Тег: Unemployment

“How to survive in this almost forced technological progress and live in well-being?”

Questions like these are increasingly coming from our subscribers. It sounds as if terminators are already marching outside the window, and Skynet is about to cut off our hot water for non-payment. Many seriously fear that neural networks and robots will leave us without work and means of subsistence, and if the market is allowed to remain free, then evil corporations will throw us out into the cold. But there is no need to worry so much—this threat is greatly exaggerated. And the fear of “technological unemployment” is perhaps the most persistent myth in human history.
 
Do you know that mean joke? “We thought that in the future, robots would carry heavy loads and mop floors, and people would paint pictures and compose music. In the end, AI draws and writes poetry, and we continue to mop floors.” This is the essence of the so-called Moravec’s paradox. What seems complex to us (higher mathematics, playing chess, writing code) is a piece of cake for a computer. But what is elementary for us (walking through a room cluttered with junk without tripping) is an impossible task for AI.
 
Any physical work requiring fine motor skills and the ability to act in the chaos of a non-standard environment will be automated last. Electricians, plumbers, auto mechanics, builders, painters, roofers, welders—they can all sleep perfectly soundly! No robot, not even the most advanced one from Boston Dynamics, will be able to climb under the hood of your old car, feel for the right bolt, and understand why it’s “making a strange knocking sound on turns” in the coming decades. Replacing a plumber in a Khrushchev-era apartment with its unique, historically formed pipe geometry is a task for super-civilizations, not for ChatGPT.
 
“But surely someone will be replaced!” you might say. Of course. But let’s look at a history textbook. In the 19th century, English weavers (Luddites) smashed steam looms in a panic. They were convinced that machines would deprive them of their bread. What actually happened? Fabric became many times cheaper. People were able to buy an entire wardrobe instead of one shirt every five years. Demand skyrocketed, and the industry required far more laborers: tailors, logistics specialists, salespeople, and mechanics to maintain those very looms appeared.
 
Or remember the beginning of the 20th century. About 80-90% of the population toiled in the fields. Then came the tractor. It seemed like a catastrophe! Millions of peasants would be left without work! But no, they went to build factories, produce cars, and open restaurants and barbershops.
 
And remember the panic of the 1970s when the first ATMs appeared? Bank tellers thought it was their funeral. But ATMs made opening new branches so much cheaper that banks began to grow like mushrooms after rain. In the end, the demand for bank employees only grew—from simple “bill dispensers,” they turned into consultants and managers.
 
We often fear what we cannot imagine. Try explaining to an 18th-century peasant who a “targetologist,” “SMM manager,” “cyber-athlete,” or “prompt engineer” is. He would simply tap his temple with his finger. In the same way, we currently cannot even imagine the professions that will appear in 10-15 years.
 
People think: “If the state doesn’t protect my rights and regulate AI, I’m doomed.” In reality, it’s exactly the opposite. When technology closes a door in one place, enterprising people immediately cut ten new windows. If officials start introducing quotas, bans on the use of AI, or robot taxes, they will simply freeze the economy. Enterprises will become uncompetitive, goods will become expensive, and you and I will become poor.
 
A deregulated market allows capital and resources to flow instantly into new, as yet undiscovered niches. Will AI take over the routine? Great! This means that the production of goods and services will become incredibly cheap and your real income will grow. We will work fewer hours but live in greater abundance, spending time on creativity, service, interpersonal communication, and those very new professions that will be born out of entrepreneurial freedom.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Unemployment and Ancap

What should be done about the destruction of low-skilled jobs? Should a person invest their time in acquiring professions that are more difficult to master? Will there be enough positions, given that high-skilled work is always more limited? Unemployment will increase thefts; people can be imprisoned for violating the law, but this can break them, and “re-education” is even more pointless, as the theft is forced.

Maksim Barbukhin

Alex Murin answers

First of all, let’s figure out which jobs are disappearing and where? And to what extent automation will affect all layers of life. Jobs are disappearing in cities at large-scale production facilities. Only a large entrepreneur can afford production innovations. Most entrepreneurs used manual labor and continue to do so. A baker bakes bread, a janitor sweeps the yard, a clerk sits in a kiosk. For the most part, the majority of jobs are created by small entrepreneurs who do not strive for and cannot fully automate the production process. If there were no state with a heap of licenses, taxes, fees, and inspections, small businesses would not have the barriers that exist now. This means everything would be regulated by supply and demand. If demand is higher, a person will not have to give half of their income to the state, which would create public goods. Thus, with the development of small business, loaders and salesclerks will not disappear; there will be many farmers, small production sites baking bread, making things from natural products produced by local farmers. One should not expect global automation in this sector.

Another important point is the mastery of new professions. We master many things naturally. If the computer was a rarity in the 90s and required professional education to operate, now there is one in every home, and a child can perform basic work like typing text. Learning happens naturally. Those who find it difficult will, of course, remain outsiders. Those who want to improve will not engage in simply getting pieces of paper and sitting through hours of classes that are unnecessary for mastering a specialty; they will study what they will actually be working with. Many specialties can be mastered using modern teaching methods in a much shorter time than five years on a university bench.

Regarding “whether there will be enough positions” — that is a separate question. The number of accountants, secretaries, clerks, and document management specialists will be significantly reduced. The administrations of jurisdictions and municipalities are unlikely to be able to afford to maintain a huge staff and divide responsibilities as is done now. Electronic document management is already the modern reality. States do not want to use many modern solutions because they would have to cut a vast number of municipal employees. And there would be no one to look after the secretary of the director of the department of internal policy, as the department itself would likely not exist. What should all these people do? Learn in-demand specialties, start a small business. Everyone knows how to bake pancakes or pies, grow potatoes and cabbage. This is a rather harsh solution, but if it is not accepted, then incomes will have to be forcibly taken from everyone else to save the lifestyle of officials. And yes, professions that simply do not fit into the modern world will be eliminated. For example, we no longer need telephone operators, radio operators, or coachmen. But all these people did not end up without work.

Who will solve the problem of the unemployed? The free market. Even now, there are staffing agencies that offer a list of in-demand vacancies for a fee. They can also assist in negotiations and organizing meetings with employers. In essence, the Employment Center is a state staffing agency. And its services are not provided for free. We pay for its activities through our taxes. Everyone together—those who go there once a year and those who do not even know the address of the institution. Who will pay unemployment benefits? Private funds. But not just money for the maintenance of so-called professional unemployed persons, but for those who genuinely want to retrain and start their own business or find a new job. Where will the funds get the money? From those who need workers. Pay the fund, and they will find and train people for you. Moreover, not in philosophy, ancient literature, or theology, but in sausage production, potato growing, and the specialties that a specific employer needs. But again, not everything is so smooth. A social phenomenon such as the “professional unemployed” will disappear. At a state exchange, one can receive a meager benefit for a long time, then work a little, quit, and receive it again. Naturally, any private entity will send such a client to seek help elsewhere.

And another important point: if currently all free land is in municipal or regional ownership, then without the state, anyone can occupy a plot that no one claims. Consequently, a person will be able to legally live by subsistence farming, creating associations to make it easier to cultivate the land, without paying duties or taxes.

The question regarding theft is complex. But so-called forced theft does not exist. Theft is, in any case, a crime against property. Whether a person was starving or stole out of a love for art—they are still a thief. An honest person can ask for or take something unnecessary, thrown away, or that grows naturally. So, the arrest of thieves is a perfectly natural thing. Such people must either be isolated or re-educated. If a person finds themselves in a jurisdiction where everything is built on high technology and cannot find work, they can move to an agricultural community and live there. Most often, there are no extra hands in a village. If they do not do this voluntarily, they will end up in prison, which will send them to such a community so they can earn their keep, as well as pay for the services of the court, escorting, and monitoring. It is better to leave voluntarily.

And one more point regarding “extra people.” City dwellers prefer not to have many children. Most often, middle-class families in cities have 1-2 children, and the population is declining or struggling to maintain its size. Conversely, in developed agrarian settlements, there are many children. And work is found for everyone. Now, the state, through population control programs, is trying to break the natural course of events. Large families in cities are provided with social housing and payments. At the same time, the state cannot accurately account for the reduction in jobs in industrial cities. Precisely because of the mistakes of officials, we are forced first to pay taxes for benefits to large families, and then pay taxes for benefits to the unemployed. Market mechanisms could redistribute these people to places where they would find an opportunity to earn a living or grow their own food.

As they say, I know porn that started this way