2 Billion Jobs to Disappear by 2030. Thomas Frey

[Ghent12]

Re: 2 Billion Jobs to Disappear by 2030. Thomas Frey

Robotic cars will be phased in over the next ten years. The technology is already available off the shelf and is available in parts in most cars in some fashion. For instance, some cars offer automatic braking if a danger is sensed. Other cars offer lane departure warning, etc. And, of course, GPS navigation is ubiquitous. All that remains is for one manufacturer to include all the disparate features in one car.

FIrst, it will be available on top end vehicles like the Mercedes S Class and then, likely, only as an optional smart high speed cruise control at highway speeds. (high speed highway driving is probably the easiest problem for the computer to solve.) As the technology gets better and cheaper it will find itself trickling down to basic models as standard equipment with the ability to drive even in chaotic urban environments. It is said the timeline for robotic cars to be available as standard equipment on every car is about ten years.

As for whether the average public will embrace autonomous cars, I'd say the answer will be yes. Every technological advance is usually met with skepticism, with, you know, the bell curve of innovators, early adopters late adopters, etc. But it will come. Also, given the absolute carnage of automobile deaths (virtually all related to human error), at some point, there will be a social push from liability lawyers and Mothers Against Drunk Driving groups that will advocate for the embrace of autonomous cars sooner rather than later.

Greg

I honestly don't see that happening, especially not in such a short period of time. UAVs are vastly less safe than traditional aircraft, for instance, and there is no reason to suspect that driverless cars will be any different. In some ways, UAVs have some pretty good advantages in implementation which is why they are far more prevalent than autonomous ground robots--the sky is big and there is plenty of room to maneuver around traffic. Not so with ground vehicles.

While there may be improvements in terms of computer-assisted driving, actual autonomy is a goal that is too far off to contemplate seriously.

[BiscayneSunrise]

Re: 2 Billion Jobs to Disappear by 2030. Thomas Frey

Robotic cars will be phased in over the next ten years. The technology is already available off the shelf and is available in parts in most cars in some fashion. For instance, some cars offer automatic braking if a danger is sensed. Other cars offer lane departure warning, etc. And, of course, GPS navigation is ubiquitous. All that remains is for one manufacturer to include all the disparate features in one car.

FIrst, it will be available on top end vehicles like the Mercedes S Class and then, likely, only as an optional smart high speed cruise control at highway speeds. (high speed highway driving is probably the easiest problem for the computer to solve.) As the technology gets better and cheaper it will find itself trickling down to basic models as standard equipment with the ability to drive even in chaotic urban environments. It is said the timeline for robotic cars to be available as standard equipment on every car is about ten years.

As for whether the average public will embrace autonomous cars, I'd say the answer will be yes. Every technological advance is usually met with skepticism, with, you know, the bell curve of innovators, early adopters late adopters, etc. But it will come. Also, given the absolute carnage of automobile deaths (virtually all related to human error), at some point, there will be a social push from liability lawyers and Mothers Against Drunk Driving groups that will advocate for the embrace of autonomous cars sooner rather than later.

Greg

[Ghent12]

Re: 2 Billion Jobs to Disappear by 2030. Thomas Frey

Huh? Can you say GATT?!!!

Can you explain?

[reggie]

Re: 2 Billion Jobs to Disappear by 2030. Thomas Frey

There is no reason to fret. Technology never has and seemingly never will reduce aggregate job potential, availability, or even the fruits of labor. All technology has ever really done is increase productivity--that is actually very close to its own definition. Increased productivity is generally quite largely beneficial. This has and will continue to translate into virtually everyone getting more (as in more stuff) for giving less (as in less labor).

Huh? Can you say GATT?!!!

[Ghent12]

Re: 2 Billion Jobs to Disappear by 2030. Thomas Frey

Then again, I could be quite wrong on this. The automotive industry as a whole is a great case for deflation and, generally speaking, market functionality. If people really catch on and want driverless cars (I know I wouldn't mind having the option if it only bumped the car price up by about $2,000 or so), then the sky is the limit. We can all dream, can't we?

[Ghent12]

Re: 2 Billion Jobs to Disappear by 2030. Thomas Frey

"Google driverless car, with a test fleet of autonomous vehicles that as of August 2012 has driven 300,000 miles (480,000 km)."

There are several states that have made laws that allow for driverless cars and they are already being tested. Not to say they are a significant presence on the road now, but I think that having working prototypes that have logged hundreds of thousands of miles is a bit more than a pipe dream. They do still have people in them that can take control, but the technology appears to be currently available.

I'm aware of the achievements of Google on this front, at least those made public. That doesn't change reality. Countless challengers have arisen to fossil fuels, yet fossil fuels are the kings of energy for now and will keep their crowns for at least another five generations. A driverless car only obviates a chauffeur. Most of those who don't have chauffeurs now will likely not ever have a compelling reason to get a driverless car. Even some of those who have chauffeurs in retinue will want to retain them for the things that chauffeurs do other than strictly driving.

If, and this is a big if, the costs can be reduced to the point where driverless cars penetrate the luxury market, then perhaps some rather wealthy motorists will switch, most especially the well-to-do elderly. But I suspect the market share of driverless cars will approximate that of the market share of wind and solar in energy, and that market share will be in a steady state unless and until technocrats make good on the video speaker's threats to make driverless cars mandatory. In that case, the most obvious net effect will be to simply remove the poor people from the roads altogether.

[Ghent12]

Re: 2 Billion Jobs to Disappear by 2030. Thomas Frey

What profession/industry will these people "switch" to? I don't hear anyone discussion this, nor providing plausible explanations for how an exponential increase in tech will result in an increase in employment?

Well that is kind of a factor that arranges itself. The only force that could stop it would be government via new or old tools to discourage and interfere with people attaining their own economic interest. Things like the minimum wage which make it illegal to be a low-skilled worker.

If you can't imagine what jobs will be switched to, I don't blame you. The future is impossible to really know. But one thing is fairly certain--human nature won't change much in that time period and therefore the want for things will still be effectively infinite.

There is no reason to fret. Technology never has and seemingly never will reduce aggregate job potential, availability, or even the fruits of labor. All technology has ever really done is increase productivity--that is actually very close to its own definition. Increased productivity is generally quite largely beneficial. This has and will continue to translate into virtually everyone getting more (as in more stuff) for giving less (as in less labor).

[reggie]

Re: 2 Billion Jobs to Disappear by 2030. Thomas Frey

According to him, the two billion jobs will be replaced with different jobs. He was just saying that some industries will shed labor as new industries encroach or replace them. He was basically lying--there will not be two billion jobs lost, but rather people will switch professions as they always have.

What profession/industry will these people "switch" to? I don't hear anyone discussion this, nor providing plausible explanations for how an exponential increase in tech will result in an increase in employment?

[DSpencer]

Re: 2 Billion Jobs to Disappear by 2030. Thomas Frey

Sounded like a TED talk--too much optimism and not enough realism. Driverless cars and teacherless schools are pipe dreams and will remain so for a significant period of time. Perhaps by 2040 we might have a few driverless cars sharing the road with us, ferrying their middle- and upper-management types to work while allowing them to read the paper or do other productive things.

"Google driverless car, with a test fleet of autonomous vehicles that as of August 2012 has driven 300,000 miles (480,000 km)."

There are several states that have made laws that allow for driverless cars and they are already being tested. Not to say they are a significant presence on the road now, but I think that having working prototypes that have logged hundreds of thousands of miles is a bit more than a pipe dream. They do still have people in them that can take control, but the technology appears to be currently available.

[wayiwalk]

Re: 2 Billion Jobs to Disappear by 2030. Thomas Frey

I'll believe in on-line education replacing teachers in public schools the day that the quality of on-line programs have enough AI and interactivity to start favoring certain students over others!

[BiscayneSunrise]

Re: 2 Billion Jobs to Disappear by 2030. Thomas Frey

Ghent, I understand your frustration. I, too, have been subject to "death by powerpoint". Just because someone says they are practicing state of the art e-Learning doesn't make it so. Just as with every product, some people are world class and others are an embarrassment. As you may already know, there are many bright minds racing towards e-Leaning, check out Khan Academy, UDacity and the Stanford Online Learning initiative. The list of top tier schools embracing e-Learning is staggering. As you point out, there are, indeed, many issues yet to be resolved but in the meantime, check out this TED talk. (Yes, I know you think TED Talks are breathless fluff, but take look)

e-Learning will be mainstream very soon, if it isn't already. The economic and educational advantages are too compelling to ignore.

Greg

http://www.ted.com/talks/daphne_koll...education.html

[Ghent12]

Re: 2 Billion Jobs to Disappear by 2030. Thomas Frey

I have been studying on line education extensively lately and would like to add a couple of insights. When you mention the mind numbing nature of computer based training,(CBT) (vs. education) you are correct. Early efforts at CBT were nothing more than voice over power point slides. That is the absolute worst way to learn.

As the technology gets better and courses are designed to be more interactive, the efficacy of online education skyrockets. We see the same pattern repeat with the introduction of every new technology. Early efforts are expensive and unreliable but gain market share with improvements. Just like how the early days of computers were clumsy and expensive efforts but they gained prominence through the killer app of high speed internet, Online education is just in its infancy, still rather clumsy. The killer app for online education is interactivity. Online educators are rapidly embracing gaming technology, for instance, and thereby changing online education to something now called e-Learning. A different and much more capable animal.

I'll believe it when I see it. The Navy has a website called NKO--Navy Knowledge Online. It has several courses under what it calls explicitly e-Learning and they are all, more or less, just interactive voice-over PowerPoints. The interactivity is used more as a measure to ensure that the user hasn't just clicked through all the pages to get to the end. Granted, despite the PowerPoint culture of Naval leadership, I don't think the Navy would be privy to the latest and greatest in online education, but that's my experience with a major utilizer of so-called e-Learning.

I'll agree that there is vast potential for improvement, but I remain skeptical that even great e-Learning software/programs that are fully mature and determined to be great by a huge preponderance of standards will even make a slight upward blip on metrics of student performance. Fundamentally, student achievement lies most significantly with the student and secondarily with the parent. All other factors are very distant in order of importance to outcomes. An unmotivated student, an unmotivated parent, and an unmotivated society will squander the student's potential. They could only score well if they encounter scenarios like the following:

Training: 4+2=6
... later that same day ...
Test Question: 2+4=?

[BiscayneSunrise]

Re: 2 Billion Jobs to Disappear by 2030. Thomas Frey

Also, I don't know how much exposure you might have to computer-based training (CBT), but it is mind-numbing no matter how interesting the subject. The administration of such training is also not an insignificant cost--do IT guys want to work in Africa more than teachers?
[/QUOTE]

I have been studying on line education extensively lately and would like to add a couple of insights. When you mention the mind numbing nature of computer based training,(CBT) (vs. education) you are correct. Early efforts at CBT were nothing more than voice over power point slides. That is the absolute worst way to learn.

As the technology gets better and courses are designed to be more interactive, the efficacy of online education skyrockets. We see the same pattern repeat with the introduction of every new technology. Early efforts are expensive and unreliable but gain market share with improvements. Just like how the early days of computers were clumsy and expensive efforts but they gained prominence through the killer app of high speed internet, Online education is just in its infancy, still rather clumsy. The killer app for online education is interactivity. Online educators are rapidly embracing gaming technology, for instance, and thereby changing online education to something now called e-Learning. A different and much more capable animal.

However, I do agree with you regarding the needs of children such as alternative parenting that e-Learning can't provide but the advantages of e-Learning are too compelling to ignore, making the march of e-Learning inexorable. As for the administrative costs, the key there will be simple economy of scale, especially with a virtual student body that will allow for a virtual administrative staff working from home, further reducing brick and mortar costs.

The big losers in e-Learning will be marginal schools and teachers as premier teachers and schools become able to serve larger student bodies (increase their market share). The other potential loser will likely be teacher's unions. They may possibly see membership and dues money fall off dramatically.

[Ghent12]

Re: 2 Billion Jobs to Disappear by 2030. Thomas Frey

Forget the technobable promises and fluff for a moment, if we eliminate 2B jobs from the Global pool, then what are the 5B+ people going to do who are supported by those jobs?

According to him, the two billion jobs will be replaced with different jobs. He was just saying that some industries will shed labor as new industries encroach or replace them. He was basically lying--there will not be two billion jobs lost, but rather people will switch professions as they always have.

[vt]

Re: 2 Billion Jobs to Disappear by 2030. Thomas Frey

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/C...struction.html