industrialization 4.0 - an explanation for the current development in politics world wide?

[Mangalore]

I had an interesting talk with a colleague about the changes in work environment in the past decade and the challenges and shifts it caused and will cause in the future.

It essentially boiled down to what the manufacturing sector coins "industry 4.0".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industry_4.0

What is all about is that after robotics and computers in the 80s now the next are cyber systems, aka integrated systems of computers and robots capable of working autonomously instead of as assistance. What it means for the low income, working class is that a swathe of low skill ceiling jobs (and a good number of high ceiling but programable jobs) will be replaced by fully integrated computer systems. So the felt danger for a lot of established sectors is very real that their jobs will be replaced by drones or robots in the near future and instead only a smaller group of high tech specialists needed to run that system.

At the same time the developments have already downgraded jobs or made them more extreme. A good example by my colleague was that of a traveling agent. In the past those agents were the knowledge base to consul you when you wanted to plan a trip to other countries. They had to have intimate knowledge of the places and a good grip on how to plan a good trip for people. Now that is to 90% replaced by the internet and the agent essentially just there to use a computer system to find the best deals for you. In essence the skillset necessary for a travel agent did plummet or at least shifted from a broad swathe of expertise to a smaller set.

Interesting other examples are however higher education jobs like doctors and lawyers. Again, for most small illnesses most patients already have a clear picture from the internet and aside from medical abuse doctors just have to do a lot of signature writing for that kind of job. Similarily formerly lawyers wrote up all kinds of banal legal documents, but now that has shifted to the internet as well. Those jobs are not directly in danger but essentially the jobs shifted to high risk, high stress cases instead. Lawyers don't make money writing up some small form, they only earn money through actual legal cases. Similarily most specialist jobs do not do the banal legwork anymore, but only the high complex parts of their jobs.

A small speculation on my part would be if that is the cause of burnout syndrome - a condition formerly reserved to high echelon management - now spreads to low management and specialists as well. They do not have relax time in banal work anymore but all the focus and energy has to go high stakes jobs. And that can get to your brain that cannot use some filing hours to deal with a problem in passive mode.


Now in political terms all that boils down to high education jobs become increasingly stressful and important and the new innovation is about to make a ton of lower education work obsolete aka replaced by robotics. Maybe those jobs can be replaced elsewhere but a lot of people look at uncertain times, particularly since classical worker jobs are usually narrower in skillsets. It is very difficult for e.g. a master carpenter to shift is expertise elsewhere while (arguably) engineers and computer scientists can (still) shift easier because while the product the build might change, their toolset they do it with doesn't so at least the fundamentals remain whether they program a website or a sever application to run robots.

Is that what we witness as people rally against "elites", "intellectuals" and there being a big rift as one side sees major opportunities and just a "world of tomorrow" and great innovation while most others just see them taking away they secure foundation?

Now this is not meant as a single cause argument but one that I haven't seen discussed a lot before and particularly an aspect I wonder also important giving the rift is not just in countries where there a deep economic divisions due to the 2008 crisis but also countries where in essence all hard numbers say everything is fine but people do reject those hard numbers and say they don't feel like that instead.

[DaniCatBurger]

You need technical skills and some scientific understanding to create a product on your 3d printer in the garage insofar industrialization 4.0 will require practical and theoretical education to be a success. More education seems a necessary and desirable good. There can never be enough. And one could think that better educated people arrive at better political choices than those who have less so an understanding of how things can be done, possibly too. Maybe, they do sometimes. And industrialization 4.0 speaks for open borders for goods and services and fair trade treaties for obvious reasons.

[Ἀπολλόδοτος Α΄ ὁ Σωτήρ]

Very interesting subject. There are several issues that humanity will be forced to cope with, by the end of this very century.

There are two different issues regarding the change of the economic fabric of our society - consumption and production.

The problem of consumption is linked with the status of potential consumers who are unemployed. The main question here is what will be the reaction of the unemployed towards society with their absence of purchasing power. The vast majority of them will be unnecessary for the purposes of production and distribution.

Only engineers, scientists and artists, along with a small administrative workforce will be needed to effectively run the society and make technological progress while also engaging in cultural activities. Any form of purely physical work will become obsolete. Engineers will be the ones building new objects with their hands and with instruments, however they will also be the designers of such objects and they will build them only a few times for testing purposes only, afterwards automated machines will build those same objects en masse.
Even doctors can be replaced, after all, their work consists of establishing diagnosis on patients and treating them with appropriate means. Today, medical computers can analyze and perform surgeries, of course they still require human supervision.

The problem with production is about the future of capitalism itself, or simply the plummeting of profits due to severe downsizing of consumer base. Will this small future workforce be enough of a consumer base to maintain the current divide between economic classes. Corporate entities may not need workers, but in order to fulfill their main purpose - profit, they do need customers.

Producing things will not be difficult, selling might be. We can expect to, eventually, have a huge surplus of raw materials needed for refinement and production of new goods.
Nevertheless, to whom does a corporate entity sell their refined materials or goods while vast amout of population is unemployed and thus has no purchasing power.
Engineers, scientists and artists won't be making more than a quarter of population, probably significantly less than that. In the end, all that is needed for production is electricity and raw materials. Both are abundant in the universe. Machines gather resources, distribute, process resources, distribute refined ones, build product, distribute to consumers.

Then there are sociocultural issues regarding the new technologies that might alter the human body and mind itself, such as bio-mechanical augmentations and genome manipulation. All of that lies behind the corner, unlike FTL travel, sentient AI, teleportation, Mars colonisation and or some other things science fiction usually deals with.

[hehehe]

Industry 4.0? This is a very interesting read, not just from a societal standpoint but also from a manufacturing standpoint. My initial opinion on this is that industry 4.0 in itself is a very positive thing, but it might lead to huge problems in wealth distribution. But at the same time, I'm not sure if it's the only reason for the current development in politics (automation and globalization probably have been killing manufacturing jobs in the west, I admit). There are also deeper economic trends at play here (long term debt cycle and economic cycle of boom and bust)

[Mayer]

A higher grade of mechanization is always hypothetically possible, but it will never lead to a complete replacement of man and abolishment of labor like some leftists believe. It means different jobs are required, and different educations, probably higher.

[Harith]

I will be taking a course this fall on the topic, which seems incredibly interesting as we are approaching a new era where our contribution become unnecessary and inferior to the automated competition.

I have also been following FT, Reuters and other news sites that report the issue from time to time. Interestingly enough, I've seen many AI specialist talk about the topic but not a single governmental body.... at all.

In fact, the severity of the this future problem is so profound that even some FT writers started arguing for UBI funded by automation tax. This does beg the question of is Communism the only way out in the world of auto-workers?

[Mangalore]

I think it is important to note that industry 4.0 is the nice marketing catchphrase but essentially western economies are already in the midst of changing towards a different structured economy with even high automatization.

A higher grade of mechanization is always hypothetically possible, but it will never lead to a complete replacement of man and abolishment of labor like some leftists believe. It means different jobs are required, and different educations, probably higher.

There are very conflicting stories about the job development with further automation, particularly the number and quality of jobs. Also a big problem is that higher education. There is a reason not everyone is doing it so now the pressure is even higher to get one and the chances more restrictive and situation more desperate if you get into a situation where you end up without one.

[Mayer]

Then we must open higher education to the commoners, remove numerus clausus and provide sufficient learning space in student residences in which the poorest students live. Student culture is hopelessly degenerated anyway, new work ethics and pulling the plug of useless, erroneous social studies is just as necessary as throwing out any drugged, vandalizing idiot who exploits the student loan program. A highly efficient education system which creates well-mannered and ambitious professionals en masse is my vision of the future.

[Harith]

Then we must open higher education to the commoners, remove numerus clausus and provide sufficient learning space in student residences in which the poorest students live. Student culture is hopelessly degenerated anyway, new work ethics and pulling the plug of useless, erroneous social studies is just as necessary as throwing out any drugged, vandalizing idiot who exploits the student loan program. A highly efficient education system which creates well-mannered and ambitious professionals en masse is my vision of the future.

You can't just push millions and millions of people into higher education. Not to mention that automation is coming after them too especially law and business (although engineering, healthcare and R&D are further in the future).

In addition, lowering the standard is terrible way of doing it. The market can only handle so many professionals and once there's oversupply there will be selection biases towards the best of the bunch. So we may have an economy of engineers and doctors (which is impossible in itself but I will carry on for the sake of the argument), but there only be a minute minority that will actually be able to work and the rest will have a nice piece of paper to hang on their wall.

Here's a video that does a pretty good job at explaining the scale of the potential problem. It's long but worth the watch.

[Mayer]

The standard is already terrible, by reducing the admission criteria (NC only exists since the 70s mind you) we create the opportunity for more people to prove their worth. And it won't be millions of millions, capital intensive labor will still be restricted to developed nations. Your utopian wet dreams about automatization on the other hands are really ridiculous. Artificial intelligence is still very dumb and every machine requires programming and maintenance, while human labor continues to have advantages like flexibility and the talent for improvising.

Human society will always be based on labor, not leisure time.



To give an example how overhyped this topic is, i show you this toy:


The German post is thinking to use this drone as a replacement for postal workers. It is obvious that it will have problems with stairs (the Dalek effect ) or road crossing with its low profile. It won't be able to ring a bell nor prevent unauthorized access to its content or the theft of itself. First tests have also revealed that it malfuncts in bad weather.

[Gallus]

This does beg the question of is Communism the only way out in the world of auto-workers?

This is probably an unpopular opinion, but if/when the majority of jobs becomes automated some form of Comunism will indeed be the only solution. Note that I wrote some form, Comunism as practiced in the Soviet Union is not what I have in mind at all.

[Ἀπολλόδοτος Α΄ ὁ Σωτήρ]

The standard is already terrible, by reducing the admission criteria (NC only exists since the 70s mind you) we create the opportunity for more people to prove their worth. And it won't be millions of millions, capital intensive labor will still be restricted to developed nations. Your utopian wet dreams about automatization on the other hands are really ridiculous. Artificial intelligence is still very dumb and every machine requires programming and maintenance, while human labor continues to have advantages like flexibility and the talent for improvising.

Human society will always be based on labor, not leisure time.



To give an example how overhyped this topic is, i show you this toy:


The German post is thinking to use this drone as a replacement for postal workers. It is obvious that it will have problems with stairs (the Dalek effect ) or road crossing with its low profile. It won't be able to ring a bell nor prevent unauthorized access to its content or the theft of itself. First tests have also revealed that it malfuncts in bad weather.

That thing does look funny, however so did the first cellphone. Every transportation/distribution job that requires a human operator will eventually be replaced by a AI operator. As for that specific drone that aimes to replace a postal worker, none of the problems that drone faces now will be present in the near future. Postal drone will interface itself wirelessly with the buildings main computer to "ring the bell". Its movement through the streets will be aided by navigation systems and real-time traffic response AI systems far more advanced than those used currently by experimental self-driving cars. As for the security issues, it will be well monitored and built so that its contents are very difficult to access by unauthorised users, and will immediately interface itself with the closest police station AI allowing for quick response.

Every job requiring a human to transport/distribute/carry any item by foot/bicycle/truck/ship/plane will become obsolete, unless we talk about waiters or butlers. Even loading and unloading items can be done by robotic workers. Factory makes ie. cellphones parts, machines assemble those parts, machines load them onto robotic vehicles, other machines transfer those cellphones from the vehicles belonging to the factory to vehicles owned by distributing firms... and so on.

[Ἀπολλόδοτος Α΄ ὁ Σωτήρ]

This is probably an unpopular opinion, but if/when the majority of jobs becomes automated some form of Comunism will indeed be the only solution. Note that I wrote some form, Comunism as practiced in the Soviet Union is not what I have in mind at all.

Anything similar to communism is unlikely. If those who have the economic and political power allow for a type of a wealth distribution with the use of basic income then we might have a stratified society just like today, with the main difference being in the purchasing power. Everyone would be given equal basic income. Those who would be unemployed would have tax-funded living (in a not so spacious housing unit), healthcare and basic necessities.

Those employed would be highly educated people and they would be given an actual salary in addition to the basic income. This would allow them access to spacious housing, various luxuries and greater access to cultural events and items. We can expect that people such as fashion designers, various artists and sports players will exist in the future as well and those will have even greater access to luxury.
Shareholders and bankers would continue to exist, however with somewhat diminished economic power compared to the regularly employed people and famous artists and sportsmen - celebrities, nevertheless, they will still be wealthier than them.

The unemployed, basic income people, will form the much greater part of the society compared to their numbers today. Their only "value" for the economy would be in them selecting which brands producing basic necessities and rare luxuries they choose to purchase. When talking about these people by luxury I mean buying things such as few better wine bottles or concert tickets once a month.

[Mayer]

The thing is that a more elaborate design would destroy the cost advantage. However, i do see the possibility of robotic assistance in basic tasks in the future. But i don't believe in the inevitable rise of a large pool of long-term unemployed or proletarianization (that'd be unsustainable anyway, people will revolt). I'm also no fan of a unconditional basic income, which is a net loss and promotes idleness.

[Ἀπολλόδοτος Α΄ ὁ Σωτήρ]

The cost advantage is only a matter of time.

In order for it to replace human courier, this hypothetical drone requires additional infrastructure, however a highly advanced drone, of the not so near future, with an superior AI, kinetic abilities and the abilities which enable self-protection would be completely autonomous and would not require police or traffic assistance, not even roads, but now we are talking about an actual robotic servant, something that would cost more than todays luxury car. This is type of a machine is not a viable option for the postal business, nor will it ever necessary. What is required is a relatively cheap and simple drone, which utilizes the existing infrastructure. Such infrastructure is an additional cost, albeit not the one affecting the postal business, but the city and building owners.

The first issue is of drone purchase and maintenance cost. Every new type of product is initially expensive due to the fact that it requires a new specialised facilities built for its production, and due to the need to recover the costs of its developement by, usually, severe overprincing. With time, developement costs are reduced to costs of making simple improvements of that product, manufacturing facilities are already built and the chain of supply materials required for production, provided by other companies, becomes well established. The first cellphones used to be sold for several thousands of dollars, yet one couldn't even send a text message using them and they were size of bricks. Nowadays there are tablets, and we all know of many things they can be used, that can cost as little as 75 dollars or euros.

The later issues are simply the matter of time, cities will have their traffic monitored in this manner, with each vehicles movement being monitored individually, with the possibility of interjection by traffic monitoring AI, and almost everyone will want to have an AI that runs their home or business building, they can pretend they have their personal butler which greets them every time they enter a building.

An efficient machine can complete greater volume of work in the same amount of time as an efficient human worker. The machine doesn't need a vacation, and if no longer required doesn't ask for a severance payment. Its only salary is electricity and there is no need, or most importantly legal obligation, to contribute to its retirement fund.

Things I wrote seem like science fiction, but if someone have told JD Rockefeller in the 1920s that it will be possible possible to hear the latest stock information delivered by the guy which can be seen on the screen of a radio device one carries in his pocket, instead of reading the newspaper and using a telephone, he would probably have found that incredulous, despite knowing what radio is.

As for the rise of unemployment or institutionalisation basic income, none of that is inevitable, from the political and economic standpoint. From technological, it is, if we choose to use technological advances. The employer can choose to use human labor, or goverment can pass laws making them do so, the same is with the issue of unemployment if machines replace human labor, whether or not basic income instituted is up to the people, or whoever else carries greater influence over the government.

Also if unemployed people revolt in, let's say, Sweden, maybe they can overthrow the government, if the people revolt in authoritarian, possessing of large demographic and above all, heavily militarised state, well that's less people to worry about, they will end up dead since they don't have tanks and assault helicopters.

[Mayer]

No small number of authoritarian regimes were destabilized and toppled by unrest. Militarization was the norm back then, also.
You can not rule against the well-being of the people for a long period of time.

[Mangalore]

...

To give an example how overhyped this topic is, i show you this toy:

The German post is thinking to use this drone as a replacement for postal workers. It is obvious that it will have problems with stairs (the Dalek effect ) or road crossing with its low profile. It won't be able to ring a bell nor prevent unauthorized access to its content or the theft of itself. First tests have also revealed that it malfuncts in bad weather.

I would argue the topic is not overhyped since it's a gradient, not an off and on switch and we already see the deterioation of a ton of jobs from ones demanding good skills to ones which are cheap as the worker gets degraded to just assist a machine do all the work. Some experimental stuff failing doesn't change that it's already a fact of life in a lot of areas.

This is probably an unpopular opinion, but if/when the majority of jobs becomes automated some form of Comunism will indeed be the only solution. Note that I wrote some form, Comunism as practiced in the Soviet Union is not what I have in mind at all.

Well, it is at least interesting that the debate of unconditional basic income for everyone gains tractions in various countries and not just by one fringe of the political spectrum.

[Ἀπολλόδοτος Α΄ ὁ Σωτήρ]

I don't think there will be a future scenario where the unemployed rise up, only spontaneous riots, however if a such scenario does occur and rebels succeed, well then we can only hope they institute a form of basic income instead of full-blown communism.

Therefore, I think governments should start looking into these problems, otherwise we will end up with high degree of squalor and violent crime committed by much larger population of unemployed citizens, in a situation similar to one in Rio de Janeiro or Mumbai, there are a lot of high-tech and luxurious things there, but there are also a lot of slums and some people who live in those slums engage in quite dangerous activities.

No small number of authoritarian regimes were destabilized and toppled by unrest. Militarization was the norm back then, also.

If, Bashar al-Assad had the same military equipment as the US alongside satellite surveillance used by Americans, instead of relying on the Russians, I'm quite confident he would end the war by now. The rebels have American or Saudi-Gulf States assistance, and they still not winning, despite being very motivated, for islamist or in the case of Kurds, ethnic reasons.

Technology changes everything. Authoritarian regimes toppled in the past lacked digital data and satellite surveillance. It was motivated people armed with conventional weaponry acting mainly as infantry fighters who overthrew, by their sheer numbers, not particularly loyal, motivated or trained forces used by corrupt, highly inefficiently-run states. Authoritarian regimes can switch to a well trained, professional army, loyal only to the government, instead of a conscript army.

You can not rule against the well-being of the people for a long period of time.

Economy run by machine labor, has no need for human labor, therefore killing the rebels isn't an economic loss, they are unnecessary to those who own the machines and would only cause problems if not dealt with harshly. As Stalin would, perhaps apocryphally say, Death solves all problems -no man, no problem.

Whether or not a regime can be toppled depends on numerous factors, nothing lasts forever, but the Soviet Union didn't fall because people overthrew it, its own politicians led to its deformation and economic transition. Some regimes can only fall when moved to that direction by calm and clandestine means by insiders or a quick coup d'etat, the same way one can slowly transform a democracy into an oligarchy.

Now we have diverged from this threads purpose and moved away from economy to politics, so this will be my last opinion on politics in this thread.

[Mayer]

The Syrian Civil War is a bad example, it has many factions and foreign interests, and Assad isn't universally hated. Think of cases like the fall of communism in eastern europe. Stalin caused revolts when he died, that's why Chrustschow started revisionism. And the communist coup against Gorbachev was stopped by the people. Also, warfare isn't dominated by professional soldiers anymore. Prolonged counter-insurgency in the middle east is a thing, it shows how resistance has become easier.


Regarding the other stuff, I see you have a lot of imagination. Maybe write a book about it, I just can't promise to read it. I find it highly unlikely.

Well, it is at least interesting that the debate of unconditional basic income for everyone gains tractions in various countries and not just by one fringe of the political spectrum.

There was a referendum in Switzerland about basic income. 77% voted NO

[Cyclops]

I had an interesting talk with a colleague about the changes in work environment in the past decade and the challenges and shifts it caused and will cause in the future.

It essentially boiled down to what the manufacturing sector coins "industry 4.0".....

Great points to discuss.

Certainly part of the rift is the fragile unreality of our economies: most human societies are stratified, but the differences in wealth have been manifested by the number of cows you owned or the right to a certain share of the crops.

We now have towering edifices of pretend value like stock markets where numbers on a screen change in response as much to emotion (you know how a stock dives when an executive is disgraced, even if its personal disgrace with no bearing on performance) as to logic. In my country we have massively over-hyped real estate market: once gold and pastoral industries lost value the elites pumped nominal value (based on European assumptions, largely irrelevant in Australian conditions) in to farms and city plots. This sector in turn supports an over-pumped banking sector: the high price of land means big mortgages, and money is pushed through banks into real estate in a spiral that long ago left behind any productive basis.

The people who own the banks and most of the real estate still need the mass of earners to supply grist for the mill. Its worth paying wages and giving benefits because it flows back through the housing market and banks to the elites. Actual primary production (especially metals) is the only real production in Australian: the rest is smart wines and organic olive oil, and some tasty meat for Asia.

If (and when) the elite group acquires and desires nominal value other than money, say Self Aware Robot Work Hours (SARWH) then the market is gone. The need for the less wealthy humans is gone. Life becomes a pissing contest between robot owners (the Robot Wars!). Those robots will not be made in Australia, they will come here and mine for the rare earths, aluminium and iron needed to build themselves and don't get in their way. If you think the idea of a new currency is a fantasy, think about bitcoin: some guy at a terminal invented it, and people now pay for their coffee with it. If one guy can do it, why not a social class? They are getting used to the idea right now.

Once the majority of humans are irrelevant or marginal to the "real" economy of robots (and as a side note I think immortality will be the other key industry) then the majority will be treated like the Native Americans or Australian Aborigines: killed off as an inconvenience by most of the "real" people, or kept in small reserves as a vanity project by a "real" person with a conscience. The economic reality of genocide is not Nazi mysticism, its the dollar (or the SARWH).

Currently the tech gap is not so great that this can happen easily. Achmed with his AK47, or Francois with his union membership or KeKsec11 with his haxxor skills stands a chance of genuinely disrupting the projects of the élites. Likewise the technicians are still needed to run the systems and maintain the servers.

However in a century (or less) there will be robots with minds, and tools (I guess biological ones) that can sterilise or kill the majority of people in a thoroughly targeted way. I imagine a scenario where the economic elite immunise themselves and the pretend political leadership, and deploy a virus that disassembles anyone not immunised ("can't you stop them rioting? They burned Trump Tower ffs! Ok here's a plan..."): or even better the plague "breaks out" and everyone voluntarily lines up to be "immunised". In a year or two after that the politicians suffer the same fate, and we are left with maybe ten thousand humans ruling a robot population.

I have a bleak view of human nature. Typically when there is a massive economic shift people wedded to the superseded system die like flies. When medieval Ireland was surpassed by the more interconnected English economy the Irish underwent a massive displacement, with many more leaving the island or dying by starvation than remaining. In the Americas and Australia the tech gap (as well as different immune system inheritances) saw populations dying in waves, and the survivors were mostly mopped up with muskets.

We are undergoing a massive technological shift (with concomitant economic and social changes) and change in anyone of those areas usually is accompanied by war and death. With all three areas changing so rapidly, I think few of our descendants will survive.