers and sellers. As the poor and middle class grow poorer, and more jobs are taken away by automation, there may not be enough buyers of products, forcing sellers to downsize or go out of business. That in turn would result in more job losses, creating a vicious cycle, a death spiral for the economy.

This is why Andy Haldane, the Bank of England's chief economist, has suggested that if current trends continue, the world economy "would be so thoroughly hollowed-out that it may no longer be able to support itself." (The Guardian, 11/12/2015)

There are other reports that make similar predictions. Few experts dispute that many jobs will be lost to automation; it's just a matter of how many, and how fast, and how many new jobs will be created to replace the lost ones. If the general trends described above are true, than the US stands on the brink of economic disaster. That won't happen immediately, true, but we only have a few years to prepare with forward-thinking policies.

Based on this evidence alone, perhaps you already can see why I feel it is so very imperative that Sanders needs to win the presidency in 2016. Income inequality is bad enough now, and almost inexorable technological progress means that it is going to get much worse, unless the government steps in soon with an agenda precisely along the lines of what Sanders, and only Sanders, is proposing right now.

WHAT IS AUTOMATION?

I will return to some of the issues mentioned above, but first, it's important to ask just what "automation" is. There has been growing talk of robots in recent years, and they are showing up more in TV and movies. Robots are coming, and they are the most dramatic face of automation, but it is likely to be many years before we see walking, talking versions of C3P0 from "Star Wars" on the streets. We can call it "automation," "computerization," "robotization," or "artificial intelligence" (AI), but it all points to the same thing, which is that as computers of all kinds grow more powerful and capable, they will be doing more work that has been done by humans.

In fact, automation has been going on for decades now, in all sorts of ways that usually don't directly involve robots. We can see it in our daily lives. ATMs handle most bank transactions. You may rent a movie using a Redbox kiosk or stay at home and use Netflix, and that has driven video store chains like Blockbuster out of business. Automated check-in kiosks are seen in airports. Travel agencies have been wiped out because of the Internet. Financial software do most of the stock trading now, causing most large financial institutions to shrink the size of their workforce. And so on.

The 2015 Bank of America-Merrill Lynch report mentioned above says, "We are facing a paradigm shift which will change the way we live and work. The pace of disruptive technological innovation has gone from linear to parabolic in recent years. Penetration of robots and artificial intelligence has hit every industry sector, and has become an integral part of our daily lives. ... One major risk... is the potential for increasing labor polarization, particularly for low-paying jobs such as service occupations, and a hollowing-out of middle income manual labor jobs." (The Guardian, 11/5/2015)

JUST WHAT IS BEING AUTOMATED?

Predicting the future is very difficult. For decades, there has been warnings about robots and automation taking jobs that largely haven't come true. As a result, it's natural that there's a lot of skepticism about current predictions. But this time IS different. According to a recent report from worldwide management consulting firm McKinsey and Company, up to 45 percent of activities people are paid to do can be automated just by adapting technologies that already exist. (US News and World Report, 1/8/2016)

It's simply that, in the same way that it takes about ten years from the discovery of a new oil field until the infrastructure is built that allows the oil from it to be brought to market, it takes time to make the hardware and software and market the products that take advantage of the new technology.

We stand on the brink of entire industries being heavily impacted by automation, leading to the loss of tens of millions of jobs. We can essentially look into the future by examining the research and development taking place now. Let's look at some examples.

- Self-driving cars are already here. Since October 2015, some Tesla models allow highway driving without having hands on the steering wheel. (Gear Patrol, 10/23/2015) More people are employed in the transportation industry than any other, and that industry is likely to be one of the first hit hard by automation. Later this year, automated taxi pods will start running on the streets of Milton Keynes, Britain, offering rides around the town. (BBC, 9/14/2015)
Platoons of driverless trucks are also going to be tested out in Britain later this year. (The Guardian, 3/6/2016) A driverless shuttle began being tested on the roads in the Netherlands two months ago. And in April, the Netherlands will begin testing driverless semi-trucks as well. (The Guardian, 1/28/2016)

- A new bricklaying robot can create the brick framework of a house in just two days, working about 20 times faster than a human bricklayer. It has a top laying speed of 1,000 bricks per hour. (Gizmag, 6/30/2015) Think what that one invention alone will do to the construction industry, but it is just one of many.



- In 2015, the world's first "robot hotel" opened in Nagasaki, Japan. Nearly all customer interactions are with robots, and there's only a staff of ten people watching on video behind the scenes to make adjustments and deal with malfunctions. The owners plan to open hundreds more robot hotels around the world in the coming decade. (The Telegraph, 7/16/2015)

- A highly automated fast food restaurant named Eatsa opened in 2015 in San Francisco. Although some people work behind the scenes, most customers never interact with any employees. Eatsa plans to become a national chain, and become even more automated. (The San Francisco Chronicle, 9/1/2015, The New York Times, 9/9/2015)



- A vast indoor farm in Japan plans to be totally automated by mid-2017. Industrial robots will carry out all tasks except planting seeds. Owners expect it will more than double production while lowering costs. Additionally, new robots have been developed that are capable of quickly picking only ripe strawberries, and another type of new robot is picking ripe tomatoes. (The Guardian, 2/1/2016)

- The first robot-only factory is being built in China's Dongguan factory city. The factory plans to reduce the current workforce of 1,800 by 90%. Since September 2014, a total of 505 factories in Dongguan alone have invested $615 million in robots, aiming to replace more than 30,000 workers. (BBC, 9/14/2015)

- Royal Caribbean has installed a robotic bartender on one of their luxury cruise ships. Drinks are ordered on a tablet and then a robotic arm mixes, shakes, and pours the drink. (BBC, 9/14/2015)

- Two weeks ago, Boston Dynamics, a company owned by Google, publicly unveiled a video showing off its new multipurpose robot called "Atlas." Venture capitalist Jason Calacanis commented, "This is really the end of manual labor. When you watch this video, he's walking through the snow; he's wobbly, but he gets back up. Manual labor is going to end in our lifetime, and in this video you can see how close we really are. It's a huge societal issue with jobs, but it's going to be a huge lift in terms of efficiency of companies that nobody expected. ... It's picking up packages right now. These things are going to be walking down the street 10 to 15 years from now, delivering pizzas; they're going to be in your office moving packages around." (CNBC, 2/25/2016)



These are just a few examples - I could site dozens more. This is happening in industry after industry. Robots or computers can work nearly non-stop, don't need to be paid, never go on strike, don't need health care, and so on. In the most advanced manufacturing sectors, for instance Japanese carmakers, robots are already able to work unsupervised around the clock for up to 30 days without interruption. Sending manufacturing jobs to low-cost economies have been shown to save up to 65% of labor costs, but replacing humans by automation saves up to 90%. (The Guardian, 11/5/2015)

Unfortunately, jobs of all types and incomes could be affected. For instance, doctors may well suffer more job losses than hairdressers. There simply aren't many jobs that are completely "automation proof." (And if there are now, computer power and capability continues to improve year after year, with no end in sight.) The previously mentioned McKinsey and Company report found that only four percent of jobs across the US economy require creativity at a median human level of performance, and only 29% require a median human level of performance in sensing emotion. (US News and World Report, 1/8/2016)

So not only are 45 percent of jobs likely to be automated just by adapting technology that already exists, but if the technology to understand natural language are able to reach the median level of human performance, an additional 13 percent of US jobs could be automated. (McKinsey Quarterly, 11/2015)

Furthermore, probably the greatest barrier to automation taking most jobs is vision. It's hard to overestimate just how important seeing and understanding one's surroundings is to performing many tasks. But robots of all kinds are quickly gaining the ability to "see" in a functional manner. Once they can do this, they can learn to perform a new task simply by watching a human or other robot do it first. (The Conversation, 12/21/2015, Forbes, 5/26/2015)

Last month, Moshe Vardi, director of the Institute for Information Technology at Rice University in Texas, said, "We are approaching a time when machines will be able to outperform humans at almost any task. I believe that society needs to confront this question before it is upon us: If machines are capable of doing almost any work humans can do, what will humans do?" Vardi believes there will always be some need for human work, but automation could drastically change the landscape, with no profession safe. He asks, "Can the global economy adapt to greater than 50 percent unemployment?" (AFP, 2/14/2016)

MACHINES ARE GETTING BETTER, FAST

In truth, the robots of today stills have trouble with all sorts of basic tasks like walking or talking, and they're decades away from being "sentient," if that ever happens at all. (Worrying about robots taking over the world Terminator-style or peacefully becoming the superior intelligent "species" on Earth are longer term issues way beyond the scope of this essay.) But most job losses are coming through increasing computer power that doesn't have to involve actual robots or computers having human-like consciousness.

Most people are familiar with Moore's Law, which states that computing power doubles approximately every two years. However, it's hard to understand what that really means. AI author Martin Ford points out that if you had deposited a single penny at an equivalent interest rate of Moore's Law in 1949 (around the time computers first entered the marketplace), you would now have $86 million! (The Guardian, 10/1/2015)

Taking Moore's law literally, computer processor power increases by a factor of 1,000 every 15 or 20 years. Remarkably, that has been the case at least until the last few years, where there are signs it has slowed down some. But even at a slower rate, computers are improving at a rate that is hard for the human mind to comprehend. If a computer or robot can't do a given task now, it's probably just a matter of years until it will.

If anything, current estimates of what will be automated in ten or twenty years' time probably underestimate what computers and robots will be capable of doing. Andy Haldane, the previously mentioned chief economist of the Bank of England, has noted, "Machines are already undertaking tasks which were unthinkable - if not unimaginable - a decade ago." (Computer World, 11/23/2015)

An article in The Atlantic about AI authors Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee has similarly noted, "Computers are so dexterous that predicting their application ten years from now is almost impossible. Who could have guessed in 2005, two years before the iPhone was released, that smart phones would threaten hotel jobs within the decade, by helping homeowners rent out their apartments and houses to strangers on Airbnb? Or that the company behind the most popular search engine would design a self-driving car that could soon threaten driving, the most common job occupation among American men?" (The Atlantic, 7/2015)

A good example of computers vastly exceeding expectations made news just in the past few days. AlphaGo, an artificial intelligence system developed by a Google company called DeepMind, beat Lee Sedol, the world's best Go player, in three straight matches. This is bigger news than when a computer beat the world's best chess player in 1997, because Go is thousands of times more complex than chess, and the problem couldn't be solved through sheer processing power. Programmers had to devise an entirely new approach that they liken to teaching the computer how to have intuition or a hunch.



Even computer experts were astounded, since it was thought that teaching computers to play Go well enough to beat a world champion would take at least another decade. Furthermore, DeepMind won using moves that broke all conventions yet proved effective, showing that its strategies were something brand new and not just mimicry of what humans already did.(Vox, 3/10/2016, Wired, 3/11/2016)

Guy Suter, founder of the AI communications start-up Notion commented, "There's now a model we can take away from this and apply to so many different things." Google has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on DeepMind computing, which is not sentient but has the ability to teach itself new skills in a way no other computer ever has. And the DeepMind project to win at Go only began a year and a half ago. (Los Angeles Times, 3/12/2016)

WHAT ABOUT NEW JOBS REPLACING THE LOST ONES?

This is all very concerning, but for hundreds of years up until now, some new technologies have taken away some jobs, but general technological progress has created as many or more new jobs overall. Some experts believe there is no need to worry because this trend will continue indefinitely, like some kind of natural law. However, even if this turns out to be true, the loss of tens of millions of jobs in such a short time would cause an economic disruption never seen before in the history of the US, and many low-educated workers might not be able to gain the skills needed in the new high-tech world.

Furthermore, there is ample evidence that we are entering a completely new phase of human history. Computers and robots that can perform so many different tasks better and cheaper than people is simply unprecedented, and for almost any industry you can think of, it's not a matter of if machines will do it better, but when. Many new jobs may be created, but it's likely automation will perform those jobs as well!



AI author Carl Benedikt Frey has observed that technology is getting so advanced that fewer and fewer people have the necessary skills to work on the cutting edge. "In the 1980s, 8.2% of the US workforce were employed in new technologies introduced in that decade. By the 1990s, it was 4.2%. For the 2000s, our estimate is that it's just 0.5%. That tells me that, on the one hand, the potential for automation is expanding - but also that technology doesn't create that many new jobs now compared to the past." (The Guardian, 11/7/2015)

Unemployment in the US has dropped in recent years, but the pay of the new jobs are generally low. The share of US economic output that is paid out in wages has been falling since the 1980s. University of Chicago economists Loukas Karabarbounis and Brent Neiman have estimated that almost half of the decline is the result of businesses replacing workers with computers and software. For instance, in 1964, the country's most valuable company, AT&T, was worth $267 billion in today's dollars and employed 760,000 people. Today, telecommunications giant Google is worth $370 billion but has only 55,000 employees - less than a tenth the size of AT&T back then. (The Atlantic, 7/2015)

New technologies have made it easier to substitute capital in place of labor, which doesn't boost wages for the average worker. Instead, it helps to concentrate wealth in the hands of the few at the top. (CBS News, 2/10/2015)

For instance, WhatsApp was started with $250,000 in 2009. When it was bought by Facebook a mere five years later, its value was $19 billion. It had 55 employees at the time, for a value of $345 million per employee! By comparison, the retailer Gap was also valued at $19 billion at the time, and had 137,000 employees (which is a value of $124,000 per employee). (Citigroup, 2/2015)

And it's not just WhatsApp and a few other tech companies; this trend has been happening through the whole economy. The dominant US-listed non-financial companies generated earnings (before interest and tax) of $1.3 trillion in 2013, up from $600 billion made ten years earlier. These same US blue chip companies now employ 24 million workers, up from 18 million in ten years. That's a much bigger increase in earnings (+119%) than the number of employees (+31%). As a result, the profit productivity of the US stock market has risen sharply. Earnings per employee is up from $32,000 in 2004 to $53,000 in 2013. (Citigroup, 2/2015)

When companies had large numbers of workers, the profits were divided into lots of small pieces. But when companies have only a relatively small number of workers, there's nowhere for the profits to go but up - to the owners, upper management, and shareholders. One result of this is that chief executive salaries have skyrocketed. Incredibly, CEOs at top US firms have seen their salaries increase by more than half (54%) since 2009, while ordinary wages have barely moved. (Salon, 1/21/2016)

I don't think anybody can make the argument that CEOs have gotten 50% better or more productive in the last five years. It's just that they take more money because nobody is stopping them from doing so.

These trends worry AI author Calum Chace, who commented, "There will be people who own the AI, and therefore own everything else. Which means homo sapiens will be split into a handful of 'gods', and then the rest of us." (The Guardian, 11/7/2015) (Again, think of the "Elysium" movie.)

The people who think that new jobs will inevitably come in the nick of time to replace the lost jobs are either ignorant of the trend lines or are deluding themselves. As The Atlantic reported last year, "Nine out of ten workers today are in occupations that existed 100 years ago, and just 5 percent of the jobs generated between 1993 and 2013 came from 'high tech' sectors like computing, software, and telecommunications. Our newest industries tend to be the most labor-efficient: they just don't require many people." (The Atlantic, 7/2015)

It's telling that, as AI author Carl Benedikt Frey points out, "The fastest-growing occupations in the past five years are all related to services. The two biggest are Zumba instructor and personal trainer." (The Guardian, 11/7/2015) Note that both of those jobs involve performing personal services to the more wealthy. As automation continues to take away customer service jobs, for instance replacing coffee shop baristas with an advanced kiosk, or more self-serve check-out counters, there no doubt will still be a premium market for real human customer service catering to the rich. But that's not nearly enough employment to sustain an economy.



SANDERS VS. CLINTON ON AUTOMATION

In doing research for this essay, I searched the Internet to find what Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have said about automation. I was surprised to find almost no public comments for either of them, and their official campaign websites don't mention it at all.

I did find one occasion in May 2015 where Sanders was asked about it by a concerned citizen in an on-line question and answer session. He was asked, "What do you think will have to be done regarding massive unemployment due to automation permanently killing jobs with no fault on the people losing these jobs?"

This is the answer Sanders gave: "Very important question. There is no question but that automation and robotics reduce the number of workers needed to produce products. On the other hand, there is a massive amount of work that needs to be done in this country. Our infrastructure is crumbling and we can create millions of decent-paying jobs rebuilding our roads, bridges, rail system, airports, levees, dams, etc... Further, we have enormous shortages in terms of highly-qualified pre-school educators and teachers. We need more doctors, nurses, dentists, and medical personnel if we are going to provide high-quality care to all of our people. But, in direct response to the question, increased productivity should not punish the average worker, which is why we have to move toward universal health care, making higher education available to all, a social safety net which is strong, and a tax system which is progressive." (Vox, 5/20/2015)

Unfortunately, I couldn't find any instances when Clinton was even asked a question about automation. However, perhaps we can glean something from the opinions of Alec Ross. He is a technology policy expert who was Senior Advisor for Innovation to Clinton for the duration of her term as Secretary of State, a new position she specially created for him. He has just written a book called "The Industries of the Future," which looks at six of the biggest waves of change about to hit the world, including robotics. However, he says that "I'm not cyber-utopian or cyber-skeptic. I'm an idealistic realist." He disagrees that artificial intelligence will hollow out the middle class or devastate the economy. (The Guardian, 2/5/2016)

In my opinion, Ross's moderate, careful stance on this issue is a good match for Clinton's beliefs. After all, in September 2015, she said, "You know, I get accused of being kind of moderate and center. I plead guilty." (CNN, 9/10/2015)

I'm not sure if Sanders is fully aware or concerned yet about the grave dangers automation poses to the economy. He certainly hasn't publicly emphasized it, and in his one direct answer on the subject, he pivoted to mostly talking about his usual economic program.

However, he doesn't particularly need to be focused on the subject right now, because his economic platform is EXACTLY what's needed to combat the problem of job loss from automation. There's no realistic way to stop technological progress, because if it doesn't happen in the US it will happen in other countries. But universal health care, a strong social safety net, more progressive taxation, and so on would at least prevent millions of newly unemployed from starving in the streets. The key is combating income inequality, which is his number one priority issue anyway.



MARSHALL BRAIN'S TWO POSSIBLE FUTURES

I first became aware of how serious the automation problem is through the website of Marshall Brain (marshallbrain.com), a professor and author who has become a multimillionaire through his "How Stuff Works" books and other products. Way back in 2002, he began sounding the alarm in the mainstream media about this issue. (For instance, check out this 2003 Salon article that was many years ahead of its time: Salon, 9/18/2003)

At that time, he wrote a fascinating, thought-provoking novella called "Manna," which is still available for free on his website, along with other insightful essays about robotics and automation. In it, he predicted massive job losses due to automation, and then two very different futures as a result.

In one dystopian future, present trends continue and the rich get richer while everyone else gets poorer. Nearly all the benefit of new technologies go only to the rich, and most other people are maintained at the most frugal level of existence by government welfare, if the rich are generous and moral enough to even allow that much. The masses would lose all political powers and freedoms, and would be boxed into de facto prisons by robot guards and high-tech surveillance.

But Brain also imagined an alternative, utopian future where there is a massive redistribution of income to cope with the fact that there simply aren't enough jobs for people anymore. A universal basic income (UBI) would replace all previous welfare programs like food stamps and unemployment insurance, giving everyone enough money to live decently. Those who do work would still get the UBI (which means there's not an inventive against working).

As a result, the benefits of the new technologies would spread to everyone. Robots and other automation devices could become standard in the typical family home, eliminating nearly all forms of house work, gardening, and other "drudge" work. 3D printer-like devices could work similar to the replicators of Star Trek, essentially making everyone well off. People could live far better than ever before, with a great amount of free time to pursue creative and fulfilling things that they want to do, instead of what they have to do to pay the bills. It really could be something amazing!

I think Brain was spot on with his prediction of these two dramatically different futures. In recent years, more and more people are thinking in the same way, especially about the universal basic income (UBI) as the only logical solution to having many more people than good paying jobs. There have been many books written on automation and robots by AI experts in recent years, some of them more optimistic, some more pessimistic. (If you want to know a lot more, last year's "Rise of the Robots: Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future" by Martin Ford is a particularly good one.) But ALL the books I've seen have proposed a UBI or something similar to it.

THE PATH TO A UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME

The UBI is a redistribution of income that goes far beyond anything even the democratic socialist Sanders has proposed so far. Surprisingly, Sanders actually was asked about the UBI concept last year. Journalist Ezra Klein prompted him in an interview, "Let me [ask you] a question about a policy that is getting, seems to be, some momentum but it’s not often talked about in Washington, which is a universal basic income. You’ve begun to have people go back to both Milton Friedman and Martin Luther King Jr., saying we should really have a fundamentally guaranteed standard of living in this country."

Sanders responded, "I am absolutely sympathetic to that approach. That’s why I’m fighting for a $15 minimum wage, why I’m fighting to make sure that everybody in this country gets the nutrition they need, why I’m fighting to expand Social Security benefits and not cut them, making sure that every kid in this country regardless of income can go to college. That’s what a civilized nation does. ... In the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, the top one-tenth of one percent should not own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%. Everybody in this country should in fact have at least a minimum and dignified standard of living." (Vox, 7/28/2015)

Probably, the time for a UBI to be implemented across the US has not come yet. Most Americans aren't even aware yet of what it is or why it would be a good idea. Right now, welfare is seen only as a last resort for economic "losers," and the UBI goes against the stereotypical American individualist, entrepreneurial spirit. Republicans in particular will be outraged by the very idea, and will fight it tooth and nail.

But I believe that once many millions of talented, capable people begin losing their jobs due to automation and are unable to find new ones, the public opinion will shift dramatically. Job losses will hit rich and poor and everyone in between, making most people feel vulnerable and wanting some protection from the risk of total destitution. We have seen with some issues like gay marriage and marijuana legalization that mainstream opinion can shift dramatically in a few years.

Until the idea reaches a critical mass of approval, Sanders' economic program is essential to prevent the rich and powerful from getting so much more rich and powerful that the democratic system is completely corrupted and there is no chance to implement the massive wealth redistribution needed for the new "world without work," unless maybe through a terrible, violent revolution.

And if Sanders is president when automation throws many millions out of work, there is no one better than him to deal with this crisis. It makes perfect sense that he would say he is "absolutely sympathetic" to the UBI concept, because it is a logical extension of his democratic socialist beliefs.

Luckily, some other more progressive countries are already beginning to experiment with a UBI and related ideas, like a shorter work week. For instance:

- The Swedish government has begun testing a six-hour work day in limited locations. Some private companies have voluntarily switched to a six-hour day, and are happy with the results, citing greater worker happiness, productivity, and retention. (The Guardian, 9/17/2015)

- The Finnish government is experimenting with a basic income in limited areas, due to start next year. (Basicincome.org, 12/9/2015)

- In the Netherlands, this year will see a UBI paid to residents of Utrecht and 19 other municipalities. Everyone will get about $215 a week, whether they're working or not. (The Guardian, 1/7/2016)

- In Switzerland, there is a growing movement to pass a referendum establishing a UBI for the entire country. A 2015 poll showed that 49% were in favor and 43% were against. However, all political parties are against the idea, even the Green and Socialist parties, and in late 2015 the lower house of parliament voted against it by overwhelming numbers. But supporters collected enough signatures for a national referendum on the issue anyway, which will be voted on in late 2016. (Basicincome.org, 10/3/2015)

- Just a couple of weeks ago, the province of Ontario, Canada, passed a budget that includes money for a UBI pilot project. The text of the budget states: "The pilot project will test a growing view at home and abroad that a basic income could build on the success of minimum wage policies and increases in child benefits by providing more consistent and predictable support in the context of today’s dynamic labor market. ... The government will work with communities, researchers, and other stakeholders in 2016 to determine how best to design and implement [it]." (Basicincome.org, 2/28/2016)

TOGETHER, WE CAN MAKE OUR OWN BETTER FUTURE

Right now, the future is looking very distressing. Ironically, the combined effect of many incredible technological breakthroughs could actually destroy the economy by putting tens of millions of people out of work. Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak commented last year, "Like people including Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk have predicted, I agree that the future is scary and very bad for people. If we build these devices to take care of everything for us, eventually they'll think faster than us and they'll get rid of the slow humans to run companies more efficiently." (Financial Review, 3/23/2015)

However, it doesn't have to be that way! As Marshall Brain and otheres have suggested, there actually are two possible futures, a dystopian one where current policies continue until the rich and powerful get almost everything and everyone else is left in starvation and misery, OR a utopian one where massive wealth redistribution in the form of a UPI or something similar would allow everyone to benefit from technological progress.

Until recently, I felt very pessimistic about the future. It seemed that the necessary drastic progressive change in the US was simply politically impossible, and we would be lucky not to elect a Republican in 2016 who would give big tax cuts to the rich and make income inequality and other problems even worse. Then Sanders came out of nowhere to seriously challenge Clinton for the presidential nomination. Already, thanks to him (and the Occupy movement), the issue of income inequality has gone from being a taboo "class warfare" topic to something that everyone is talking about.



If Clinton were to win the presidency, that at least would be much better than a Republican like Donald Trump. (Trump sometimes talks like a populist about trade deals and such, but his regressive tax plan would give even more money to the very wealthy than most other Republican tax plans.) But I don't believe Clinton's moderate, centrist policies and inclinations are what's needed for the automation job crisis that will really start to hit the economy hard in the next few years.

Sanders' policies are exactly what I would propose if I were in his shoes right now. The US is not ready for a UPI yet, and it probably won't be until a severe crisis starts to hit home. But having Sanders as president would be a dramatic shift in the right direction, a real political revolution that seemed impossible just a year ago.

It's true that he might not be able to actually pass much legislation to implement his agenda, especially with at least one house of Congress likely to stay in Republican hands after the election. But if he were president, he at least would be able to prevent things from getting much worse.

Clinton has many positive qualities and good progressive policies, but unfortunately I don't believe she would put much of a break on income inequality getting worse. She and her husband Bill are among the elite of the elite, worth over $150 million combined, and they've never shown any inclination to dramatically change the status quo. It is out of the scope of this essay to go into detail on the issue, but Hillary generally has been in favor of trade agreements like NAFTA and the TPP that shift even more money and power to the wealthy and to big corporations. In the next four years, other even worse trade agreements are on the horizon, such as TIPP and TISA.

Currently, President Obama, other mainstream Democrats, and the Republicans are quietly planning on passing a tax break to big corporations worth hundreds of billions of dollars (in return for sending some of their overseas profits back the US to be taxed, which they're required to do already). It's generally agreed that a deal is going to happen soon; it's just a matter of how much of a break the corporations will get. Not surprisingly, the Republicans want to give them even more of a break than the Democrats do, but it would be a huge giveaway either way. Virtually the only prominent politicians to come out against the very idea of the tax break are Sanders and Senator Elizabeth Warren. So far, it appears Clinton hasn't publicly taken a position, or even been asked about it. (The Nation, 3/4/2016)

The rich and powerful have co-opted our democracy to the point that such outrageous bills can pass with wide bipartisan support and almost no media mention (since some of the corporations that stand to benefit greatly own the major media outlets). We're likely to see more such generous deals proposed for big corporations and the rich, including more bad trade bills, in the years to come. With Clinton as president, we will continue to see inequality increase, because she is a moderate, and drastic action is needed to combat drastic problems. Even if Sanders were unable to pass a single bill, his mere position as president would prevent the top 1% from using the government to increase their wealth and power even more, and he would use his position and authority as a bully pulpit to continue to shift public opinion on income inequality.



For the first time in a long time, I'm hopeful about our nation's future, thanks to Sanders and his growing movement. It's crazy if 99% of Americans let an ideological animosity to socialist ideas prevent us from moving to the only rational way to deal with an economy where having a job will be a kind of luxury instead of a necessity, and willingly give almost all economic gains to just the top one percent. Luckily, it seems that tens of millions of people are alreadly fed up with our current political elite and want to see drastic income redistribution so they can live better lives.

I have not considered myself a socialist (at least until very recently!), but socialist policies like the UBI are the only way to combat the trends that are making the rich richer and everyone else poorer, especially due to the unstoppable technological advances. Any rational person should adjust their beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence.

I truly feel that the election of Bernie Sanders as president is our best and maybe only chance of redirecting our country away from a dystopian future and towards a utopian one. This is no ordinary election. The fate of this country, and maybe even the world, hangs in the balance.

Perhaps someone else with polices like Sanders' might come along four or eight years from now and run for president. But by that time, income inequality may be so extreme and political power so concentrated that it'll be too late to change course, or at least the economic and social costs will be much greater, with many millions already out of work. In years to come, as the economic trends become more obvious, it's likely that some countries will move towards a UPI and other policies allowing the benefits of automation and other new technologies to be shared with everyone. But it's also likely that some other countries, especially those that already are oligarchies and dictatorships, will not.

Which way will the US go?! Which future do YOU want to live in? Are you willing to fight to elect leaders like Bernie Sanders to help us get there?

There are many other important issues in this year's presidential election, such as racism, climate change, health care, the Supreme Court, and so on, and Sanders and Clinton have similar policies on many of them. But when it comes to combating income inequality, there are clear ideological and policy differences between the democratic socialist Sanders and the moderate Clinton.

If Sanders isn't elected to do all he can to reduce income inequality, then thanks to automation, in a few years the US could enter a great jobless depression that has no end in sight, ruining progressive progress in all other areas. Sanders correctly and repeatedly links many other issues back to income inequality because it has gotten so far out of hand, making it the one obvious underlying problem connected to those other issues.

Let me end this essay with the conclusion from the Oxfam study on inequality published in January, which I heartily agree with:

"Our world is not short of wealth. It simply makes no economic sense - or indeed moral sense - to have so much in the hands of so few. Oxfam believes humanity can do better than this, that we have the talent, the technology, and the imagination to build a much better world. We have the chance to build a more humane economy, where the interests of the majority are put first. A world where there is decent work for all, where women and men are equal, where tax havens are something people read about in history books, and where the richest pay their fair share to support a society that benefits everyone." (Salon, 1/21/2016)

[Peace Patriot]

1. HOLY TOLEDO! If ever I would agree to a literacy test for voters, it would be this...

...amazing essay by Paul Thompson.

WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT'S COMING. Automation is coming for your job and virtually all jobs RIGHT NOW. It is going to happen in the next couple of years. All the incremental automations we're seen at bank ATMs and supermarkets and robot cars are going to escalate dramatically in an unstoppable way, and the only question that remains is: Are the uber rich going to suck up all the profit unto themselves and leaves millions and millions of people out of work and on the street, homeless and starving, OR, are we going to create a socialist bottom-line income for all, as they are experimenting with in Europe and Canada, to tide everybody over as this very different economy is created?

AND who, of Sanders vs Clinton, is best suited to help us face this imminent economic crisis of epic proportions?

Thompson says Sanders, and he explains why in this essay. Basically, incremental change won't be worth shit. Big change, as to income inequality and who owns all the wealth, is essential to prevent chaos and a dystopia from which most of the human race may never recover.

It's a long read but every paragraph is important. It's scary, but, like climate change, we gotta face it or else...

And, by God, we need Bernie Sanders' "Yes We Can" to bend the forces of technology toward a decent life for all.

Thank you, Paul Thompson!

[paulthompson]

6. Thanks

That was exactly the kind of reaction I was hoping to get. I believe this is an incredibly important issue. It is scary, but it also offers a lot of hope if we can make a change.

[randome]

17. Anyone can guess what the future's going to look like a decade or two from now.

Automation thus far has put a lot of manufacturing people out of work but it has also opened up immense opportunities in the IT industry. It has always been a give-and-take change and it always will be.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

[paulthompson]

20. Did you actually read the essay?

The essay gives a lot of evidence refuting your point. Where is your evidence supporting your point?

In terms of the actual number of new hires, there are no "immense opportunities." Pleease look at the evidence instead of just repeating vague "common wisdom."

[randome]

36. You don't think the IT industry has exploded in the past 2 decades?

And referencing science fiction movies does not aid your point. Reality is that if you are in the IT industry, have a decent resume and are mobile, you don't have a problem finding jobs. I'm 57 and have no college degree and I'm making the most money in my life right now. Of course that's anecdotal but I see those around me doing fine in this industry, also.

When jobs are lost, many of those people are going to find innovative ways to survive. Some of them by creating new business opportunities.

The owners of corporations are not going to put themselves out of a job. There is always a need for consumers and I don't see how that will ever change.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Baobab]

66. Not as many as you might thing, especially compared to the number lost

Also, those jobs will be globalized so they will likely be awarded to firms flying flags of convenience in low wage countries. L-1 visa holding workers that work for them in high wage countries will likely live in dorms and be paid a quarter of what people in the developed countries make now or less. Why do you think they are trying to raise the minimum wages? Certainly not for fast food workers. Their jobs will be automated. Americans wont even attempt to go into those fields because there wont be any money in it.

Prostitution and "real estate development" (land grabbing from the poor and powerless) , gangsterism (killing the poor and powerless) and politics will be the fields of choice for many.

[Baobab]

74. Services liberalisation with its cross border data flows will lead to job losses in deveoped countri

Also, via so called Mode Four.


via "Mode Four" international subcontracting. Companies will be able to maximize the value in the supply chains.

Today, IT workers in some countries make four or five times what IT workers in developing countries make- Not for much longer, Hillary has for all of her life wanted to change that. She is going to change that.

[Baobab]

71. We do have good ideas what is coming because much of it is already here. We just dont know it.

Basically, the model of pople needing to spend big chunks of their lives doing unpleasant things they dont want to do for "money" is becoming less and less viable. Big chunks of what we have grown accustmed to is wrong. For example, our society tries to beat creativity out of people so they will be socialized to endless toil in the factories - thats simply no longer a good thing to do. Instead, we need to create a society that allows that intrinsic creativity all children have, to remain. And encourages it.

Also, we need to make the basics free, because soon nobody will be able to afford them if we don't. Really, what we are facing is potentially a very good thing, its just demands a shift in how we think. many people are varying degrees of there already, although less so in some parts of the country than others.

[rhett o rick]

2. Thanks for this. I have only read part but plan to continue. I do have a question

and forgive me if it's explained in your post, but when we all become paupers, where will the capitalists sell their products? And where will they continue their looting, from each other? I guess what I would like to know is what is foreseen as the final throes of capitalism.

[paulthompson]

8. UBI

If you keep reading, near the end there's talk about something called "universal basic income," which would allow buying and selling to keep going.

[Baobab]

73. Buying and selling what? Not labor because it wouldnt be needed people only have so many possessions

In the famine in the late 1990s in North Korea people would try to get the younger members of their families food and older people starved themselves so the young could live.

it later turned out that Kim Jong Il had had enough money to buy food but he had seen a really good deal on jets that he just didn't want to pass up.

that isn't in the following linked work, but a bunch of interesting things are- read the linked book to see how truly evil people and evil ideology can turn into disasters- basically in North Korea they have let official secrecy get way out of control- to the point where in the 1990s- approximately 3 million politically undesirable people were intentionally starved to death.

[Baobab]

72. Well, they may decide that the poor people have no right to live.

Thats kind of what the trade deal "amoral system" makes possible.

[rhett o rick]

76. It's not that they want us to die, but we have resources that they think they are entitled to and

if we happen to die as a result, it's not personal, it's just business." I think that Clinton may have said something like, "If fracking for profits happens to poison the drinking water for the peons, it's not personal, it's just business."

[Baobab]

85. It depends on how much money people spend.

People who don't spend are seen as occupying space that would be better occupied by somebody who did. just make sure you keep making and spending money.

They expect resources like clean water to become much more precious in the future. After they finish polluting it.

[rhett o rick]

87. They've borrowed on our infrastructure, taking wealth from our retirement plans, taken our

homes, force us to go into debt to them for college educations, they've borrowed on SS to pay for wars, etc.

[Baobab]

88. And you're expected to pay more and not complain.

so shush.

[immoderate]

3. Thanks for this.

I have made a few posts about the coming of automation. It usually does not get much attention. People need to be aware. Most folks just say "well, train for a new job." They don't realize that eventually there will not be enough work to go around.

--imm

[Baobab]

86. Long before that jobs in developed countries will be liberalised

Under the economic circumstances some of our leaders think workers should make around what the global average in their fields for people with their level of education.

Bill Clinin's WTO wants "Objective and verifiable criteria" remember?

Read "LABOR MOBILITY" by Sherry Stephenson and Gary Hufbauer


"Hamilton and Whalley (1984) use a partial equilibrium (PE) model and 1977 data to estimate the benefits from the complete
elimination of all immigration restrictions, for skilled and unskilled labor alike. The potential gains are enormous, ranging from 60
to almost 205 percent of world gross domestic product (GDP). Millions of workers would move from low-productivity to high-
productivity jobs in countries with high salaries, until wages in labor-sending and labor-receiving countries equalized. Iregui (1999)
revisits the question using a computable general equilibrium (CGE) model and more precise measures of elasticities and population
characteristics. Here again, the gains are large, ranging from 15 to 67 percent of world GDP. Moses and Letnes (2004), using more
precise values for productivities, confirm large gains, ranging from 4.3 to about 112 percent of world GDP in 1977. According to
these authors, the ‘’most reasonable’’ gain would be 7.5 percent of world GDP.

The large differences between these estimates, both within and between studies, can be explained by the differences in
modeling frameworks (partial versus general equilibrium) and assumed parameters. Some estimates assume that migrants can
achieve the average productivity of workers in the destination country; others assume that additional education and training will be
needed"

[Autumn Colors]

4. I'm already a victim of this

Ask any medical transcriptionist ("MT&quot in the USA how (s)he feels about automation and you'll get an earful. The internet enabled a lot of us to work from home, which was great for a time, but then our jobs started to get outsourced to India.

Now, our entire profession is being replaced by electronic medical record systems and much more accurate voice recognition software. Part of the ACA included government grant money to hospitals and medical practices to help them install these systems by the deadline date ... and then our work started disappearing faster and faster.

There's a job website for MT's I frequent that will actually show the number of people who have applied for each job through the site. You'll see THOUSANDS of people applying for every job, and you'll see fewer and fewer job listings.

I had a business with 3 transcriptionists working for me. Now, there isn't even enough work for me to do on my own. Initially, I couldn't afford health insurance anymore, but now I qualify for Medicaid. I had a house with a traditional, 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage that had been well within my budget ... suddenly, it was no longer in my budget, and I lost it to foreclosure. I'm now about 90% financially dependent on my boyfriend. The little work that remains pays for the phone and internet (business expenses) and my own car expenses. That's it. I'm thankful to have a roof over my head, food on the table, and not having to make the choice to surrender our cats to a shelter.

I'm a female, in my mid-50s whose main job asset had always been being able to type fast. I was an Administrative Assistant for years before becoming an MT, but now most of those jobs require a Bachelor's Degree (which I don't have). College isn't free at the present time, but even if I could pay for school, what should I study? What won't be replaced by automation?

There's so much truth in this essay. I hope people pay attention, wake up, and take action to set us on the correct path before the 1% makes the decision for us.

Needless to say, my boyfriend and I will be voting for Bernie in the Connecticut Primary next month.

[Baobab]

67. Single payer health care may result in renewed hiring but ONLY single payer would

Accept no substitutes because fake single payer is actually completely unworkable and actually costs more money than what we are doing now!


Real single payer has to be free because of WTO GATS Article I:3 (b) and (c) and it has to be the only payer meaning insurance doesnt exist. Everybody, rich and poor has to be in the same system, no iers. Because the poor will be so powerless and the rich so powerful that the requirement that the rich use it is very important to keep the system working. Otherwise the system of last resort for the poor only after all their money has been taken away, because of competition theory. (crowd out to be specific)

People with chronic illnesses who don't have money basically have to choose between dropping out of the workforce or working and not getting medical care at all.


So dont get sick. Also deregulation of everything will leave people wide open to all sorts of toxic chemicals - so people will live short lives and get cancer in their 40s or 50s and die unless they cab afford wildly expensive drugs (even generic drugs now are skyrocketing in price )

Thats the future under all the candidates beside Sanders and Jill Stein. Its worse far worse than people here think with them.

[Baobab]

89. Something ike that I would expect to change

people have to understand technology gets commoditized very quickly now, also all work that can be sent overseas will be, or done remotely. They even have people on the other side driving tractors now (or use RTK-GPS to steer them to a 2 cm accuracy, better than any person could do it)

In 20-30 years at the most we will start seeing the first self aware machines.

[Ichingcarpenter]

5. Great Read may I suggest

You put this in good reads in a three part
series too. For easier contemplation?

I read the whole thing here but most don't .

We are coming into a new revolutionary age that is as big as the dark ages if we let it or a new Renaissance for all of mankind.

where we can
decide together how it can be
and not let just the oligarchs and the 1% decide how it should be.

[paulthompson]

15. I could, but...

I could split it, but how would that help? Wouldn't it be the exact same thing?

[flying rabbit]

80. At least put it in good reads, so it will stick around.

Plus many people avoid this forum like the plague.

[Luminous Animal]

7. Very good read! Thanks for un-lurking.

[ljm2002]

9. Thank you for this essay...

...and btw it's good to see you back at DU even if you are not planning to be a regular poster again.

This is such an important issue, and yes, the choice will be either a dystopian or a utopian future. I say this not in a partisan way either -- after all, as you point out, Bernie hasn't really focused on this issue either. But all of the points you bring up are valid, and there is no doubt that automation will have a huge effect on the world's economy going forward.

Big K&R for the huge amount of information contained in this post.

[paulthompson]

10. You're welcome

Last edited Sat Mar 19, 2016, 12:49 AM - Edit history (1)

Unfortunately, my timing was horrible. I posted this the morning of Sanders' big Tuesday defeat. But I'm giving it a kick because facts are facts regardless of election results.

[ljm2002]

11. Yes the timing was unfortunate...

...but I'll second that kick, as this is an extremely important topic that's not going away anytime soon!

[amborin]

12. have you read about the ILWU's battle against containerization at the ports?

http://www.ilwu.org/history/the-ilwu-story/

[Recursion]

13. The past two decades have seen the largest reduction in global inequality in human history

Why do you think that trend is going to reverse itself, and when will that reversal begin?

[paulthompson]

14. That's not true

Here's a quote from the London Times a few years ago to directly rebut that:

"James Davies, Professor of Economics at the University of Western Ontario, and one of the authors of the report, said: 'Income inequality has been rising for the past 20 to 25 years and we think that is true for inequality in the distribution of wealth.'" (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article661055.ece" target="_blank">London Times)

That said, if you look at things on a per country level (which is what you're probably doing), inequality is going down, because thirty years ago the difference between rich First World countries and poor Third World countries was sharp. Since then, thanks to NAFTA, GATT, outsourcing, technological changes, etc, wages for the average person have been rising in Third World countries like China and India and stagnating in First World countries, closing the gap some. But if you look at people overall, the rich are getting richer and taking a bigger portion of the world's wealth every year.

Basically, with fewer barriers to trade, companies hire where wage are lowest, eventually pulling up wages there but increasing pressure to keep wages down everywhere else. So while there has been a general leveling of average wages, at the same time those are the top are taking a bigger and bigger percentage of the profits, leading to more global inequality overall. The rich are richer and have more of the world's wealth than they did 20 or 30 years ago, and that trend is almost certain to continue and even accelerate.

[Scuba]

49. Thanks. That smackdown has been a long time coming.

[Baobab]

75. what smackdown?

of the middle class?

I think there is a resentment of the middle class in some circles expecially high skilled technical workers.

They are resented because they are needed.

[Kang Colby]

16. And Bernie's plan to stop this is to....

raise payroll taxes so the human work force becomes even more expensive.

[ohnoyoudidnt]

21. That looks like a meme a Trump supporter would post. nt

[Kang Colby]

22. I thought the meme was funny...but my comment was spot on.

I notice you didn't address that.

[ohnoyoudidnt]

24. Because it is irrelevant.

His plan to raise payroll tax .2% to fund family and medical leave and has nothing to do with mitigating the effects of automation as you suggest. And not increasing costs to better the lives of the working class because it will cause automation to take over jobs is a right wing argument. Automation is coming and the solution is not to keep workers barely scrapping by with little to no benefits.

[Kang Colby]

25. He actually proposed a 6.2% increase for employer payroll taxes....#berniemath on display. N/t

[ohnoyoudidnt]

26. The 6.2% is for a health care for all plan.

Not increasing taxes for social programs that benefit everyone in hopes that it would prevent automation from taking over jobs isn't going to work. Automation is comimg for milions of jobs sooner or later. It may slightly decrease how fast it happens, but it is not the solution.

[Kang Colby]

28. A decrease is better than nothing...it gives time for workers to be re-trained.

Bernie just doesn't get basic economics and his policies reflect his ignorance on the subject. HRC understands the economy.

[Kang Colby]

30. Not taxing 401k contributions is a good start. n/t

[Scuba]

50. So "Bernie doesn't understand basic economics"? 170 economists say you're wrong ...

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/trackers/2016-01-14/sanders-says-170-experts-support-his-wall-street-plan

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders releases letter signed by 170 economists and financial experts backing his Wall Street regulation plan.

Campaign says they include former Labor Sec. Robert Reich; University of Texas’ James K. Galbraith; Dean Baker of Center for Economic and Policy Research; former Rep. Brad Miller of N.C.; William K. Black of University of Missouri- Kansas City

Let's see, who to believe, Kang Colby or actual economists. Hmmmm, such a tough choice.

[Kang Colby]

60. Shame on you, that's very dishonest.

Here is the actual letter from the economists. The ONLY Bernie policy they acknowledge support for is passage of a 21st century Glass-Steagal. I also agree with that.

https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Wall-St-Letter-1.pdf

Your post makes it sound like the economists endorse Bernie's entire range of "free stuff for life" policies that belong only in a Disney movie. No one with any shred of academic credibility in economics has endorsed the broad range of Bernie's delusional policies.

#berniemath

[Scuba]

61. When you call Medicare and Social Security "free stuff for life" you're exposing yourself.

[Kang Colby]

62. We aren't talking about Medicare or Social Security are we? Both great programs that need protection

Straw men are made of straw. LOL

[Baobab]

83. Trade deals block all of Bernie's plans

Especially job creation.

Those jobs are already promised to less developed countries. (well whoever wins - the lowest bidder) Low wages.

'Race to the bpttom' is more profitable.

Sorry Americans.

Keep paying your taxes, now. Even though they wont create jobs.


They are 22 years ahead of you.

[Baobab]

68. But she doesnt understand this, nobody does unless they have worked with it

Basically, most jobs are going way for good. You can't "retrain" people for this. There wont be jobs. No matter how cheap they are willing to work for their services wont be needed.

Its a whole new world we're plunging into, very quickly.

http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-law-of-accelerating-returns

[Baobab]

69. Payroll tax wont work when people have no income.

By 2045 we'll be flirting with 75% unemployment or more.

Thats my estimate for the date when we will have the first self aware AI's Machines that are thinking beings and "alive" like us. This will be a watershed event in the history of the human race and it makes everything else pale in comparison.

If you think about it you'll realize that the whole economic system is based on work and a world without work basically demands a re-engineering of how we do things.

[TBF]

46. Perhaps it would be funny to a 12-yr old

but it is inane to adults who actually listen to Bernie Sanders speak about income inequality on a daily basis. Perhaps you should join them.

[Baobab]

84. Maybe he is talking about this?

WTO ruled we cannot create our own energy infrastructure if it discriminates against foreign firms.

[Loudestlib]

79. Freepers is leaking. n/t

[hellofromreddit]

37. Why do you feel that your response was appropriate?

The post you replied to with your meme had multiple quotes from Sanders on the very subject of economics.

[paulthompson]

40. Kang Colby does have a point

Sanders, Clinton, and others are proposing raising the minimum wage by various amounts. I think that's a good idea in the short term. If people have a full time job, they should be paid a living wage. But at the same time, the more the costs of labor goes up, the more businesses will have incentive to automate more jobs.

There's no easy solution for that. But I also think it's kind of a moot point. If a job can be profitably done by a computer or robot instead of paying a worker at $15 an hour, then it's just a matter of time (and probably not very long!) before that job will be profitably done by a computer or robot instead of paying a worker at $7 an hour too. Automation is going to get cheaper and cheaper at a startling rate. Trying to lower human wages to compete is a losing battle. Besides, it's not practical to lower wage below what the minimum wage already is now, because people can't survive on such little money. That's why an entirely different approach is needed, such as the UBI (universal basic income).

[Baobab]

70. UBI is a system designed for current levels of unemployment

But jobs re literally vanishing for good so current levels of unemployment re likely to be replaced by levels of employment that are more typical of pre-industrial society soon.

For example, how is it determined what to pay people when more and more have never worked the way we considered to be work in the past (which is really just the 20th century) Lets not forget that more and more people likely never wil work the way people still do today without a level of skill which takes maybe two decades of their lives to attain.

If we stay on the path we are on now its not too much of an exaggeration to posit that perhaps we're stupidly creating a world where there is a very real risk that someday one person will own everything and everybody else will own nothing.

That kind of injustice I think will be flirting with species extinction, if not by our own hand, I think our robots would eventually get smart enough to intervene and remove us from power lest we destroy ourselves and our planet. If we're lucky they would not kill us. This isnt me speaking, this is a consensus among scientists.

This is what Bernie Sander's speech at the Vatican was about, BTW.

[BernieforPres2016]

58. Don't mention that employers would save by not providing healthcare to employees

Hillary shill.

[paulthompson]

59. That's a good point

If automation is going to lead to millions of lost jobs, then it's even more important to move to universal health care. People won't be able to count on having health care through their employer anymore, and there's absolutely no telling which jobs could be lost through automation. It's already hitting all industries and all skills levels. In fact, high skilled, highly paid employed people are particular targets, because companies can save a lot more money replacing them.

[ohnoyoudidnt]

18. K&R

Well done.

[hill2016]

19. I did try to discuss this but from another angle

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511060292

but my thesis is that it's coming and nothing can stop the resulting hollowing out of the middle class.

[paulthompson]

32. Kudos

You did point out a lot of the same stuff. However, I strongly disagree that nothing can be done. For instance, some countries are seeing income inequality increasing at a much slower rate than others, like France and some other countries in Europe. People have looked at this and found the key difference is what the government does or doesn't do, esp. how progressive the tax rate is.

And that's what Sanders keeps emphasizing. It's really weird to have such a defeatist attitude. "Vote Clinton: we're screwed anyway."

[hill2016]

33. yes

but by definition you CANNOT have a middle class with UBI.

Hence there's going to be a very wide pyramid of income distribution.

[paulthompson]

35. Why not?

Not ALL the jobs are going to go away, at least not for the next few decades. Maybe half in a couple of decades, as a rough estimate. That still leaves a lot of people with jobs. Everyone economy has a middle class, even feudalism, communism, etc, it's just a matter of how big or small it is.

Besides, the very definitions of things like a "job," "class." or "wealth" are bound to change. Think about it. There's a potential big upside to automation. That runs mainly on electricity, and if we go solar in a big way (which also is something that's coming, the price drops every year and soon it will be well below fossil fuel costs no matter how the oil market is doing), we could have our robots and other gizmos running on "free" energy from the Sun, and doing all the drudge work. A lot of people could live a pretty nice life with a huge amount of free time. It's just a matter of having a UBI to pay for food, rent, and the bills.

If people like you say we're doomed, then we're doomed. But if people band together and work to make a better future, then we're not doomed. It's a matter of collective willpower.

[sorechasm]

38. Great Article Paul Thompson. Thank you.

I have several questions that will ask in the coming days (so that I can keep kicking this article through next week). My first on concerns the following quote:

The people who think that new jobs will inevitably come in the nick of time to replace the lost jobs are either ignorant of the trend lines or are deluding themselves. As The Atlantic reported last year, "Nine out of ten workers today are in occupations that existed 100 years ago, and just 5 percent of the jobs generated between 1993 and 2013 came from 'high tech' sectors like computing, software, and telecommunications. Our newest industries tend to be the most labor-efficient: they just don't require many people." (The Atlantic, 7/2015)

Most of these results (and other numbers like these) focus upon major industries, and common job descriptions. We know these jobs are never coming back. Many of these statistics come from Global Organizations that have an strong interest in keeping the status quo just so. (Dystopian depression is 'good for business as usual')

However, do these statistics account for all of the opportunities in the creative industries, or the independent new media or any other independent organization? Do they account for the potential future in personalized technology (from unique productions of wearable technologies, to 3D printed architecture). Do they account for the fact that energy costs could be drastically reduced as technology becomes drastically more economical? (As the cost of solar power keeps becoming more efficient, do they account for the fact that many of homes may produce more power than they use.) I ask this because income inequality is also directly tied to education inequality because most of the creative economy jobs require 'higher education'. Although, that is debatable, since new technology is becoming simpler to use.

[paulthompson]

39. Thanks for your interest

I don't know those specific statistics in depth, but I've read several recent books on automation, and they all say similar things. Unfortunately, as a percentage of population, creative jobs just aren't that many. There's a stat elsewhere in my essay that says only 4% of all US jobs use even an average level of creativity. That's not going to change dramatically.

Furthermore, not a lot of people know this, but computers are increasingly able to even do creative things, such as writing music, painting, writing newspaper articles, and so on. There are even computer programs that have sorted through vast amounts of scientific data, come up with their own hypotheses, conducted their own studies, and written their own papers with the results! (Note that no computer has consciousness, but an imitation of human thinking can often come very close to looking like the real thing.)

3D printing is one area where there could be a boomlet of new jobs. But that often will involve taking away a job somewhere else. For instance, imagine a locally made spare part using 3D printing, but that had been made in some factory in another state.

Energy costs are likely to be dramatically reduced. I don't think that'll lead to many new jobs though. What it could help with is a drastically reduced cost of living, so one won't need to work so much to maintain the same living standard.

I think that if anyone is trying to figure out how to survive the coming economic crunch due to automation, a good way to go is to be as self-sufficent as possible. Go solar, plant a garden, and the like.

[sorechasm]

42. Very thorough response. Thanks!

So my next question is:

Are the computers becoming so adept at predictions that they can acurately project the outcome of several scenarios based upon different socio-economic inputs?

If so, then what would be the projected results (10 to 20 years) of the economic plans of our current cast of Presidential Hopefuls? I realize that there are a lot of variables involved (like the impact of terrorism that will only increase as the gap between rich and poor increases; or the impact of various degrees of global climate change).

Due to automation and ubiquitous technology (3D printing, self publishing, driverless transportation, etc.) the entire world economy will be switching from a 'goods and services' based economy to a 'service only' based economy, since the 'goods' can so much more economically be produced anytime, anywhere, at any price. The differentiator being how well the goods can be 'serviced' and by whom.

Bernie seems to be the only candidate who's platform addresses this most important issue, because economic equality (level playing field for providing service) will allow rewarding those within the economy who provide the most valuable services and not those who horde the greatest number of 'goods'.

Therefore, are there any computational scenarios that would back up this hypothesis? (A suggestion about where to look would be helpful.)

My next question concerns the degree to which innovation and creativity is actually the greatest 'service' on the market. This is because (I believe) no computer or automation line will ever compare to human creativity. Therefore, I do take issue with some of the statements in your article.

[paulthompson]

43. response

"Are the computers becoming so adept at predictions that they can acurately project the outcome of several scenarios based upon different socio-economic inputs?"

I don't think so, at least not very well. Remember, no computer or robot actually has conscious thinking like a human, and that's not likely to happen for a long time, if ever. Predicting the future is one of the hardest things to do. Even the smartest humans are bad at it, except for anticipating general trends. I haven't heard anything about computers excelling in predicting how society in general will turn out.

Re: creativity, I know it's hard to believe, but computers are getting good at it and they're likely to get much better. Again, computers can't really think, but the can learn to mimic human creativity. For instance, computer-run machines have come up with their own paintings. Then they were mixed with paintings by actual artists and shown to art experts. The experts couldn't figure out the human ones from the computer generated ones. Ditto with music. Some computer programs can create music in the style of famous composers. Then music critics are presented with those and with obscure works by the real composers that the critics didn't know yet. Again, they can't tell the difference.

And the scary thing is that this is just the tip of the iceberg, like a toddler just starting to learn to walk. Many brilliant people believe that it's just a matter of time before computers are so far advanced that they will be able to run circles around human skills in just about anything, including every kind of creative task. It's just a question of how many years until that happens.

Remember, computers get over 1000 times more powerful (and thus "smarter&quot every twenty years or so, and that's been happening steadily for many decades. Humans basically stay the same. Think about that. It really boggles the mind.

There may be some things computers will never be able to do better than people if they never achieve real consciousness, but in terms of jobs that are totally safe in the long run, I'd bet that would be less than 10% of what we have now. We're basically moving towards a world without work. It's just a matter of how much time it'll take to get there, and what we'll do to adjust.

[paulthompson]

44. Also...

Here's an article about computer creativity. It's got links to other articles about computer generated art, music, and so on.

http://www.gizmag.com/creative-ai-computational-creativity-challenges-future/36353/

Note that being it's in "Gizmag," it's got a strong "new technology is good" point of view.

[Uncle Joe]

23. This is an excellent well thought out analysis.

Thanks for the thread, paulthompson.

[elleng]

27. Yes.

Nearly Half Of US Jobs Could Be Replaced By Machines.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/111677014

I suggested:

Looks like we ALL could use a new paradigm, like Canada's:

Looks like 'wealth,' or at least compensation/income will have to be rethought.

Maybe something like Canada's new approach? Ontario, Canada announced a plan to test Universal Basic Income for all citizens.

http://qz.com/633974/ontario-canada-announced-a-plan-to-test-universal-basic-income-for-all-citizens/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1471025

[Jitter65]

41. Been saying this for years but NAFTA, NAFTA, NAFTA...started by Bush, signed by Clinton sooooooo

blame Hillary for all of it!!

[Armstead]

31. Yep,. We've got to inject humanism into the economy or we're all sunk

By humanism I mean values that are oriented to human needs, not just efficiency and the profit motive.

And more than any candidate in memory, Sanders represents that humanism.

[appalachiablue]

64. +5

[Buns_of_Fire]

34. America may be forced into growing up and facing things like this very quickly.

Problem is, I don't know that we (as a country) are capable of it anymore. If anything, the country is devolving into its component clans and widening the moats around our sacred totems quicker than ever. As the great philosopher Han Solo once said, "I've got a bad feeling about this."

The closest thing to a UBI we're likely to see in our lifetimes is getting elected to Congress: money for nothin', and chicks for free.

It's an excellent essay, though. It's obvious a lot of thought went into it. I would recommend it to everyone.

[TBF]

45. This is so important -

I think many of Bernie's supporters have hit on these main topics, but not nearly in so much detail. Thank you so much for the effort you've put into this. Bernie is definitely looking towards the independent voter, and your analysis is something that lays it all out for thoughtful readers who are looking for facts rather than hyperbole or emotion.

[slipslidingaway]

47. Thank you! Bernie Sanders, Automation, and the Fate of the US, this is an excellent essay that ...

should make us all think, just skimmed through it, but put the title in the header for my reference

Not sure why this was not kicked, discussed more days ago, but too many good threads sink.

[jello]

48. Wow,

Thank you for that...much to ponder. I do recall quite a few years back a book club member of mine mentioned a book entitled "The End of Work." I don't recall the author, but I am going to look for that book.

[cheapdate]

51. Manufacturing is more and more a capital and technology intensive enterprise,

with less and less human labor required. A crisis of capitalism is approaching. Automated manufacturing processes can churn out precision products at the flip of a switch, but there are fewer and fewer people who can afford those products.

[paulthompson]

52. Indeed

The irony is that our brilliant inventions may end up accidentally destroying the economy. We create more and more labor saving devices, but what'll happen if we save so much labor that there just aren't enough jobs for everyone anymore?

Then there aren't enough consumers to buy enough products, leading to more layoffs, and a vicious cycle. This has been a serious concern of economists since at least the 1930s. It is a looming crisis of capitalism.

[cheapdate]

54. Coincidentally, I design control systems for automated manufacturing processes.

It's safe to say the trend toward automation in manufacturing is essentially permanent. The proliferation of microprocessors and other advances in technology and materials are making automation easier and cheaper every day.

Your essay hits the nail on the head.

It doesn't have to be a hard landing. It could in fact be an opportunity to create a more sane, cooperative, and meaningful society.

[paulthompson]

57. Agreed

When I first started learning about this stuff, I was tempted to think "stop all the new research and development in robotics and AI and the like." But there's no way to do that; it's like trying to stop the sun from rising. The best we can do is realize what's happening and make wise policy choices now to avoid that hard landing you mentioned.

[CalvinballPro]

53. How come the revolution aims to increase income but doesn't go further into ELIMINATING income?

Because all humans are greedy and selfish, even leftists. Sanders' movement isn't about revolution; it's about money. White liberals feel they don't have enough, and want the government to give them more. (Not unlike their white conservative counterparts, ironically.)

A true revolution would acknowledge that automation will free us all from the banality of "synergies" and "maximizing backwards overflow," so we can use our time to pursue creative endeavors. Maybe I've just read too much Iain M Banks where he imagines a future where robots and artificial intelligence handle the "small stuff" and humanity is free to explore and learn rather than simply toiling through daily labor.

If you're calling yourself a revolutionary but all you're talking about is re-arranging the current system to provide you with better benefits, than you're lying, to everyone and yourself.

[paulthompson]

55. You're talking very long term

I wouldn't be surprised if in a hundred years, we'll be living in a "Star Trek" world where there basically is no money and personal possessions aren't very important. Think of the "replicator" in "Star Trek" that can create anything you want at any time. 3D printers are very early versions of the same idea, and the technological advances in decades to come (if our civilization lasts that long) are pretty much beyond our comprehension. Think about how mind blowing what we have today would have been to people 100 years ago.

The famous physicist Michio Kaku has written some interesting books on the future after consulting with the best scientists on the cutting edge of many different fields, and he's basically said that if we make it another 100 years, we'll seem more like gods than humans, because technology will give us so much control over our surroundings.

The problem is getting from here to there. We could easily blow it and go in an entirely wrong direction. Just look at countries like North Korea that are moving full speed towards Orwellian dystopia. But even if we are headed in the right direction, the transition to a utopian future is going to take many decades, and there could be a lot of economic turmoil along the way.

So talk about "revolution" vs. "money" is misguided. Right now, people still need money to survive and thrive. Yes, eventually we'll move to a world without work, but not yet, not tomorrow. The technology and society isn't anywhere near close to being ready for that. The important thing is to be heading in the right direction by implementing wise and far-sighted government policies.

[daleanime]

56. K&R.....

and bookmarked.

[paulthompson]

63. Pictures!

I fnally got around to adding some pictures to my essay. Check it out!

[Baobab]

65. Read this article carefully and consider these changes greater implications for

the effect of any proposed future "stimulus" packages here in the US. (Masive behind the scenes changes globalizing public procurement- awarding contracts to the lowest qualified bidder - international competition)

The following is going to be the norm in a few years everywhere.: http://iatp.org/blog/201602/obama-undermines-climate-efforts-in-solar-trade-dispute


Its going to be very hard on SMEs unless they are in the official LDCs which can continue to discriminate for just a bit longer because of waivers. The US is not an LDC.

This kind of thing will vastly accelerate the concentration of wealth and the race to the bottom on wages in the low wage countries that win the work.

[wendylaroux]

77. I have been reading about this for awhile,

UBI will be needed here. Thank you for this,good stuff.

[flying rabbit]

78. K&R nt

[dchill]

81. K&R!

[cantbeserious]

82. Robert McChesney and John Nichols: The Fight Against a Jobless Economy and a Citizenless Democracy

[BetsysGhost]

90. anonymous

kick