SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development) released a policy brief [PDF] about the impact of automation in developed and developing countries.
"The share of occupations that could experience significant automation is actually higher in developing countries than in more advanced ones, where many of these jobs have already disappeared, and this concerns about two thirds of all jobs"
[...] Much of the debate on the economic impacts of robots remains speculative, it says.
"Disruptive technologies always bring a mix of benefits and risks," the paper says, noting that by embracing the digital revolution, developing countries could use robots to open up new opportunities.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Robots Threaten up to Two Thirds of Developing Country Jobs, but Could be an Opportunity Too
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 33 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
belief, n:
Something you do not believe.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by requerdanos on Monday November 21 2016, @03:55AM
Okay, let's suppose that ten people are shipwrecked/stranded/whatever on a deserted island.
They quickly realize that if they do not have food, they will starve, thus illustrating their poverty. So each one, each day, takes a spear and goes fishing. Success: They have enough food to eat.
But two technology-minded guys have been putting together a net in their off-time. Once it's ready, on debut day, suddenly instead of ten people barely catching enough fish, it's two guys with a net catching more than they can all eat.
Sounds great, right? Wait... Now they have a big problem: 80% unemployment!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 21 2016, @04:21AM
Can't the other 8 offer blowjobs (or at least handies), net maintenance, or maybe smoking services to the other two?
The issue with automation is less unemployment, but disruption while transitioning. I fully expect weird new job opportunities to present themselves, but it to be utter chaos while sorting it all out.
Something like basic income may help, and people on the lower rungs will have to focus on something other than brute labor to sell.
But the idea that freeing people from tedious labor is a bad thing seems to sell people short. Hell, even office workers spend maybe 2 hours a day on something productive, and the rest of the time is goofing off, networking, or somesuch other soft skill.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 21 2016, @04:28AM
Whether 80% unemployment is OK or not depends on the culture and system.
In many tribal cultures that do this fishing and hunting thing it is an assumption that stuff will be shared. It's like a large family. The lazy might be mocked or scolded but they wouldn't be in danger of starving to death. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAvLOusDYr8 [youtube.com]
The culture in some European countries slightly different - the jobless aren't like family but they still get taken care of (you don't quite get the same relationship with the State as you do with the tribe ;) ).
The culture for the USA is very different. The rich or middle-income don't even want to pay for healthcare for the poor (and still end up paying in more expensive ways- the poor going to ER, committing crimes, going to prison for healthcare* ). Many can even talk about stuff like "trickle down economics" as if it's a good thing. The problem is already in the term itself - it's only meant to be a trickle.
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/02/on-purposely-getting-arrested-to-get-life-saving-surgery/273282/ [theatlantic.com]
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/21/verone-one-dollar-robbery-healthcare [theguardian.com]
https://thinkprogress.org/sick-oregon-man-robs-bank-for-one-dollar-to-get-health-care-in-jail-8e051bd580bf [thinkprogress.org]
With education and contraception, basic income and unemployment might work for rich countries -there could be enough wealth to go around. I'm not so sure about the poor countries as per the summary.
(Score: 1) by Z-A,z-a,01234 on Monday November 21 2016, @08:16AM
I agree with most of what you've said, except the last sentence.
It's a large assumption that in the "rich" countries there is enough to go around (cash). It all hangs on the question "how will the monetary system be managed and by whom?"
Leave it to the current gang, you can kiss BI goodbye.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 21 2016, @04:29AM
It is when the 80% don't have enough money to buy the fish, oh and all the fish are gone now, so its much much harder to catch their own.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Monday November 21 2016, @04:57AM
Sounds great, right? Wait... Now they have a big problem: 80% unemployment!
Ok, so there's nothing else they want? Like shelter? Clothing? Rescue from the island? They now have eight people who can devote their labor to other things. And if everyone has everything they want, then they can just not work for the rest of the time.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 21 2016, @09:09AM
sigh...
fuck these latest discussions on this topic are below par even for the internet.
The level of thought that goes into this is VERY superficial.
For the first time in HISTORY we are looking at tech destroying more jobs than it creates. Period.
For the FIRST TIME.
You can wax lyrical with all the stupid metaphors your want and bury your head in the sand and say "its always been good so it will always be good" but that wont change the numbers.
Once those numbers begin to work against the country then all hell will break loose.
THAT is a part of our history that is very common indeed...
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Monday November 21 2016, @01:03PM
Is it destroying the jobs, or doing the work so we/they don't have to?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 21 2016, @05:20PM
It does not matter. That is not the point.
In a capitalist society, ESPECIALLY a neo-liberal influenced one, the lack of jobs is a major problem.
When I was a child in the 80s they told us the fairy tale of how robots would automate such tasks and we would all be working 3 days each in the future.
How is that working out for us? If anything the factory workers of old have 3 JOBS each (most no longer in the factory) and little else to show for it.
How would this work under the current system whereby most of the wealth due to productivity gains are syphoned off by shareholders?
It wont.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday November 23 2016, @11:42PM
THAT is the point. If you assume automation is coming and nothing else about society will change in response, of course it looks like a problem. That WOULD BE a problem. But that doesn't mean that halting technological progress or societal collapse are the only solutions. If we cling stubbornly to neo-liberal capitalist relations, that will be the likely result. But there's no reason we have to do that.
So, what do we do? We can be Luddites and smash the machines...which generally doesn't work out that well. Or we can beg to our corporate masters for money and jobs, which kinda sucks too. Or we can start working NOW to establish new relations capable of surviving this change. Seems like an obvious choice to me, but so many people (including yourself it seems) still don't even see that the option exists. Which is why we've gotta keep having these discussions.
Those weren't fairy tales; but that future has been stolen by ever more greedy billionaires while the rest of society sits around going "Well, what can we do?" But there's an obvious answer to that question: TAKE IT BACK! The problems come not from laws of physics but from laws of man. And THOSE laws can be changed.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 21 2016, @05:58PM
fuck these latest discussions on this topic are below par even for the internet.
The level of thought that goes into this is VERY superficial.
I have a suggestion here. If you don't like the problem, then don't contribute to it.
For the first time in HISTORY we are looking at tech destroying more jobs than it creates. Period.
For the FIRST TIME.
Evidence? As I've noted before, there's plenty of people employed in the developing world for these sorts of jobs and it's growing rapidly. That indicates to me that the "FIRST TIME" hasn't happened yet. Instead, we should look for institutional obstructions to employment in the developed world where all the belly aching goes on.
And that brings me to what should be an obvious point. You can disincentivize anything and employment is no exception. There's plenty of regulations about minimum wage and benefits, hiring and firing regulations, artificial pumping up of living costs, etc that add huge costs to employing people. The problem here is that the law can force the superficial trappings of a good paying, secure job on employers, but they can't force the economy to support those jobs.
Here's an analogy. Did people suddenly want to stay in East Germany after 1962? Or did the discouragement of having to run through a several hundred meter kill zone do that?
Just because would-be employers are very disinterested in employing high cost, high risk developed world people doesn't mean that they're doing it because of some sea change in automation. They're doing it because hiring is now high cost, high risk.
You can wax lyrical with all the stupid metaphors your want and bury your head in the sand and say "its always been good so it will always be good" but that wont change the numbers.
Where are these numbers again?