One In Three Jobs Will Be Taken By Software Or Robots By 2025, Says Gartner 405
dcblogs writes: "Gartner predicts one in three jobs will be converted to software, robots and smart machines by 2025," said Peter Sondergaard, Gartner's research director at its big Orlando conference. "New digital businesses require less labor; machines will make sense of data faster than humans can," he said. Smart machines are an emerging "super class" of technologies that perform a wide variety of work, both the physical and the intellectual kind. Machines, for instance, have been grading multiple choice test for years, but now they are grading essays and unstructured text. This cognitive capability in software will extend to other areas, including financial analysis, medical diagnostics and data analytic jobs of all sorts, says Gartner. "Knowledge work will be automated."
Yes yes yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure sure, I've been hearing about the leisure society since the 1970s when I was a kid. I believed it too. Turns out that the people in charge in this world have serious issues with other people working less than them...
We'll find even more creative ways to distract ourselves with ever more bureaucracy in public and private affairs. Everyone I worked with 15 years ago as an engineer is now in management. What are they managing? Where is this productivity I keep hearing about?
I want a ten hour workweek. I want to be able to have the same lifestyle as my parents had 40 years ago with one income!
Re: (Score:3)
Because the only people who get regular pay raises are managers? Every one else gets screwed.
In the future I expect more and more small businesses and boutiques. You can run a small yet profitable business with just two or three people. You don't need an army of accountants, managers or other people who provide only a drain on resources for no increase in value.
Re:Yes yes yes (Score:5, Informative)
In the future I expect more and more small businesses and boutiques.
Small businesses fail/close at an extremely high rate.
It's something like 25% after 1 year and 50% after 4 years.
After that, there's a roughly 5% attrition rate per year.
Of course, this varies by industry, but for the most part, it's +/- 5%.
If you want exact numbers, you'd have to dig them up at SBA.gov
Re: (Score:3)
Running a small business is being on the job 24 hours a day seven days a week. Starts ups, especially small ones don't pay much in the way of money. So what kills the business is fatigue. People get tired of 18 hour days and burn out after a couple of years. Remember, running the business is being the marketing guru, the advertising designer, the customer service representative, the tax accountant, the book keeper, the maintenance person, the person that runs the website and other internet services, on
Re: Yes yes yes (Score:5, Insightful)
We need to separate employers from healthcare anyways.
Re: (Score:2)
I think many of us would prefer to separate it while still being employed.
Re: (Score:3)
If you don't know how health insurance currently works please stop talking.
companies of 500 or more employees are self paying. if you think those companies pay for insurance like you pay for health insurance you are wrong. In those companies you pay your company for health insurance. it is managed by an outside entity. all employee contributions go into a pot. Payments for various claims are paid from the pot. the outside entity manages the cash flow. at the end of most years the company either has t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"Obamacare" had no robust public option for that reason; the Big Pharmy, Big Insurance and Big Healthcare chains instead get even more money.
Single payer healthcare is still the objective. The ACA is a solid first step toward that goal, which is the main reason Republicans oppose the legislation. Both the GOP and the Pharma/Insurance/Healthcare corporations they represent have good reason to be worried.
Re:Yes yes yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Your parents got pensions too because companies cared about employees.
Caring about employees affects the bottom line. In order to maximize human resources those resources. Must be step mined and discarded. How else is the CEO supposed to get his annual bonus? Improve sales?
Re: (Score:3)
Parents got pensions because that's what it took to hire them. "Globalization" dragged pay down to the bottom of the world.
Re: (Score:3)
Look at Japanese companies. They pay reasonable wages, support their staff, offer pensions. They often get undervalued by western investors who see the cost of their staff as a liability, when they see them as an asset.
I don't know what the US was like back in the 50s and 60s, but it isn't inconceivable that a company could actually care about its employees.
Re:...with greater instability. (Score:4, Insightful)
In the future I expect more and more small businesses and boutiques. You can run a small yet profitable business with just two or three people.
Never mind that you are operating in a high-failure part of the private sector with people that cannot really afford to fail. That, and you have no scale to offset purchase costs, especially those relating to benefits.
You don't need an army of accountants, managers or other people who provide only a drain on resources for no increase in value.
Just try and run a small business without retaining an accountant or lawyer. Or these days, a computer tech.
Yes, you can do it all yourself, but if you do, you won't have time to do what you do well. And you'll have a half-rate accountant, a failure for a lawyer and an incompetent security menace for a computer tech, unless you happen to have talent in those fields.
THis automation will include.... (Score:5, Funny)
.. THe forecasting done by Gartner research.
Re:THis automation will include.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Well software and robots will do some of the tasks we do today, which means people of the future will be doing other tasks. Walk in to a factory these days in Western Europe, the factory has possibly 5 employees on the floor, go to China and there are thousands to make the same product. This is what is different with out economies, wages will in China will get to a point where robots are more cost effective, and efficiency is needed. People keep on going on about Foxconn buying in robots, this isn't anythin
Re:Yes yes yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. Cleaning the homes of people who own factories.
What happens when we get to a point where we just don't need everyone to work in order to provide the goods and services people want? I'm thinking we may have already reached that point in some developed countries. Then what?
Unless we're prepared to have some big (and forced) reductions in populations, we had better get comfortable with larger welfare states.
I always get bothered when I hear politicians and pundits talk about "labor participation rates". Until the 1960s, we had much lower labor participation rates in the US. Families were able to get by and make progress only having one person in the family working full time. Today, if you're a stay-at-home parent you are counted as "out of the labor force" and politicians will use you as a statistic for why the economy is bad. But that's an ass-backward way of looking at it. If we had a good economy, we'd be able to thrive on a much lower labor participation rate. I mean, what are we talking about here. If someone in 1980 had told me that in the 21st century we'd all have to work harder, for longer hours, and longer into our lives in order to survive, I would have thought they were crazy. But that's where they're at.
Productivity is at record levels, but everyone has to work harder and longer. Does that really make sense to anyone but a "free market conservative"?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
As with everyone else who wants to reduce the population, I say to you "you first".
were able to get by and make progress only having one person in the family working full time.
You can have a much higher standard of living today with one person working than you could in the 60s! Tiny tract house, one car for the family, one TV, a washing machine, and a refrigerator, and you have what families were aiming for in the 50s, and largely had by the 60s.
Expectations have risen faster than earning power, and that's great. Women wanted the option of working outside the home, and that's great. These are no
Re: (Score:2)
What if 90% of the home theater systems communicate via wi-fi and auto detect, using speakers with built-in amplifiers so all you need to do is put them in the right place and plug them into power? It is possible to do that today. What are you going to install when installation is so easy they don't need you? Or need you seldom enough that you ca
Re: (Score:2)
You'd be amazed how much some people struggle with technology. Much as I can't get the simplest, easiest stuff right with interior decorating.
And anyhow, by what possible process can dropping the cost of manufactured goods to next to nothing make life worse? There are very few manufacturing jobs now, so not much change when they vanish. There's a recent surge in maid and gardener jobs, but that's a first-gen immigrant wave, and their kids won't need that sort of work. Most people already do work that's
Re: (Score:3)
There it is. The tech bro in full. He thinks society is always going to need him because he knows the difference between a HDMI cable and an eSATA cable.
I'm telling you, there are going to be a lot of little John Galt wannabes pissing in their pants when the day comes when buggy whips go out of style.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, when you invent the grandparents that don't need tech handholding, I'll be lined up outside your store to buy a pair!
Meanwhile, I just spent a weekend hanging a TV from a wall for a relative who's actually pretty handy, but will be recovering for surgery for some time. People will always need help of one sort or another from one another, and there's always ways in which skilled labor can make each of our lives better.
Robots will replace unskilled labor - and more power to them - but those jobs suck anyway.
Hanging a TV from a wall isn't skilled labor. And, in fact, a TV-hanging robot would probably not be a bad thing to own, if you're Best Buy or somebody like that.
Re:Yes yes yes (Score:5, Insightful)
You are absolutely wrong. Real incomes are way down from 1960's standards. In 1960, my parents could own their own single-family home, send two kids to private school and college (no student debt!), set themselves up for a comfortable retirement, and take a couple of vacations every year. Buy a brand new Chevrolet Impala every 4 years. And then leave the paid-off house to their kids, along with a nice bit of change. And my father was a machinist who did not finish high school.
Tell me, do you really believe that a family of four could live like that today on one salary? Let's have a show of hands: How many of you reading this believe a family of four could have this type of a lifestyle on one salary? I'll be most of you won't get this lifestyle with two. And your kids will start life with six figures of college debt.
So, you see us going to an all-barter economy? When? And what are you going to use to buy food? You going to trade home stereo installations for a loaf of bread?
Re: (Score:3)
Now you're just trolling.
All you have to do is look at the change in percentage of income that a family pays for housing to see what's changed.
And you still haven't addressed the biggest elements, education and health care. You know where I can get a 1960's quality University of Chicago education and not end up in debt?
You must know that me
Re: (Score:3)
Health care? Sure, 1960s health care is dead cheap - no MRIs, no PET scans, no CAT scans, no tonsils, no modern drugs. We're as far from 1960s medicine is it was from medicine before anesthetic and antibiotics.
Sure, we're in the middle of a tuition bubble, it's as insane as the previous bubbles and will only get worse till it pops.
And, again, I don't care how much a 60s family paid for a car, when that car had no modern safety features, emissions controls, performance, or any of the other things that have
Re: (Score:3)
in the context of what was available at those times.
And that's the point he's trying to make.
The standard of living NOW is vastly greater then it was THEN. Things are different.
"The context" is what has changed. People today simply have it better then people of yesteryear. Yay progress!
The fact that we didn't have microwave ovens in the 1960s does nothing to alter the fact that we still had to obtain food and cook it somehow back then,
Yes, perfect example. You still had to do it somehow, and that somehow was with an oven or a hotplate. If you wanted a hot meal, it took longer with more skill required. AND SO, there were a lot of lonely bachelors who didn't know how to cook and simply didn't have a lot of h
Re: (Score:3)
You could work the same hours (per family) today and still have a vastly higher standard of living than people had in the 60s. You might have a lower standard of living than your neighbors, with 2 earners, and that's mostly what people care about, but that's a relative, not absolute, measure. And we are absolutely doing better now.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
World population and consumption rate is well beyond the sustainable threshold. Population reduction is going to happen anyway, the soft or the hard way.
Reverend Malthus? Aren't you dead? You've been wrong for about 130 years now, can't you take a hint?
Technology changes things. That's rather the point of technology, really. WTF is with all these Luddites on /.?
a lot of people today are hopelessly unemployable and basically incapable of caring for their family
Really? They can't complete the vocational training to be a plumber, or a welder, or an HVAC repairman? Learn to repair A/Cs, live in the South, and you won't starve, that's for sure!
Much more that "mindless menial labor" went down the sinkhole, and too little sprung up to replace it.
All those carpenters who made furniture by hand - where are they going to find work now that furniture is being
Re: (Score:2)
What happens when we get to a point where we just don't need everyone to work in order to provide the goods and services people want? I'm thinking we may have already reached that point in some developed countries. Then what?
Then we do the same thing we did the last time this problem became acute. We reduced the working week from 48 hours to 40 early in the last century; I think reducing it further, to 32, is long overdue.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. Do we still have work to do? Unemployment is lower, and labor participation, while dropping, is still pretty good.
http://data.bls.gov/pdq/Survey... [bls.gov]
That should be "Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey", and I looked at it from 1948 to 2014.
The statistics point to a drastic change in the future. But if we look at the statistics right
Re: (Score:3)
What happens when we get to a point where we just don't need everyone to work in order to provide the goods and services people want?
You assume there is a limit to the goods and services people want. I don't think there's any evidence that such a limit exists. Much of what the developed world spends its money on today would, a few decades ago, have been considered either pure frivolity, or just inconceivable. I see no reason that trend will not continue. I know a guy who makes a great living helping other people buy cars, kind of like a real estate agent, but for vehicles. You would think that the Internet, with the wealth of information
Re:Yes yes yes (Score:4, Insightful)
How many 60" TVs can you fit into your house? How many cars in your garage?
How many people do you need to cut your lawn or cut your hair or shine your shoes? We're already seeing the service employment numbers starting to plateau. How many telephone solicitors do you think we need?
I mean, we could have government make-work jobs, but the only reason we'd do that is because of our Calvinist heritage where there is some religious belief in the morality of hard work.
Re: (Score:3)
How many 60" TVs can you fit into your house? How many cars in your garage?
How many horses can pull your wagon?
Your questions all have the same implicit assumption, that technology and society will remain as it is now... and that is clearly not true.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't understand what you're trying to say. Do you think there's going to be some technological innovation that will allow people to fit more 60" televisions in their living rooms? How many can you watch at once?
Re:Yes yes yes (Score:5, Interesting)
So not only are people working harder than they were in the 80's, the rich folks are living much more lavishly than they were in the 80's.
Re:Yes yes yes (Score:5, Interesting)
It's worse, universities are still putting out tons of art majors, lawyers, English majors, History majors, etc. that will NEVER find a job. But if you look at all the jobs available (simple programming of factory equipment, for example), there is NOBODY teaching those skills.
Not only are universities charging outrageous amounts, but they are putting out useless graduates that can't get jobs because they are trained for things that no longer exist.
Re: (Score:2)
I would think that art and humanities majors, such as a history major, would be able to discern the global macro trend and ride the big wave to financial prosperity, no? An example that comes to mind is Overstock chairman Patrick Byrne, who is a great visionary, probably owing to his PhD in philosophy.
Re:Yes yes yes (Score:5, Funny)
21st century organizations need rule breakers -- agile, inventive, and interconnected with specialists on the 'Net
Like Anonymous, Snowden, Bradley, Silk Road, - the FBI wants to talk to you, citizen!
Re:Yes yes yes (Score:5, Interesting)
You really believe everyone secretly covets an iPhone?
I saw a 12 year old kid playing with his iPhone. You think he had to go to work to get it?
You didn't address the most important point I made: Why should everyone be expected to work? By making the "labor participation rate" an important indicator, that's what we're saying. What we're told we should have is 100% employment. Unfortunately, three year-olds aren't really good for a whole lot of productivity.
So I'll repeat myself, just for you: What happens when all the goods and services we want no longer require 70% of the population to work? Or 50%? Or 30%? What happens to the rest? Either we figure out as a society how those people are going to live or... I don't want to think about the alternative.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure you know that the Koch Brothers are fighting to repeal child labor laws in 18 states, right?
And now they have huge student loans from those schools. You think there's any chance we're going to see government pay for college any time soon in the US?
Oh, I see why you have such an optimistic view. You don't live in the US.
Re: (Score:3)
Also learn to budget so you don't buy that stupidly expensive house.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you telling me you believe that an education in 2014 that will leave a student with six figures of debt is a better education than an education in the 1960s when many students left school with money in their pockets?
I would not say that the state of tuition prices is not better than the past. But I don't think the actual quality of the education is worse. Also, the number of ways to become educated (aside from 4 year universities) is truly amazing in 2014.
I think we are in a bit of an interesting time right now where we are starting to question the idea that a degree from a 4 year university is a good investment at any price, but this is just one hiccup on the way to a much better society
You're looking only at consumer goods, which actually make up just a fraction of the cost of our lives. You want to bet whether the house that was built in 1953 that is affordable to the average family, isn't better than the same house (more likely a condo) that the average family can afford today?
You can get houses in detroit
10 Hour work weeks are here (Score:3, Insightful)
Average, that is, or approaching it.
Ever notice how more and more of the unemployed are unable to re-enter the workforce, and college grads are giving up and moving home? Humans can be worked for 40 hours without undue complaining given a large enough reward (flat screen TVs and SUVs), so that's how long the working humans will go. That leaves more and more people in the 0 hour/week class.
In the US, there are (roughly) 330 million people, and around 120 million of them are employed full time. In a gross sim
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Yes yes yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh it definitely is a leisure society - for the top 1%. See, a while ago the rich assholes figured out that as computer technology was improving, people were working less and less. But they couldn't bear to have people working 20-hour weeks and getting paid for 60 hours of work. Instead they decided that they would fire 2/3 of the workforce, push the remaining 1/3 to insane limits, end silly stuff like employee bonuses or overtime, and call it 'restructuring'.
And what about the possibility that the government will catch on to this scheme and force them to pay their dues back to society? They've insured themselves against that - by making the word 'Socialist!' toxic and propping up Fox News.
Re:Yes yes yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Give it a rest.
I founded a successful business, from concept to turning a profit. Made a good amount of money too. I've seen the ins and outs of the 'capitalist' system, and it's ugly. You're right that small businesses are being destroyed. But gov't is not the (main) culprit. It's large businesses.
You're right that what we have isn't capitalism. But it's not socialism either. It's socialism for the rich and 'fuck you' for the poor. At least if it was free-market capitalism we wouldn't be hypocrites.
Take healthcare. Believe it or not, we have enough money to, for instance, offer affordable health care for every single person - without shoving the premium onto the shoulders of young people like Obamacare does. But we're not going to do that. Because 'socialism is evil!' or something.
Work week's been rising (Score:3)
Just because something took 20 years longer to happen than we expected doesn't mean it's not going to happen. The one's that are making it happen are the ones with the most to gain, the folks at the top. They take a much, much longer view than you or I. They're not just thinking about leaving the kiddos a house or two, they're thinking about a legacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone I worked with 15 years ago as an engineer is now in management. What are they managing? Where is this productivity I keep hearing about?
Good engineers quickly outgrow what they themselves alone are capable of to their visions of what is possible. Management is the only way you can get hundreds of engineers to realize your vision.
Yes... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The partner who requires the sex will get it... no doesn't mean No in robotics, and the partner who wishes to remain unsullied may do so.
Bonus Round: Can you say population control.
How much of a vested interest do they have? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How much of a vested interest does Gartner have in this technology?
Your conspiracy theory is backwards. If they had a vested interest in more automation, they would want to keep it low profile. The worst thing they could do is rile up the people that are losing their jobs, or watching their wages shrink.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How much of a vested interest does Gartner have in this technology?
Your conspiracy theory is backwards. If they had a vested interest in more automation, they would want to keep it low profile.
Unless Gartner themselves are robots! Quick, spread the word before it's too late!
They'll have to get a LOT better much faster (Score:2)
With voice recognition still doing well at 95% accuracy when trained (an average of one in twenty words wrong? Sign me up!) - which was about what it was back a decade ago - and the essay grading systems being very good at what they do [slashdot.org] (Sarcasm alert), they'll have to improve things a lot faster than they have been for the machines to take over 'knowledge work'.
Re: (Score:2)
With voice recognition still doing well at 95% accuracy when trained
Except a decade ago, you got 95% on a powerful desktop computer. Today you get 95% on a cellphone.
If I sit in a quiet room, and enunciate carefully, with slight pauses between words, I can get way better than 95%. Also, if voice recognition is integrated with a camera focused on the speaker's face, accuracy can go way up.
Re: (Score:2)
Except a decade ago, you got 95% on a powerful desktop computer. Today you get 95% on a cellphone.
If I sit in a quiet room, and enunciate carefully, with slight pauses between words, I can get way better than 95%. Also, if voice recognition is integrated with a camera focused on the speaker's face, accuracy can go way up.
Well, of course. A cell phone now is the same power as a powerful desktop computer back then for the most part. But wasn't "Natural speech recognition" the big goal? They did call it "Dragon Naturallyspeaking" after all. However it still sits in a state where the computer needs to have a perfect environment to achieve something partially as good as a human being.
I counter-propose that humans will be helping computers more in the future [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2)
...the same company that predicted that OS/2... (Score:5, Funny)
...would be running on more computers than all other operating systems combined by, IIRC, 2003.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Are you implying their predictions have as much clarity as an obsidian crystal ball in a sewage treatment tank? As much fidelity as a wax cylinder on a 120 degree day in Arizona? As much accuracy as somebody trying to blindly roundhouse kick the Andromeda Galaxy? And hold as much water as a clogged ink jet nozzle? If you are, I agree.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In a fair business environment it would probably have been the case..... :)
Re: (Score:2)
Geez, I'd hope that by now it would be at least OS/9.
Re: (Score:2)
OS 10.10? :)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, it's a Warped World!
http://youtu.be/z2cYd6dxj7w [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
This is pure bullshit ... (Score:2)
... we can't protect the fucking automation we have in place now.
Broken stuff, over time, just gets broker.
Hackers are invading the machines as we speak and THAT'S the front page news ... not this science fiction crap [buburuza.net].
Only 1 in 3? (Score:3)
Or do they mean 1 in 3 remaining jobs?
As it is, automation has already taken the vast majority of jobs. You can run a small store with just a few employees, something that needed a couple dozen just a century ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Citation, please.
"Vast majority," is 80-90%.
Humans Need Not Apply (Score:5, Interesting)
There are a lot of comments here about how this is futurist doom & gloom. And it certainly could be. But the difference between the doom of the past and the doom of now is that we now have working, commercial examples of the robots that could replace humans. It was theory before... now it's just a matter of economy of scale and refinement.
CGP Gray did an excellent piece [youtube.com] on this already.
the end is neigh (Score:2)
Article not titled correctly. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Since the invention of the wheel machines have been replacing labor. The result has always been temporary displacement in the labor force and increased overall standards of living.
It won't be any different this time.
Well, if it's true... (Score:2)
If it's true, then bye-bye US. We don't have a populace or society that could withstand 33%+ unemployment. On the other hand, it is Gartner predicting this, so I'm hoping it won't actually be that bad (though this may be the one Gartner gets right).
Optimistic (Score:2)
We're testing software that will eventually replace my job, and from the looks of things it will take far more than eleven years before the software is ready.
Let's hope Gartner goes out of business (Score:2)
We can only dream...
PLEASE PLEASE (Score:2)
Steady State Economics seems to have best answer (Score:2)
The Computer Is Your Friend (Score:2)
Gosh, you know this prediction just brings to mind a world like that of Paranoia, where we've happily given over our lives to the computers to manage and run for us. Hmm. Can't decide if this is a good or bad thing.
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds like an unhealthy level of doubt, Citizen. Doubt leads to worry, which leads to unhappiness, which leads to treason.
Please speak to the nearest Happiness Enforcement Officer for guidance and biochemical supplementation.
Have a nice daycycle.
(Or else.)
I say... (Score:2)
Coincidentally, Hatsune Miku is on Letterman (Score:3)
Japan's computer-generated grassroots indie pop phenomenon Hatsune Miku makes her US TV debut Wednesday on the David Letterman show.
http://sgcafe.com/2014/09/hats... [sgcafe.com]
Not exactly what the article about, given that Miku is massively crowdsourced, and provides opportunities for musicians, rather than taking away jobs. But a funny coincidence nonetheless.
Mega Rant (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:automation + liberal capitalism = disaster (Score:5, Insightful)
We already have the capability to feed, house, and clothe everyone on the planet and look at how many people do without their basic needs being met.
Yet almost all of those unfed and unclothed people live in countries that are not liberal, and most of them live in countries that are not capitalist, or were not capitalist in the recent past. Meanwhile, the top countries by per capita GDP, and by income equality, are liberal, capitalist democracies.
If liberalism, capitalism, and automation were the cause of poverty, then America, Western Europe, and Japan would be starving, while Afghanistan, Liberia, and Somalia would be on top.
What part of America is Liberal? (Score:3)
Also the countries with Starvation aren't even vaguely liberal or socialistic. They just
Re: (Score:2)
Another name for "crony capitalism" is "capitalism".
Re: (Score:2)
It's possible to have capitalism without having a strong central government handing out favors and earmarks to campaign contributors: stick to a weak central government.
Product quality and fraud regulation: good. Monopoly granting and price controls: bad.
Re:automation + liberal capitalism = disaster (Score:5, Informative)
Not really. Qatar is the richest country in the world by per-capita GDP. It's not liberal at all. Norway is the fourth richest, and its government basically owns all of the biggest companies in the country and has set high import tariffs too, making it what many americans would call "a socialist economy", and quite a successful one.
Both Qatar and us here in Norway have oil, basically we won the natural resource lottery which is rather independent of any political system. Try Sweden or Denmark if you want more fair examples of social democratic countries. In any case, we're part of EUs inner market so there's not really many import tariffs but we do have a large public sector, many things are paid for by taxes and provided as public services.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless we trust in the kind intentions of our politicians and business owners, I see a dystopian nightmare in the works. We already have the capability to feed, house, and clothe everyone on the planet and look at how many people do without their basic needs being met.
Actually less and less people live in extreme poverty [wikipedia.org], world literacy rates are going up, agricultural jobs are replaced by industry and service jobs that require skilled labor. Almost half the remaining extremely poor live in India and China, both countries that are rapidly pulling themselves out of poverty. The financial crisis that has hit the west hasn't really stopped progress on that. The greatest challenges are still in Africa where the numbers are going backwards due to population growth, but with p
Re: (Score:2)
Glue some hair on it and give me a Scarlet Johansson robot, OK?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, duh. They'll have robots doing the engineering/programming.
Then we'll see some whining neckbeards like you wouldn't believe.
Re: (Score:2)
Clones..
Clones in five years.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, They'll start dribbling out in 5-8 years. The first serious roll-out will start around 10 years with 1/3 jobs replaced coming 20-30 years out. Its just a matter of sheer amount of robots that need to be built.
Anyone who doesn't think its going to happen is seriously deluding themselves. Pretty the only that can stop it is a global meltdown of modern civilization or earth destroying event (man made or otherwise).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)