Robots Are Stealing American Jobs, According to MIT Economist

So, what else is new? Everyone should have seen this coming.

That is the price of progress. You either adapt or get left behind. With the advances to nanofabrication and 3d printing in the next half a century, manual labor will be obsolete. That is reality, and every parent should strive to give their children a useful education.

In addition to scientists and engineers, we will need social scientists, politicians, ethicists and specialized philosophers, artists of all kinds, and medical professionals. The time where you can make a good living doing simple menial jobs is coming to an end. Governments should dedicate as many resources as possible to educate its populous. People should accept that times have changed and that they must change with them.

Maybe then, when everyone is educated, and knowledge is king, ignorance and superstition will disappear. Maybe that is what is required for a new age of enlightenment.

Interesting study, though it should come as no surprise that technological innovations spur changes to the skills required of the labor force. It's been happening for thousands of years.

I'm suspicious of the claim that "The middle class is disappearing in large part because technology is rendering middle-class skills obsolete." It's probably true in the manufacturing sector, probably not in other sectors. Also, what's considered "middle class?" And have they factored out other impacts like upward changes in economic status, rising minimum wage, unionization, immigration, importing cheaper manufactured goods, and large-scale changes to the economy? For example, the U.S. dominated manufacturing during the Industrial Revolution, but not anymore. (Yet we're still the largest and wealthiest economy per capita on earth; which is a direct result of our free market system.)

By the way, there are still an awful lot of skilled jobs that don't require a college education. Auto mechanic, plumber and electrician come to mind; all of which can make more than $50k. I doubt that low-skill or trade and craft jobs will ever disappear though the number will probably fluctuate.

Thats why we should stop taxing people and increase sales taxes...

This really should be a no brainer, and it's a good thing. Especially in places where your workforce is small and education is high.

And btw i would not call a plumber, or electrician, or bricklayer or any trade job an uneducated job, they require intelligence and work ethic like any other (when done properly), just the classroom is not a room with tables, but there job.

Were there knot sew grate hat spilling, write.

I sincerely doubt if any of those tasks can yet be performed automatically. The things in jeopardy are the retail jobs that were keeping kids out of college. It doesn't take a great deal of skill to sell someone a bar of soap.

this is not news.

Don't know that I agree with this premise. I just recently read an article on job outlook -- middle class jobs were disappearing because of the recession -- BUT, they were mainly mid level supervisory/manager positions that companies have been trying to eliminate for years.

I never thought that manufacturing workers were middle class -- at least not beyond the low end of the definition. Middle class has traditionally been management and small business owners.

"If you lined up all of the economists end to end in a circle around the earth, they would still never reach a conclusion" Anonymous

what bothers me is that the jump from "low skill" jobs to "high skill" jobs is so difficult to attain for alot of people. Education is prohibitively expensive for people already in those "low-skilled" jobs. Especialy for those in the income range where they make enough to get by, but not enough to be able to pay off a loan, or have bad credit. add to that the fact that we can't exactly stop working to get that education because bills still need to be paid and schedualing classes around a full time job can be painfull.

Its more a matter of circumstances than intellegence for most people. why can't they make a robot that gives an affordable education and a diploma employers will recognize.

Really ? I thought all those greedy american corporations looking for cheap goods gave american jobs to the chinese in china.

I wrote a book on this subject in 1994 called 'The Jobless Economy' published by Polity Press in the UK.
Good to see the guys at MITT are catching up!!

They took er jobs!

Of course, along with robots enabling our happily ever-after, when science also enables the 500 year lifespan, we'll have to start colonization just to make room for those who refuse to be good citizens and upload themselves; thereby leaving the unnecessary husk behind to be mulched for new growth. This may be the answer to Fermi's Paradox. The reason we haven't been visited by advanced civilizations is that they've all plugged themselves into virtual reality and sublimed off their planets! But only boring people are bored, don't sublime and galaxy is ours!

From: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_int­erpretatio­n
"Many-worlds is a postulate of quantum mechanics that asserts the objective reality of the universal wavefunction, but denies the reality of wavefunction collapse, which implies that all possible alternative histories and futures are real —each representing an actual "world" (or "universe"). It is also referred to as MWI, the relative state formulation, the Everett interpretation, the theory of the universal wavefunction, many-universes interpretation, or just many worlds."

And the latest:

From: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographi­c_principl­e
"The holographic principle (the universe postulated as a hologram) is a property of quantum gravity and string theories which states that the description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a boundary to the region—preferably a light-like boundary like a gravitational horizon. First proposed by Gerardus 't Hooft, it was given a precise string-theory interpretation by Leonard Susskind."

Gravity wave detectors may soon confirm this theory by detecting the necessarily scaled up Planck length as noise within the signal. Since the volume of the observable universe is much larger than its enclosing surface, to have the same number of bits inside the universe as on the boundary, the universe within must be made up of grains much larger than the calculated Planck length. That is: the grainyness of reality, like the pixelation of photographic images, may soon be detectable and within the purview of science.

Ain't we got fun?”

um, BTW, William of Occam, a 14th century Dominican who also taught at Oxford, first formulated Occam's Razor as "Unknown entities cannot be introduced in order to explain other unknown entities".

Introducing God (an unknown entity) to explain the ultimate unknown (why anything exists instead of nothing at all) is to introduce an unknown to explain an unknown and this has been a known no-no for seven hundred years. A simpler explanation is that, for some reason, nothing at all is unstable and that a creator is, therefore, just another theory, and not a given.

If you believe automated systems are only going to be doing unskilled labor, then you haven't read about genetic algorithms. They are much better at inventing than humans - and will be a standard algorithm in all software and robots. They are already used to create art, music, architecture -- basically used to optimize any system. They will be used by robots to optimize and create better robots. All soon without any human assistance. We are not just rapidly creating our job replacements - we are rapidly creating our species replacement. Robots are evolving many million times faster than humans. But this may be the next step in evolution. Who said carbon-based life forms get to be the dominant life form?

One interesting point for companies to start thinking about - who will be purchasing their products if we don't have jobs? Robots don't eat, they don't travel much, they don't need houses or cars or clothing. They're not big on leisure activities like movies, plays, bowling, boating or flying. So I do believe there will be a point where demand for products and services will drop sharply as the "musical chairs" jobs era gets into full swing. Then - we'll need fewer robots. Even large worldwide corporations will soon figure this out. Every job replaced by a robot or a piece of software will reduce demand for their products and services - one way or another.

History is no guide for what is to come - we've never yet experienced digital evolution. I don't believe robots will be doing all the work for us - because we will not have any income with which to purchase the services of a robot - no matter who you are.

If you don't believe that robots and automated systems can do your job, every job, from doctor to lawyer to plumber to carpenter - then you need to go on YouTube and type "Robots 2010" - every country is building them now - and in 20 years - robots will be far beyond us.

The U.S. Patent office recently issued the first patent in history - for an invention by a robotic system (yep - not by a human). You can see these inventions at http://www.genetic-programming.org/hc2009/cfe2009.html or by searching "genetic algorithm patent".

The only thing that is going to slow this down is when we all lose our jobs and stop purchasing goods and services - then the world governments will declare we're in the worst economic depression in history and sit around wondering how it happened (duh). But by then, it may be too late, and likely too steep a depression for any real recovery.

So - party while you have a chance!

Go buy a Roomba and fire your maid!

People in America need jobs right?

So, if we get them a temperary job of building robots, those robots can eventually take over their jobs and do their jobs for no pay, thus fixing America's economy &
$14,000,000,000,000.00 debt!

Robots are not going to replace all human work. That is not even what the article states. There are a host of low skill jobs, that due to the minimium wage and other labor initiatives are Middle Class jobs that do not require Middle Class education (college).

Many of these jobs are pure labor jobs that never required any special skills beyond on-the-job training.

Thus, those jobs are falling back into the lower class.

Also, computers and computer literacy has increased the skill requirements of jobs that used to require very little. A secretary used to need to answer the phone, keep books, and type. Now a secretary needs to have computer and web publishing skills.

The problem with the job divide is that it is no longer teneble to hold lower skill, and thus lower cost jobs in the middle class. It is not that China is so much cheaper than the US, it is cheaper than the US's minimium wage inflated employment.

Also, since poverty support starts at a level that would be considered middle class throughout much of the world, many in the US are unwilling to take jobs beneath a certain level.

Robots will not replace human labor on the bottom of the scale, as a maid will be cheaper than a robot and better able to do variable tasks for the forseeable future.

Technology is advancing at a far faster rate than social adaptation. If this disparity continues, those who truly ascribe to a Darwinian model of the world will need to accept the possibility that social upheaval, bloodshed, chaos, war, tyranny and death are the likely overture to any utopian world brought about by technology. Like it or not, we (humans) are all in this together. You don't have to be educated to pull the trigger of an AK. History shows that people will fight before they change.

@blackrock pete: I agree. If technology moves too fast some of these low skill workers will be using their low skills to kick our butts. Something to consider is that not everyone could increase their skill set drasticaly with further education. Some people are not going to get any smarter than they already are. Also it seems that while the intellectuals are looking for the perfect conditions to further their genetic code such as right economic conitions and least impact on carbon footprint in having offspring the less cerebrally gifted members of society are furthering their gene pools at an increasing rate.

Point is I don't think their will be a shortage of stupid but I forsee a shortage of jobs so we may be in for a rough ride before this eutopia comes about.

That's called evolution, robots aren't to blame.

Martin Ayala | http://www.juegos.gs

In recent years, robots have become the primary workers at factories around the world. Instead of humans running things, robots are now in charge of production in dozens of different fields. In particular, low-skilled jobs that require minimal education have been prime targets for robot takeover. With the influx of new machines replacing humans, we must stop and ask: is this a good thing or a bad thing? How can we find a balance between technology and humans?

This article highlights how there are no clear answers to these questions and that there exists significant tension as to the role of robots with regards to humans. In particular, this article describes how “the middle class is disappearing in large part because technology is rendering middle-class skills obsolete”. While robots are able to complete certain tasks significantly more efficiently than humans, this often comes at the expense of thousands of individuals losing their jobs. In a study by MIT economists, research demonstrated that robots are to blame for the loss of many American jobs.

Besides just the loss of human jobs, other concerns exist because of our society’s increasing reliance on robots. These concerns are further explored in a CNN article discussing the gap between humans and computers [http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/01/tech/innovation/computers-humans-science/index.html]. This article identifies the fact that humans feel less in control because of robots’ takeover and that many people are “unhappy having something make the decisions for them” as a significant reason for apprehension. As robots become more and more advanced, this lack of control over them will continue to be an issue we as a society will face.

On the other hand, the implementation of robots in jobs previously belonging to humans is not always a bad thing. An article in the New York Times demonstrates several ways in which robots can be beneficial to society as a whole [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/24/science/scientists-see-advances-in-deep-learning-a-part-of-artificial-intelligence.html?ref=scienceandtechnology]. Firstly, using robots instead of humans for many jobs saves millions of dollars. As a result of technology improvement, the more cost-effective method of robots is something the Obama administration has identified as “a historic opportunity for the nation to stay competitive”. Additionally, it has been argued that while some blue-collar jobs will be lost as a result of robots, more skilled jobs and “jobs in the communities where factories are” will be created.

Regardless of the benefits and drawbacks of robots in the workplace, we must accept that this technology is only going to become more and more prevalent. As a society, our biggest challenge is to find a way to embrace this technology and integrate it in a way that leaves our society better off. Rather than fear robots are taking away our control and our jobs, we need to use them to our benefit. Robots have the potential to create jobs, cut costs, and improve production, and we need to tap into that potential. The conclusion of this article is correct – “the future will have room for robots and people, as long as we’re smart about it”.