The Economics of Automation: What Does Our Machine Future Look Like?

[@EconomicsExplained]

Thanks for watching EE nation! ❤️ If you enjoyed, please consider supporting the show on Patreon! 😎 See new videos early, participate in exclusive Q&As, and more! ➡️ www.patreon.com/EconomicsExplained

[@Pedrosa2541]

Hi, sorry for bothering you but I would like to point out some points to these video. I don't see the sense in what you said in 13:00, economically speaking, humans are not the "middle man" in this scenario, because housing, clothing, food don't have value, or nearly the same one for a company as it has for the people involved. Really, what a law office would do with pajamas? Use? Sell? This is the basic reason why people trade, because the same thing can have a different value for different people, and changing hands can create wealth. I also, I don't grasb when you say "business", companies at the end of the day are just judicial entities forming a complex web of contracts. Business "don't exist" in the real world, economically speaking, only humans and the way they interact with one another do, so much so that value doesn't make sense when you get humans out of way. You could may argue that "the few rich who exist will trade with one another, and this will be enough" , and is what I understood with your video. Still, it would imply the biggest economic metamorphosis humanity have ever seen.

[@lm_b5080]

How did Johannesburg elevate itself to country-status?

[@opportunisticcollaboration9165]

2:15 is she your girlfrend?

[@Zabzim]

The four outcome you missed is that automation just get outlawed.

[@reecemacaulay1690]

But this type of automation would simply destroy itself, because with the type of tech we’re talking about... well Democratic and Authoritarian Governments alike have no reason to want it. Democrats will be voted out of power on a merry-go round until somebody gets the message get rid of those complex machines or we’ll get rid of you... poor people still vote... Authoritarians will have to face unprecedented unrest... they wont want to so they’ll probably restrict it as well. Well who will stop them Corporations and Businesses, faced with the prospect of losing every election/ outright revolution from below... most governments aren’t going to choose Business or the Rich.

[@ReasonableRadio]

"we may all starve to death. Thanks for watching guys I hope you enjoyed this video..."

[@ReasonableRadio]

@LostinSpace sorry, 99.99% of us

[@monad_tcp]

I'll just become a Real AI, like Cortana.

[@frederikhyrup2871]

​@Stardust Strangely enough those "Useless" people where the only ones "Forced" to go to work. To keep the nation running and people not dying. Im pretty shure we both would miss the garbage hauler/policeman/trucker/EMT ect in 2 months. But we would not miss the hedgefund manager at "Goldman Sachs" if he was gone for 2 months. Just saying...

[@jokepp]

@@frederikhyrup2871 You are missing the point here. It's not about who is important and/or underappreciated now - it's about *everyone* becoming economically useless in an automated future except those very few people owning companies.

[@Shaurya_Pant]

@@frederikhyrup2871 Well, an elite has a high social impact and less replacability compared to the random Billy who picks up garbage. He dies and tomorrow I can get 10 more people (in general and not in some specific places of this world where low skilled workers are in scarcity.). But carrying from your example, if a CEO of a big firm or an asset manager suddenly dies... There's is a huge likelihood of major disruptions for the lives that were dependent on it. You might not know/realise this, maybe if you just aren't on that level yet, but there is a possibility that the company you work for had it's assets managed by him and if he screws something up deliberately, it can have far reaching consequences, that might even include, you being fired. CEO goes and the entire structure of the company is shaken, nobody cares if a janitor is fired/dead/replaced. :)

[@jorgeastiazaran]

"Average consumers are not as important as we are lead to believe" do you have a video in which you elaborate on that statement? I would love to understand it. Thanks for your videos!

[@paulsebastian744]

YEES I have seen that most profitable businesses are those wich turn a product that was only accessible for high classes and turn it into one accessible by the middle class (phones, cars industry, textile industry) i asked the same question. Hope he answers

[@conornorris6815]

@@paulsebastian744 in my understanding at least, its the same reason trickle down economics doesn't work, consumers are just a way of distributing value and resources were they are needed but if the value and resources are already were the businesses need them to be for them to keep running then the consumers role in the system is bypassed and instead of going from a rich dude to a factory builder to a factory worker to another factory worker then another factory owner it just goes from one factory owner to another, ( not the whole economy will survive though it will be a very slimmed down version because as the consumer takes the value from one place to another bits of it are spent on things only the consumer needs and businesses run on that part will fall, eventually it will probably be a few big industries run by AI and it will slowly morph into some weird self replicating system that I doubt I can fully understand but will probably be mostly mining and chip manufacturing) hope this helped...good luck fellow meat bags

[@conornorris6815]

@@arnoldshmitt4969 u do u m8

[@woobilicious.]

This channel isn't about real economics, it's just a guy with dunning kruger, and reads the "economic" section of wikipedia about various nations, the statement "automation is coming" shows he has zero understanding of the history of "automation", we've been automating since the invention of agriculture 20,000 years ago...This is nothing new.

[@Mandelasmind]

@@woobilicious. it's not new, it's just people are asking the question, what will automation lead to.

[@craggey01]

I'm a welder that works alongside one of these robots in the manufacturing sector making suspension, I'll admit it can do more than I ever can solo and can triple productivity. A best case scenario for the future would be a "The good" system or a hybrid style system, where people work alongside robots for maximum productivity. Mass unemployment will lead to conflict.

[@bethh1068]

i dont think so if we have any common sense which ... well i think there will be 3 different markets and kind of 3 different currencies the essential market (grocery, basic hygiene products, basic tools hardware house hold goods, and basic rent) then there will be a luxury market where a craft person like you might work say people people know you weld and they come to you for giant welded metal dinosaurs on top of basic income you get 50 orders and say to those 50 people that you will do it for another luxury (pool in your back yard, cool under ground party bunker, or house keeping from them for x amount of people who ordered over x amount of time, road work .ect) i call this community favor witch can be earned by completing community requests or commissions (this is craftspeople, artisans, designers, artists and makers, trades people, pavers, iron workers, handy folk, cleaners, specialty cooks, caretakers, landscapers pretty much anyone offering a service to people or the community and you can contribute your community favor to bigger projects like a bridge or water treatment overhaul whatever maybe its more municipal things like things a park Reno, road work) then there will be the investment market to make passive income and ... well invest things like (luxury housing or owning apartments/hotels, franchise ownership/nation wide businesses, yachts/tour boats and so on) you can exchange community favor for investment at like 3 favor for 1 investment currency or something but you cant exchange investment currency for community favor however some jobs get all 3 SOME ceo's (depending on how the company interacts with the community) get all 3 all doctors get all 3 collage staff and teachers get all 2 ect wada think?

[@bogaziciliceohaluk]

@@bethh1068 nice argument, but as with everything, companies and lawyer armies will find a loophole. ps: if you want to disguss this further, i prob cant get a notification on your reply so you can write to me other way. cheers

[@willy4170]

I think instead of having a hybrid system, we could leave all the heavy repetitive manual to machine, and you keep your job, but instead of manually welding, you control and fix the machines that are welding, so basically instead of being a welder you are a machine technician Pros: you are paid more and don’t have to do an exhausting job cons: you have to invest heavily in training to create more skilled and qualified workers that can take the new jobs, so it will require large initial investments

[@jessecunningham4283]

That's robot is gonna replace you if automation becomes bigger than human labor

[@SophiaAstatine]

Don't think of it like conflict. More like nature.

[@johnnydoe6696]

"at the end of the day, what could a banana cost?" Ten dollars?

[@EconomicsExplained]

You are the first person to pick up on this! Well done mate I appreciate you :)

[@johnnydoe6696]

Economics Explained Thanks! I was honestly pretty surprised when I scrolled through the comments and saw nothing about it.

[@johnnydoe6696]

TurekPolski its a reference to Arrested Development. Look up $10 banana arrested development and you’ll find it.

[@thanos4677]

I thought this was a reference to in australia when we had a cyclone that wiped out the banana farms and bananas cost up to $20 per KG

[@jgr7487]

what could a banana cost? what about an important part of the American Intelligence Budget?

[@willmack100]

Johanesburg is not a country. But i like the video.

[@iamrazor9831]

@Green Ghouls he definitely said Johannesburg is a country lol i live in South Africa and i immediately laughed at that statement

[@EconomicsExplained]

Yurp fair call I am a derp. This is why you don't record a video at 3am :(

[@JethroBronner]

@@EconomicsExplained To be fair, Joberg is kinda like it's own country...

[@NikolaNevenov86]

I kind of feel that these wealthy migrants from Johanesburg are running away not from the walls they surrounded themselves with. But because of the things they had to build walls for.

[@ArtUniverse]

South Africa is my city

[@videogamecinema2849]

So buying land to produce food with would be most secure option for the future? Edit: To address comments on taxes and land defence. Like in the past, so in the future it is plausible that many small land owners will form unions, with big dominating corporations or other small land owners to better defend and pay for the ownership of the land.

[@matter968]

That and learning and practicing survival skill to provide for yourself off the land.

[@ferencgazdag1406]

Or just buy the robots

[@Roxor128]

Land to produce food and robots to do the work for you.

[@ironman8257]

No make a warband

[@exantiuse497]

Until that land is more or less forcibly taken from you

[@mustafaeminkorkmaz]

>Automation is inevitable and it's coming for you *Loughs in automation engineer*

[@EconomicsExplained]

Shakes fist. You are a traitor to your species!

[@hloniphizwemthembu8143]

It's not inevitable. Corporations will suffer

[@Nierez]

Only for so long =)

[@Torus2112]

Engineering AI: "Allow me to introduce myself."

[@OzixiThrill]

*Laughs in AI design, before laughing in binary*

[@michaelzlprime]

The third world is already experiencing the first signs of the incoming sea change. There is very little they can produce that can compete on the global market with the exports of the first world. and the import of surplus from the first world kills whatever little economy they did have. For example, Europe dumps much of its milk surplus on Africa (don't remember which countries specifically). And the result of this dirt-cheap milk is the collapse of the local dairy farmers. which cannot possibly compete on prices due to the massive technological disadvantage. As technology accelerates, those countries that get left behind or are already behind today, will have an ever-growing technological gap which would be impossible to close.

[@Legalmind2]

This is the most prominent example of what I see as analogous to the predicitons of automation, so it saddens me that it isn't explored deeper. I would love for someone to take a closer look at this Europe-Africa scenario and analyze it in further depth to show how or how not it is analogous to the productivity boom of automation over people.

[@nikolatasev4948]

This is pretty much what happened during the Industrial Revolution. Steam-powered factories and machined tools exported enough goods to overwhelm uncivilized economies. And the countries that refused to purchase those goods were beat into submission (Japan) or addicted (China during the Opium wars).

[@brennanstock3896]

@@nikolatasev4948 You are correct. In fact, the reason Europe became so developed, industrially, was to their blockading or tariffing of cheap industrial British goods. Africa still cannot bring up an industrial sector because of imports from other continents. Right-wing economists like to blame the governments of these regions, but they are the same people to tell you that the government is the worst thing ever for economic growth and that the "Triumph of the individual" is always imminent. Their claims are simply not supported by any historical evidence.

[@ireneuszpyc6684]

@@brennanstock3896 you're more Trumpist than Trump; building walls never made anyone rich; having many smart people makes a region rich; Africa has very little talent

[@ireneuszpyc6684]

@@foxy7558 Pontiac & Oldsmobile car brands were shut down (not sent to Africa); Buick car manufacturing was sent to China (not Africa); for a number of reasons, it's cheaper to manufacture in Europe & China (not Africa)

[@nathanielb3510]

"If people are rich and have free time, they'll have tons of kids. If people are poor and can't afford anything, they won't have kids". Yeah, that's totally how it works today...

[@matter968]

Actually the poor have many kids in america because they will receive welfare, food stamps, and tax breaks. Unfortunately this puts an even further strain on the system especially of they are not working in the first place.

[@nathanielb3510]

@@matter968 "In America". And what about every other country on earth? How great do you think the welfare programs are in sub-Saharan Africa, Bangladesh, etc?

[@urgyenshelling5591]

@@nathanielb3510 more kids=free labour for farms

[@exantiuse497]

@Matt Ahern I can see that you don't actually know what you're talking about and are probably repeating "facts" some political demagogue lied to you about. I also guess that you're quite young. Poor people do not have more children because of benefits, that's such an asinine idea it makes my head spin. Child benefits in the US are around 6000 a year between ages 0-6 and around 5000 between 6-17. Anyone who has a child could tell you it costs way, way more than that to have a child. The cost of raising the child is around 10 000 a year, and even with extremely conservative estimates (if you were to just feed and clothe the kid and nothing else) you could maybe get it below 5000 and "make a profit", but that would be essentially child abuse for the sake of a few hundred a year, and while there might be handful of such twisted individuals in this world saying that the bottom 20% consists entirely or mostly of people who are that evil is just retarded. Not to mention the work you have to put in a child would make the entire enterprise completely pointless if the idea was to make children to not have to work for a living The real reason as to why poor reproduce more, as you could have figured out if you thought about it for more than a few seconds, is because on average they are less educated, have more social and mental health problems, and have more sexual partners at a younger age, compared to the rest. Meaning they don't have access to contraception, don't know how to use it effectively and have problems controlling their lives, which leads to a lot of unwanted pregnancies; around 2/3 of children born in poor households are unplanned. No baby manufacturing, just unprotected fucking around leading to unwanted pregnancies, not exactly a major revelation

[@LironBerisha]

@@exantiuse497 Thank you .

[@adamstokes]

"Predicting the future is impossible.. Unless you're the Simpsons" 😂😂😂 Brilliantly true!

[@terner1234]

when you make lots of guesses some of them are bound to be true

[@prohacker5086]

@@terner1234 dude, that 2017 potus thing literally predicted the whole scenary and camera angle. Even predicted a sign dropping onto ground at the same time as in real life.

[@trent800]

The onion can as well

[@CalebAyrania]

I partially agree with you, but you seem to underestimate the actual size of the markets that are themselves "unproductive". The modern world is not as simple and "Marxist" (Materialistic) as many economists like to portrait it. The huge bloated industries like those based on immaterial rights, financial products and rentier markets, these are all going to completely collapse in the "Ugly" model. You will effectively end up in something resembling the "Elysium" movie, and that one underestimated the ability to rebuild society outside the "gated community". The monopoly of violence and rule of law is left out in your scenario. Without the proverbial boot stomping on humanity's face forever it is not easy to keep humanity down or disenfranchised.

[@GerBarne]

Perhaps the underclasses will creat their own seperate economy.

[@delta8868]

Nice 1984 reference ;)

[@matheusGMN]

@@GerBarne More likely they would bring out the guillotines

[@Youtubesucks3]

When you imply Marxism is materialistic(which it is), you're misunderstanding what materialism is and how it's used to describe marxism(sorry if I'm rude). From what I understood, you're saying that that there are a lot of markets/industries today that aren't actually based directly on exchange of physical goods. 'Materialism' is the philosophy that influence, political power, and even how we think is determined by the material conditions around us, such as poor economies leading to social movements and change. This is in contrast to 'idealism' which is the belief that human thought is innate and all powerful and that beliefs and ideas are the things that shape society. Marx is one of the first to analyze society in a materialistic lense in contrast of his peers at the time. So this isn't really relevant to whether a business manages farmland or investments. Also, you began with saying that this dude underestimates the size of useless industries and I'm kinda curious where he did that in the video or what you meant by that. Sorry again if I sound rude

[@tat3179]

@@Surteronarto That is because the rich fostered that feeling in the first place. Envy and Jealousy are powerful emotional drivers. If I can't have it, neither can the rich.

[@remkoburger6595]

Good scenario: Universal Basic Income Bad scenario: some kind of Basic Income Ugly scenario: no Basic Income Too bad Andrew Yang is out of the race...

[@Mar184]

It's not that urgent yet. He'll have better chances once this problem actually starts to materialize and becomes tangible to many people. And when they realize it's their responsibility as citizens in a democracy to inform themselves thoroughly on the policies of candidates, and not blindly give their vote to whomever's campaign ads are the most well produced and they have encountered the most frequently without critically questioning them.

[@pudzianpudzian1858]

Actual scenario: Posthumanism

[@AzoreanProud]

Even Basic Income can be bad, isn't guaranteed to be a good scenario, there's many approaches to UBI, it can turn easily in a dystopia.

[@bethh1068]

that's what people richer then me say so they must be right why would they lie?

[@DacLMK]

@@pudzianpudzian1858 True. Posthumanism is the next step in our evolution. We leave our bodies and upload ourselves on the Internet and live there forever.

[@EconomicsExplained]

Hi Everybody, as always I hope you enjoy the video and learn something interesting while watching. I try my very best to reply to all comments with questions related to the video, I have really appreciated that the discussions so far have been extremely civil and on point.

[@missterious2582]

very similarto a video from a while back, humans need not apply by cgp grey. I like the extra points you looked at here though good video.

[@gabrieladriansarbu4350]

Great videos! Love them, but you have to improve those thumbnails. They don't reflect the quality of the video. Keep it up!

[@Orhanu1]

I know you usually have a list of references for all of your videos. In future are you able to pop up your reference at the bottom of the page as you make each point. I know it makes it seem like some sort of uni assignment but I think it will provide more visible credibility to your work. I've noticed on some of your videos people claim you are presenting your opinion, not facts, which obviously true.

[@aleksandersuur9475]

Suggesting that wealthy people are likely to have more children and poor near starving people less is just plain wrong and completely in contrary to reality. That is in total opposition to how people actually behave, you are welcome to check any correlation between fertility rates and wealth you care to find. Always double check that the logical conclusions you reach actually have some relation to reality, if not as in this case, then it doesn't matter how much the logic makes sense to you, it's still wrong. And the same mistake is usually made by people trying to predict future of automation. People come up with all sorts of arguments to how they think things will play out, but they almost never try to match their logic against real world experience. If you come up with logic that predicts automation resulting in widespread poverty in the future the same logic better be able to explain how it resulted in unprecedented growth of wealth in the past. Otherwise it's not rooted in reality and is as good as claiming wealth correlates positively with fertility.

[@QuadroMan1]

Really enjoyed this, I love that the video thinks very large scale. Too many people take these scenarios and think immediate future when the reality is that change this dramatic could take decades before it's just commonplace and generations have grown up with it always being like that. I guess that's a similar reason past future predictions are so terrible, they might get *close* to the idea of a cell phone, but then they depict it as a bulky device with a bubbled square screen and mini satellite dish on it, people don't consider how many things will not only just become obsolete, but replaced by something we never imagined.

[@albertoaltozano8354]

I used to talk a lot with my friends about just this exact topic. We all made almost exact points to the ones made here, I am hugely happy too see that our thoughts made sense, this was amazing! We almost always ended up on the "good" view of the problem, saying that once everything is automated people wouldn't doubt for a second on nationalizing. If amazon/google ever create a fully automated food creating system, I will hope guys I see you out in the streets with me with some molotovs in hand. It's time to be free.

[@blumansimon6458]

Honestly as a South African living close enough to Johannesburg to hit it with a rock, if I chose to throw one in any direction ,the bad or even ugly scenario seems to be coming more and more of the route the economy seems to be going ,with a growing percentage of companies investing in forms of automation ,especially in manufacturing ,but only time will tell what's going to happen

[@blumansimon6458]

The reason that automation in South Africa is becoming more popular is not due to it being cheaper than the human labour ,but more on the reliability of the automation and the long term advantages of having a work force that doesn't need to go home at the end of the day to rest,ect .

[@ZaGaijinSmash]

"who's going to buy a 10 dollar apple?" *Japanese apple farmer runs his hands together.

[@artiumnihamkin9206]

During my university years I took a robotics course. I had a "brilliant" idea of automating a process in a specific industry. I believed that the reason for it being still manual is it's complexity and variability but computer vision could solve the problem. So I shared the idea with my professor. "We already have machines that can do this for the 20 years now" he laughed it off. "So why nobody use them?" I asked. "That's because humans are cheaper than purchasing and maintaining a robot". In your pessimistic scenario where human life is worthless, why would rich person A buy a shiny new tool to produce a one off product that only rich person B uses? Who would design, produce maintain and repair this machine? If you say tiny little robots, that is science fiction territory. I believe that in that scenario, it would be much cheaper to hire dime for a dozen humans to perform the task, hell he can even open a whole factory ;) Automating blue collar jobs makes sense only if it cheaper and it is cheaper when you produce at scale. White collar jobs is a different story. Software and "AI" are making many jobs obsolete but not as much as you would think. Previously when you had 5 accountants with calculators it was limiting your company. Now that they are armed with a software that assist them, you can do more with the same 5 accountants that get the same salary. This doing more translates to growing your business and getting ahead of the competition. On the other hand, If you are starting up a company, it makes it easier and cheaper to do because maybe you don't need to hire an accountant at all but you can pay for this service by hour, and thus you have companies , that pay salaries for people that otherwise would not be able to exist. Overall, I am not afraid of the "automation" future and welcome it with open hands.

[@celinak5062]

Children are generally cheaper than women, animals and men. So first you'd see a rise in that

[@wybo2]

@GamingTV Then why don't they? A sence of morality? I don't think so. Robots ARE expensive and the engineering involved to get them to do a complex job is even more expensive. Robots are fast but they aren't THAT fast. One robot could replace 2 people at most. Its only the really repetative jobs that the company knows can sell for more thag 5 years and can't be outsourced to cheap-labour countries that get automated.

[@iamrazor9831]

@GamingTV you really need to work on your manners, starting off a debate with shut up or whatever is gonna make anything you say after that null cuz no one will read further. Just calm down

[@iamrazor9831]

@GamingTV lol no wonder you have only 200 subs

[@normalmighty]

@GamingTV Shut the fuck up. Your wrong you idiot and I win. Am I doing it right?

[@Sk0lzky]

Also the worst thing about "not having value if you don't work" is actually engrained into our most basic systems. To prevent social stagnation and mass suicides in the "good" (or indeed "bad") scenario people will probably be getting "fake" jobs with advancement possibilities etc. - not unlike gamers do nowadays with clans, guilds and competitive play. We'll probably see a surge of huge "serious entertainment" industry, perhaps even including life threatening competitive activities (as if downhill biking or mma aren't already life threatening xD).

[@SlayerBG93]

Personally I think we will get the GOOD.Then the BAD.Then the UGLY.

[@pawog04youtube3]

Mine Friend have you ever heard of UTOPIA?

[@JonnesTT]

Looking at the current common Ideology, I believe it would rather be the other way around, the ugly starts us out with a social problem. We try to solve the problem while trying to betray our own ideologies as little as possible. And the next generation is going to abandon our ideology as it will be seen as the root cause of those problems and move to the good scenario for good. Although many company owners and investors are publically stating that their companies wouldn't be able to keep up with the rapid market change if the middle-class suddenly disappeared. So maybe the Bad scenario will start (a little less bad as it was portrayed) so we can still spend money, culminating in the ugly scenario as the market changes, to end in a more violent rebellion trying to move us either towards "ye olde times when everything was human-made" or towards the good scenario. But I might just be the biggest dreamer of the universe and the bad scenario might hold on for long enough to effectively wipe out the lower classes. In that case still the good scenario but only for a few percents who will be inbred to the brim and genetically "freshened up" with procedurally generated genetic material. Flawless genetic material of course.

[@ShivaInu42]

Bad ugly good

[@zombieboy1292]

@@JonnesTT Current consumer markets would fall through. They are run by selling to consumers. However, markets like energy or steel or electronics will be fine, all these industries can trade with each other to grow eachother. Oil goes to the steel factories which increases the amount of steel to increase how many robots can be made which etc...

[@JonnesTT]

@@zombieboy1292 Yes, without the industrial market the entire economy would crash down. But the industrial market keeping up the producing corporations is the preset for the segregation of both the bad and the ugly scenario ._.

[@JB-gh1vk]

McDonalds is a company that sells fast food to middle to lower income consumers. McDonalds is ranked as the 255th largest company in the world, operating on a net yearly income of US$ 5.924 Billion Dollars. It is the largest fast food chain in the world and serves over 69 million customers daily in more than 100 countries worldwide. It operates 37,855 outlets as of 2018 and employs more than 1.7 million people. In the year 2018, McDonald's spent upwards of 1.7 million US$ on lobbying, making it a fairly influential lobby in both Washington and Brussels. Amazon is a company that sells consumer goods to middle to lower income consumers. Amazon is ranked as the 28th largest company in the world, operating on a net yearly income of US$ 10.073 Billion Dollars. It is considered one of the big four technology companies, along with Google, Apple and Facebook. It is the second largest technology company by revenue, second only to Apple. In 2018, Amazon's subscription service called Amazon Prime surpassed 100 million subscribers globally. Amazon Prime caters to middle to lower income customers offering a range of discounts and exclusive services on its products. In the year 2018, Amazon spent upwards of 14 million US$ on lobbying, which makes it a substantially powerful lobby in Washington, Brussels and Beijing. The Bank of America is a company that provides financial services to (overwhelmingly) middle to lower income consumers and small businesses. The Bank of America is ranked as the 5th largest company in the world, operating on a net yearly income of US$ 111.9 Billion Dollars. It is the 5th largest bank in the world, behind JP Morgan Chase and China's three biggest investment banks. It is the second largest consumer bank by revenue, second only to JP Morgan Chase, and in 2013 48% of its revenues came from Net Interest Income. A further 12% came from other activities regarding consumers, such as mortgage payments or service charges, and 20% came from its investments in other businesses and brokerage services. In 2009, during the greatest financial crisis since the great depression, the US federal government payed out US$ 20 Billion Dollars to keep the bank from failing, which would have seen catastrophic economic consequences globally. This earned it, and a number of other banks that had gone under similar processes, the title of being 'too big to fail'. These three companies rely on a strong and prosperous middle class, or at the very least a vibrant consumer market, in order to survive and thrive. Under the 'ugly' scenario these companies would see their markets shrink and would likely, with perhaps the exception of BAC, go bankrupt. These are three companies that have time and time again proven their determination, flexibility and adaptability in dealing with crisis to their business, and will not take the death of consumer capitalism lying down.

[@carlosandleon]

69. . . million Nice

[@HVBRSoF]

​@Gap That's not how it works.

[@mashedtomato2079]

@@HVBRSoF *coughs* in *general* *motors* buying out *trams*

[@Extreamkarioke]

I agree. Most rich people in the USA were once poor or middle class. They like living in a relatively safe and stable world. I think we are likely to just end up getting new knowledge, talent, and skill based jobs, with a basic income, healthcare, and other societal benefits; Probably heavily regulated, but stable enough to make the transition to the economy of the future less volatile.

[@marcusanark2541]

Neither will the Black Market!

[@moonasha]

dude this channel is great and so is this video. The fact it only has 2400 views is a shame

[@EconomicsExplained]

That’s ok I don’t mind too much as long as the people that do watch it enjoy the videos that is fine by me. Happy to hear you enjoyed mate :)

[@devbali-q6f]

THIS ONLY HAD 2400 VIEWS A MONTH AGO???

[@DoccyStars]

About that last bit lol

[@bvoyelr]

For posterity: August 26, 2020 - 216,000 views.

[@Snusnu2977]

@@bvoyelr now 236,000

[@Metalx5]

"At the end of the day I am a Stranger who says he is an Economist on the Internet and any of those three things should make you wary of a "nay-sayer" on the soap-box screaming that the end is nigh... BAT! It really might be this time."

[@duncanjones9060]

Good video! I watched something that said that we don’t know about the jobs that will exist in the future. For example, if in 1920 you told a farmer that his industry would go from 50% to 3% of America’s GDP (not exactly accurate percentages) he wouldn’t have believed it. When automated machines were introduced to farming, I think that a lot of people had the same concerns as today in that human workers would become obsolete whereas we now have much much more jobs and career types compared to 1920. I think jobs will always exist but we just don’t know exactly what future jobs will exist or be created.

[@Sir_Budginton]

While that may be true, it is very different this time. This is because while in the past when old jobs were destroyed, new jobs came in to take their place, not no much now. You make that perfect accounting AI, and all those jobs are gone. Nothing was created, the programmer who made it is now done too (He (or his company) will just rake in the profits with zero further work), and there is no new industry to make more jobs. Tractors and harvesters destroyed a lot of farming jobs, but new jobs were made in tractor design, maintenance, and operation, as well as adjacent industries like oil, rubber (for the tyres), glass, etc. But soon we'll have robots driving, designing, and maintaining the tractors. Those robots will have their own maintenance bots, and the same will happen with all the adjacent industries as well.

[@monkemode8128]

I think you're right, but I think the complexity of these jobs will increase. There may be 400,000,000 jobs and 300,000,000 people a country but unemployment could still be extremely high if all of those jobs are managing super complex automated systems that only someone blessed with extreme intelligence could understand. Kinda the same thing we see now, it wasn't as bad to be dumb in 1920 as it is now because in 1920 most jobs weren't too big of a mental challenge but now more and more of jobs are more complex. Some people have already been left out by this.

[@purpleldv966]

I'll tell you what job would most certainly never go away: prostitution!

[@unpronouncable2442]

You are operating under assumption that everything can be automated except ownership. here is a thought. Computers owning companies? humans not wanting to buy their goods? equilibrium between automation and employment forming?

[@LowestofheDead]

You'd need laws that allow AI ownership. However corporations have legal personhood, and could have their buying and selling of goods completely automated, as trading algorithms do with shares.

[@spaceboi231]

@@LowestofheDead or these AI run companies are more powerful than governments and make their own laws.

[@piotrcurious1131]

@@LowestofheDead first task for AI - obtain citizenship 😆 also botnets already take over profits and replace customers. it is why customers ARE obsolete already.

[@Gogglesofkrome]

my theory regarding the post automation era is that people will ironically return to work ethics resembling an era prior to the mass utilization of AI; black markets will form of people using alternative currencies that they can earn themselves by taking part in these alternative economies, or they will simply be growing their own food and bartering for the things they need with it. It will literally start to resemble the scene of a 'brave new world' where folks not taking part in the 'hyper advanced' societies of the future are farming. This is the result of the economy effectively splitting apart; companies might not need many customers to remain afloat, but at the same time they're effectively shutting out massive portions of the population from the ecosystem. While these folks will be able to most likely do alright by themselves by bartering their own food that they grow between one another, they will most likely either be completely ignored, or be at the mercy of the companies that these people could never actually afford to buy from in the first place.

[@KarlSnarks]

This assumes they are able to buy land to farm/produce on for their black market bartering, which they probably could not (because corporations buy all the land)

[@Gogglesofkrome]

@@KarlSnarks if corporations buy all the land, then it would imply that they would actually be occupying it, or that the squatters would care. If the corporations aren't occupying it, but simply just own all of the land in some place like alaska for no reason, then really nothing's stopping squatters from just living there anyway. There's also always underground or in buildings with growlamps, etc. There's really nothing stopping these people from using tech themselves, but the point is that any degree of automation within the economy effectively makes it become an economy that they have just as much stake in as we do currently some foreign economy like that of russia or India - we might as well not have any stake in what happens within it at all, outside of whatever stuff they might be willing to buy or sell to us. In conclusion: This scenario is inevitable. Ideally they'd tax the non-essential automation so that it cost more to automate economically than it would to just hire someone to press a button, but you know, maybe this is just a silly hope.

[@jackiew6598]

Yes this informal secondary economy would be an inevitable component of the ugly scenario. It is 100% human nature to find workarounds like this. Unfortunately this secondary economy would have too much friction and too little efficiency to support all the people in the secondary tier. So it's not a complete solution to the starvation in the ugly scenario but it's at least a partial remedy.

[@jeffreybrusseau8464]

"nothing's stopping squatters from just living there anyway" Robot Security Drones

[@Gogglesofkrome]

@@jeffreybrusseau8464 All it takes to hide your infrared signal is to just use tinfoil. Not to mention, we're talking about the entire globe. Outside of satellite, it's simply unfeasible for them to just hunt down the millions of inevitable squatters, who will be chilling out in the hundreds of miles of unused stretches of land.

[@imavanilleis]

I study robotics and will very likely work in the forefront of this field, and my professor in robotics actually made a really good example: In Sweden, around the 1800's there were around 45 000 registered horses, of which 10 000 were in the army, 30 000 were work horses and 5 000 were entertainment. When the car came, the horses became obsolete, however since then: There's more than double the number of horses today, around 100 000-200 000, all of them are more or less in the "entertaining" area. I don't see negatively on AI or automation, I see it as a natural step in our evolution forth. However I think that economies and politics are not following, and unlike other times were politics/economics have gone rather unharmed from not following technology this time it will be different. And I really like your video, you are bringing this problem into view more and it should be discussed A LOT more than it is not, to try and alleviate the potential problems. Also, say no to AI in military!

[@rake483]

The biggest challenge arent the necessary changes in economies and policies, but the necessary changes in people's thinking. Working for money is engrained in the modern human. The average citizen spends 40 - 50 years working. All his best years are devoted to work. People are basically raised to be worker drones. What will happen if work is no longer necessary? People will have to find a new purpose. The whole idea of a good life needs to change aswell as the life planning. This will not be an easy transition because many people dont like change, especially the older ones, who are in control/power. I wouldnt be surprised if the rich and powerful start WW3 just to "reset" the system and stay in power.

[@LowestofheDead]

At the same time, we now have millions of cars in every country and huge new industries like car factories which replaced all the horse-riding jobs. Also, cars allowed faster and longer-distance travel than was possible with horses, meaning industries could expand and hire more people than before, even if one car required fewer workers than one horse-carriage. In the same way, automation can eventually create new jobs despite replacing many familiar jobs. The problem is if millions of unemployed can afford to get qualified in the new industries that may not exist yet.

[@1wun1]

The number of horses per capita decreased in your example, the number of human servants to the served may decrease too.

[@HaloFTW55]

If it kills people more efficiently, a military will use it. That includes robots and AI.

[@Danuxsy]

@@rake483 it only take one generation to change thought patterns lol

[@ConquerDriving]

I don't understand how the consumer isn't important when the purpose of all businesses ultimate leads to the consumer. Even if it is not directly, take away the consumer, the business selling wheat can't sell wheat, the business selling machinery to harvest wheat can't sell their machinery and then the oil company has no one to sell oil to.

[@rketkar5458]

Consider the dwindling fertility and resources of future too. Maybe that will drive down the production even after the automation.

[@strausan]

The main issue with capitalism is that it's not meant to serve people, it's meant to serve capital. If capital is concentrated in the hands of only a few, well the economy will be geared in order to solve the problems of the few. That is the main reason why the economy is not as focused on providing water to the millions who currently don't have access to running water but instead it's hyper focused on providing wealthy people with access to golf courses in the dessert and space travel... the more inequality there is the least efficient is capitalism at solving real people's needs, that's why ideas like UBI or a welfare state are so necessary.

[@matthewhook3375]

@Steven Victor Neiman In the "ugly" scenario, businesses would have the means to produce vast amounts of whatever product their machines are programmed to produce, but there would be no incentive to bother doing so unless they have a market to actually sell the product to.

[@basbekjenl]

I studied economics because I had a nack for numbers and math, after finishing the study and nearly dying of boredom at internship just copy pasting numbers from paper to computer and printing them out again I saw how easy it would be to automate a job like that so that a department could be replaced by one or two for redundancy individuals capable to use tools that make the job easy. I worked one summer as a assistant accountant before going back to school and becoming a programmer, and frighteningly it was the same story, there are already so many tools that if used correctly could replace so many jobs just out of you don't need 5 people with calculators to do that. I've been unemployed for a while now learning a foreign language and getting used to living in another country but this future of automating everything will only be there if people use the tools we already have otherwise we'll go on trucking as we always have.

[@KY-dg8gp]

3:47 This is already happening. Deloitte for example is an accountingfirm that has accountants in India that do low skill work for the accountants in the Western market. 4:55 This is already happening slowly. Invoices are booked automaticly, Low skilled accounting work is fading away, This means that accountants will focus more on advicing and other tasks that are hard to automate.

[@IdleWorker]

With all these hypotheticals and different scenarios, hollywood should really look to your videos for inspiration.

[@Rofl890]

Scenario Four: Cybernetics and Gene Editing (designer babies) come into play, counteracting the uselessness of humans to a reasonable extent

[@ajax818]

Thats what will most likely happen.

[@TheChiptuner]

But wouldn’t machines just improve?

[@Rofl890]

@@TheChiptuner As would we, is the idea. But it perhaps likely that we can't keep up with how fast the machines of the future will improve.

[@ajax818]

@@TheChiptuner It will but we could probably prolong machines being smarter and more useful than humans for quite some time. Look at what Einstein and Nikola Tesla accomplished, with gene editing we could make the average person as smart as them or potentially even smarter. And just like you said machines will just keep improving but that includes cybernetics that help improve our intelligence.

[@TheRockyCrowe]

I am 50/50 on that. On one hand it would be incredible to have 10 year old understanding and physics and calculus or a human population whose immune to multiple common illnesses or disease. On the other playing God with our genome can have unforeseen consequences. Setting off one set of genes could impair another, there’s so much we won’t be able to account for until it happens.

[@tiendoan1333]

Omg, I have never thought about the babies part of the UBI. That was hilarious. LIKE!

[@Azknowledgethirsty]

That won't probably happen, it's a society paradigm, in fact it has nothing to do with resources, people nowadays just don't want kids, in fact as the eternal youth mentality is slowly taking place I'd say that that world would have even less kids

[@EveryoneWhoUsesThisTV]

No one ever thought it.. because it's fairly absurd.. :) We will never uninvent birth control... And having babies in the hope of cashing in, in 18 years is for pageant mom types only!

[@IOUaUsername]

Just look at mainland China today. They've lifted the one child policy disaster, but families are ceasing having many more children as they move up into the new middle class. It's not that they can't afford to have 6 kids, but that they don't have an economic need for more than two children, and two children is enough for any human's emotional needs to satisfy paternal/maternal instincts. It turns out the only reason people ever had 4+ kids was due to child mortality and the labour involved in running a farm etc. In the future we'll have a stable population and a mostly stagnant economy like Japan. There's no reason we need growth except that it's what we've learned to expect for so long.

[@Azknowledgethirsty]

@@IOUaUsername we do need economic growth, remember that this just means that humans produce more things other humans like, that increase must continue forever, however at a slower rate as the population stagnates or declines

[@BeHappyTo]

@@Azknowledgethirstyeconomic growth =!= technology advancement

[@TruthSerum123x]

Thoughts on Yang's UBI policy?

[@fusion9619]

it will have no long term effect on GDP. It will, however, be very positive for offshore banking.

[@swagatochatterjee7104]

Looks more like a bandage and less like a shot for rabies.

[@edge21str]

@@fusion9619 How would 1000 dollars a month in every Americans pockets make more people illegally hide their money on offshore banks? The people who have the kind of money to do that are already doing it and the ones who don't would simply have a higher living standard. I see a way bigger issue in how the federal budget is supposed to finance it. You would most definitely have to increase taxes significantly. Even if you dissolve the department of defense (which isn't viable) on top of social security, and health and humans services, you'd still be around almost 1 TRILLION dollars short and it would gobble up 66% of the federal budget, and would only result in a 750 dollars UBI at most and that's only IF the bureaucracy costs for this new UBI program are zero, which they won't be. If you go the more realistic route of only dissolving social security, and health and human services and expect minimal maintenance costs for the program, you'd end up with a UBI of around 550 dollars a month. Not really something you can live on anywhere in the US, especially since all the current social security services would no longer be in place.

[@fusion9619]

@@edge21strwell, it sounds like you've done some math on it, and I haven't. My hat is off to you! I said offshore banking would benefit because i was just thinking of what I would do with it - which is not evading taxes. And I'm the opposite of rich... lol, i have to get creative because, despite years of effort, I can't get a normal job. But look at banking - what kind of return are you gonna get with a savings account in the US? Okay, so that's not an option for anyone who's seriously thinking about their financial future. Then look at investments - rational people get really scared when thinking about the risk of owning stocks. Buy and hold is good for building for retirement, but if you are looking for a way to get ahead in a reasonable timeframe, that's also not ideal. Next, you look into real estate - great potential returns, but if everyone starts has an extra $1000 per month, you get a lot more buyers, which drives prices up, which locks out potentially even more people from the real estate ladder. Meanwhile, with some pressure taken off of employers to provide a basic salary, we'll get the waiter-tipping effect, which is to say, wages will stagnate. This also locks out more people from real estate. Where's the money gonna go? Whatever goes into consumer goods, will be muted by inflation (WHILE getting wage deflation!), asset prices will rise, the stock markets will overheat, which leads to the bust end of the cycle, and everyone will look for a safe haven, which looks less and less like the US. So... the moment I get a check for free, i high tail it outta there.

[@edge21str]

@@fusion9619 You're right, as long as you declare your offshore accounts it wouldn't cause any problems and better conditions might make them attractive. You've recognized why part of the UBI system is so flawed at the moment and it's the universal part of it. The current systems dealing with the issues UBI is supposed to solve are VERY flawed, but they at least do a better job at getting the money into the hands of people who on one hand actually need it and on the other are going to spend it almost completely and actually require it. Just giving everyone a check every month can lead to many potential issues, like the ones you described.

[@husseinhajalie2011]

Good scenario: fully automated luxury gay space communism Bad scenario: universal basic income Ugly scenario: keeping our current economic system

[@ffls775]

Here before 100 likes

[@Green__one]

The "good scenario" here is a nightmare. Humans without purpose, that never goes well. Mental health issues abound, suicide rates, drug use, and crime skyrocket. The "bad scenario" here is unworkable. UBI has never been proven to work anywhere, communist countries have been trying it for a very long time, and it hasn't made their populations richer, and make no mistake, it requires communism to work. The "ugly scenario" is pure fear mongering. In all of human history, that "current economic system" has produced the most improvement in quality of life, even for the poorest members of society. And despite hundreds of years of increased automation, our current unemployment rate is largely the same as it always has been. The whole premise of this video is faulty. And it's just shilling for UBI as if it would usher in a utopia. It won't, it's been tried, it always fails. We have a proven way of improving quality of life, and there's absolutely no reason to suspect that it's going to change anytime soon.

[@green_crow-b9v]

@@Green__one i bet you have no Money problem,of course its all good for you(if not you are clearly stupid)

[@dragoonsunite]

There's a fourth option. Look at how obsolete the systems and jobs in government services are. Look at how hard it is to eliminate government jobs because of lobbies for those people working for the government. Look at the percentage of the US population employed by federal and state governments in the 1960's and look at how many are employed today if you include government contracts. Option 4? The entire population ends up working for their governments at obsolete jobs that aren't needed and could be automated, but that persist because of political pressures from lobbyists preventing the politicians that run these governments from eliminating the unneeded workers. We all become hamsters running on hamster wheels for profits earned from taxes from businesses and redistributed to us through "work" that is really fake labor.

[@mcsquisherton]

It's a possibility, but would people really prefer that if they see the country next door being just as or more productive and living possibly happier lives. It's interesting to think about.

[@dingfeldersmurfalot4560]

@@mcsquisherton Probably not. Most of the world is not that mobile. People don't just see patterns; they tend to lock themselves into them. Many poor or lower income people live in dangerous neighborhoods even though they have the income to move because that's where their friends and family are and that's the way they are used to living. Change is almost universally frightening to people, and the fewer resources one has, the more there is to be legitimately frightened about, regardless of countervailing positive potential that might more than balance out the risk of embracing change. We are creatures of habit, we can be blinkered, and we can be blinded by fear or even by prejudice against alternatives.

[@marcusanark2541]

That actually is very possible.

[@swanandjoshi333]

Could be like 15 million miles from Black Mirror

[@denisl2760]

That's basically UBI but with extra steps, a ton of wasted effort, and some window dressing. Yes, it is what we have now in alot of cases, but its not the majority yet. If it gets any bigger then they'll become a majority and just vote to create UBI and do away with "pretending to work".

[@benjaminbrousseau2143]

This channel is so good. Keep it up, you will blow.

[@gtyme125]

More explanation is needed about the "consumer isn't that important statement" Make this video next!

[@tellingfoxtales]

I'd like to see your take on the prospect of collective ownership and decentralised economic activity.

[@Green__one]

You just saw his take on collective ownership. He's all for it. His "good" scenario is communism, his "bad" scenario is partial communism, and his "ugly" scenario is capitalism. The fact that reality throughout all of recorded history shows the opposite outcomes from those systems doesn't seem to phase him. Nor does the fact that increasing automation hasn't changed the unemployment rate in over 100 years, which completely disproves the whole premise of "automation will eliminate all jobs".

[@tellingfoxtales]

@@Green__one collective ownership is more like shares, a house, a car, an industrial 3d printer, can be collectively owned, but still have a majority stakeholder.

[@Green__one]

@@tellingfoxtales He made it pretty clear here that he's more of the communist persuasion.

[@tellingfoxtales]

@@Green__one I think you're paranoid, most people are somewhere in the middle.

[@christopherlee7334]

@@Green__one I'd like for us to come back and revisit this comment in about, oh, let's say 20 to 30 years, and see if your predictions on automation stay true or not.

[@animorph17]

Once had a discussion about this and basically explained the same thing, post scarcity economy in which robots do everything, we collect resources from the asteroid belt, and people don't need to work with a universal income ... all makes perfect mathmatical sense, until you account for the breeders who will keep pumping out babies and put strain on the system as a whole, boomer style. The fundamentalist christian I was talking to got super offended and went on a diatribe about how having as many children as you can, as often as you can, was a god given responsibility that only satanists would shirk from.

[@accutus]

these religious fucks are killing us

[@Maxizio]

If you're collecting resources from asteroid belts there's surely to be inter-planetary travel, right? r-right?

[@traplover6357]

If we had this utopian society where UBI exists and automation is that good, then a 2 child policy would be fine as 1) they are the replacement rates and 2) you dont need to make more children to sustain a workforce (unlike China) as automation will do it.

[@animorph17]

@karl yeeeeep. The dude was in a discord dedicated to a sci-fi story where the central premise is that three alien races are in a post scarcity economy together, and humans being NEW and INTERESTING with entirely alien culture, become the neat new commodity. This christian guy was talking about how post scarcity can't actually exist and that the economic systems of a drone focused, microtech using, galaxy spanning society would have to rely on scarcity and resources because there simply isn't enough space or rocks for everyone to have a comfortable life. The immediate counter was that if production of children is less than your production of resources and expansion into new colony planets, most people have more than they'll ever need. To which he responded by saying that limiting your production of babies is a horrible virus of satan and that we need to make as many children as possible. When questioned on the fact that "as many as possible" in this society would mean dedicating entire planets to factory based clone production churning out billions of test tube babies every other minute for no other purpose than to set them to work building more factory lines for yet more test tube babies, and if this is what he actually wanted ... dude just strait up left.

[@ArticBlueFox96]

We would just decimate the Astroid belt, and disrupt orbits and other solar system cycles; maybe even endangering life on Earth and elsewhere in the Solar System.

[@EloquentTroll]

This is the stuff that keeps me up at night.

[@nsoper19]

"Picture Johannesburg" *shows picture of Twickenham, London*

[@Lawfair]

When CGP Grey put out "Human's Need Not Apply" several year before this video was released, the comment section was filled with people who seemed to have missed the point, with those on the left saying "more education", and those on the right either saying "could never happen" or "ban technology". It's good to see that things have improved somewhat. At least this audience takes the threat seriously.

[@sleepysartorialist]

I love how you think everyone had a sociology teacher. In THIS ECONOMY? 🤣

[@_romeopeter]

This quite insightful! It'll be awesome if economic explain could come as a podcast.

[@drjp4212]

Why does everyone ignore the fact automation make prices really low while diminishing job supply? That would mean increase in buying power for every monetary unit, making any UBI system quite more effective. The video and most comments simply focus on the lowering job supply but forego the overall buying power increase which comes with technology.

[@khomikoow5994]

I think it's talking about a scenario where most people won't be needed. If that is the case, then most individuals will lack the power to improve their situation. If UBI is agreed upon, then what will be the quality of life decided? 3 bedroom house for all? 1 vacation to Disney World a year? Or maybe just the necessities to live? UBI will define your quality of life and limit your choices to live more, except for the minority that is needed in the market. Also, what needs to be considered, is who decides what society will look like? The average individual isn't smart enough to make that calculation democratically.

[@drjp4212]

@@khomikoow5994 "Most individuals will lack the power to improve their situation". What world do you live in? > 99% of ppl already lack those opportunities. Working doesn't get anyone rich, capital owning does (Haven't you read Rich dad Poor Dad?) UBI equals to socialism, i.e., the government will decide what is "needed" for any human, with complete removal of liberties attached. That's the gold of UBI, it's not about helping or improving anyone's condition. The society was, is and will always be decided to look what the upper classes desire. Democracy is a piece of theater, the greatest fallacy ever, the real government (often referred as deep state) is the same regardless of fake democrats or republicans fights.

[@khomikoow5994]

@@drjp4212 Go google “criticism of rich dad poor dad” Outside of that topic, I don’t know what you’re responding to.

[@drjp4212]

@@khomikoow5994 It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree about the phenomenon...Rich dad Poor dad simply expose the mechanics why rich ppl tend to get richer and poor ppl tend to stay poor, by a very simple mathematical principle. The rest is probably cognitive dissonance from you...keep working and some time in the future you'll understand it, only if you're eager to reevaluate your core beliefs.

[@khomikoow5994]

@@drjp4212 Again, I don't know what you're responding to. Might make it easier if you just quote my words that you are responding to and follow up with your response. My guess is that you read "google 'criticism of rich dad poor dad'" and your imagination created a belief structure of what my thoughts on the topic were without me giving you any of those thoughts. Not sure what your goal is when you make responses to ideas not given. It's kind of weird. The fact the only 2 responses you have given were executed in this manner has persuaded me to move on.

[@ranveerkissoondoyal]

Hey, I wrote a comment on another video that I thought your video kind of explains too.... "What this indicates is that any form of civilization will always have an ecological footprint. Technology can only make things within civilization more efficient but the growth of civilization itself is in direct conflict with the rest of nature. Civilization is humans replacing the natural enivorment with its own enviroment, the two naturally come into conflict no matter how you look at it, no matter how you design it. Theres no going back. But we too, as individuals and as a group are part of nature as well. If you think about it this way, we would appreciate nature for how it works and realise how high the bar is set if you had to replace it, in what manner you would have to replace/offset it and be more objective about what you definitely had to conserve or replace. We'd be more resourceful and efficient without the burden of commercial half attempts at conserving the parts of nature that have less consequence to us directly. They artifically inflate prices and barriers of development that actually are of direct consequence to us, while not saving much of the critical parts of nature anyway. The idea that one day we'll develop some miraculous technologies that allow us to live in complete harmony with nature is a hoax. Its the excuse that drives our current lifestyle trends.

[@tonyjc1575]

I can't say that I can agree with your incredibly grim interpretation of the Ugly scenario. While you're talking exclusively on economic terms, you fail to address the societal impact of such setting, and I fail to see how these corporations can be effectively self-sustaining when the only markets are themselves without a "final" outflow of their industrial chains. At that point, you could effectively describe what is known as a Grey Goo, which is a process in which a machine sucks up resources to build more of itself (the automatons) and those automatons are sold. But to what end? Just an economy of automatons extracting resources to build more of itself while the population dwells in poverty and starvation as you say? What would the people think of that? This is why I can't agree with your point that the economy won't collapse, because other than what was described above, I don't see how it simply cannot. Probably not in itself, but by external factors such as a starving and frustrated populace rebelling to improve their quality of life. If politics fail to provide the people with at least the minimal UBI (so that they can go from Ugly to Bad), then there's no reason to believe that the populace won't take matters into their own hands. They will be easy prey to populist demagogues who will rally them with promises of making their lives easier. And they will fall in line, because the alternative is to just wallow in misery.

[@dingfeldersmurfalot4560]

You are not envisioning a mixed scenario, as has historically existed in most countries and still does in many -- that is, separate economies by wealth scale. The poor are allowed to starve, or live at as near to starvation wages as they can be compelled to by their "betters," and a small crown on top of the rotting body of the population can live, sometimes decently, sometimes very well off the labor of others who have effectively no other choice to provide it except through revolutions which might leave the poor or disillusioned with even less than they started out with, crippled, jailed, banished, or even dead ... perhaps even taking the rest of their families with them along to the same dismal fate. A vast lower class can easily support a small upper class in luxury, and the upper class needs give up only a little to a small middle class to extract value from everyone else.

[@tonyjc1575]

@@dingfeldersmurfalot4560 And history has shown that these poor masses will every time take that leap into oblivion. If not them, then the military that could easily seize power if the democratic institutions that supposedly rule the country are nothing than a sham. After all, Stalin's Paranoia and Mao's heavy handedness weren't just because. They were facing true opposition and very possible oustment by both political and military forces within their own government.

[@zesky6654]

@@tonyjc1575 they didn't have AI powered killing machines. Whats to stop the new elite from using a phone app to order their private drone fleet to carpet bomb the ghetto next door to make room for McMansion 2.0 ?

[@nerd1000ify]

Nothing. But a cheaper option might be to (falsely) promise everyone in that ghetto a better life if they fight for you. Humans are essentially free in this scenario, much cheaper than the computers that drive a combat drone. So you instead use your automation to build AK-47s... The exchange ratio against drones will be appalling, but your soldiers cost way less to 'make.'

[@johnnychandler325]

@@zesky6654 For this scenario you would have to throw out all government bodies and the constitution. This kind of power grab doesn't happen overnight and without a civil war

[@HowMoneyWorks]

"I will also do my very best to reply to any comments you guys might have" Now that he's big and famous, let's see if that bet still stands.

[@Alfaomegabravo]

8:45 "So we are likely to see an explosion of new babies" Why did i imagine it as babies exploding?! Im such a horrible person!

[@HaroldoPinheiro-OK]

Well... that would certainly be a way to keep the population down! :P

[@Alfaomegabravo]

You know humanity fucked up when having babies explode is the ethical thing to do.

[@Peoples_Republic_of_Cotati]

I think it is more like activating a bomb, but babies are the shrapnel...?

[@mrc-17]

I worked in a sheet metal shop. Cnc plasma table and water jet cut our shop from like 12 guys to 5 just not laying out shapes by hand. We mostly made ductwork for hvac and I can see how that could be automated as well. Manufactured sectional buildings you just assemble on site, or 3d printed ductwork into the building. Already seeing more individual small package unit heaters instead of miles of ductwork.

[@antiochrecords9283]

Take a drink EVERYTIME he says "BUTT" hahahahaha

[@DanBrianGerona]

I've been watching his other videos and I have come to a point where I anticipate him saying BUT every time he pauses. Haha

[@jellovendigar]

Or “NEOW”

[@ajknodel]

This is attempted murder.

[@visitante-pc5zc]

It's so catchy, isn't it? That's certainly going to take my mind over for at least a week.

[@tubbyshamwow9688]

bAHt

[@hugmonger]

"Housed in houses and transported with transport" This is the sort of hard core vocabulary you need that top level college degree in economics for.

[@Jefferylibido]

These three possible outcomes are basically: 1. Communism 2. Liberalism 3. Fascism

[@GrowtopiahackersPro]

Which is which to be precise

[@hamanakohamaneko7028]

Anarchy

[@jerryoverton7037]

I really enjoy these videos. I think the scenarios in this video depend on an overestimation of automation technology. In many cases, it's more realistic to automate tasks rather than jobs. Automation does eliminate some jobs, but generally, it changes the nature of a profession and creates new demand.

[@Green__one]

Except never in history has automation eliminated jobs. It's shifted them to other places, but never eliminated them. The unemployment rate today is largely the same as it was in the 1800s, despite massive improvements in automation. In reality all we've done is improve the quality of life for everyone (even the poorest members of society). The whole premise of the video is flawed. Automation doesn't eliminate jobs. It just makes society more productive.

[@alpeshmittal3779]

Green1 you are underestimating AI threat. Everything that humans do machines will be able to do better

[@Steveleecomedy]

I went to an art school and broke as fuck. After watching this video I really want to cry... 10 years later: My line of work hasn't been replaced by AI yet.

[@RickMonteiro1984]

People can always make their own companies as long as they can put their funds and minds together.

[@francescoazzoni3445]

I don't think the ugly is possible, because when too many people are dissatisfied, a revolution happens

[@AttilaAsztalos]

Or, in a suitably disenfranchised and oppressed society, absolutely nothing happens beyond the pressure rising because those well-off use the state's power to disproportionately overpower the poor and easily keep the lid on. Which is actually what we already have, come to think of it, minus the universal and more extreme forms poverty - for now. History tends to show that any tipping point against a quasi-all-powerful regime comes not so much from the crowds who are effectively incapable of putting up any kind of meaningful resistance, but from someone high up close to the ropes of power who notices and exploits an opportunity to _use_ social pressure and civil unrest to usurp the current regime in a moment of weakness. After which the people are declared to have won, naturally, then pretty much everything goes back to the exact same ways, only with a different guy and his bestest homies in charge, oppressing the rest more or less exactly like before - because nobody with access to wealth is stupid enough to voluntarily give it away when they can easily just keep all of it to themselves and their cronies. Welcome to the brave new world, same as the old one...

[@francescoazzoni3445]

@@AttilaAsztalos in our society most people are rich enough to prefer what they have to the expected payoff of a revolution (most people are risk adverse). In case a society like number III did appear (highly unlikely since we are in a democracy), the revolution would probably not bring the good society, but surely at least to a good enough society to ensure no other revolution happens. For instance the October revolution did not brought freedom or wealth but it abolished feudalism, but it started welfare programs and took russia out of ww1

[@AttilaAsztalos]

@Francesco Azzoni "rich enough" is not exactly what defines risk appetite. It influences it for sure, but even in the darkest of misery, as long as people are somewhat accustomed to it (and one can boil a from if only one does it gradually enough), and see the prospect of _some_ kind of existence to themselves, most people will continue to be reticent to just throw themselves against the meat grinder that state power is. As for the revolution scenario - true, some form of relief and progress can be expected for the masses, it's all part of the PR of selling the whole show to them after all, and if nothing else the younger usurper is likely to hold slightly more progressive ideas than the old regime had. What remains unarguably unchanged though is that "the people" got to decide nothing and got to change nothing before, and remain equally unable to do any of that after, regardless of what the nominal form of governance was or will be. Even in a so-called "democracy" any single vote is driven by a person's beliefs and can be nearly impossible to sway - but the totality of votes is just statistics, readily influenced by suitable amounts of money/propaganda and a wide assortment of other well-known tools. Which leads to the aforementioned situation where those with the access to wealth see no reason to let anyone else have any of it. Just barely enough "panem et circenses" to keep unrest as low as feasible...

[@francescoazzoni3445]

@@AttilaAsztalos money in politics can bring you so far, eventually, if the situation is dire enough, people will overcome it. Think to the period of the robber barons, they had everything and still, eventually, anti trust legislation was passed

[@AttilaAsztalos]

I was under the impression that the opposite is true - if the situation is dire enough, that's when people are the most willing to rally behind and support a dictator (the more extreme his views the better) just to see something - anything - change, and that's when things really turn to shit.

[@emekaodikanekwu8769]

A work of genius. This is one of the most ingenious videos I have seen in a while. It gets the viewer thinking very deeply and interesting part is that the 4th industrial revolution is not that far away from full maturity. Some of us watching this video will likely live long enough to see it in person.💟⭐

[@aydinozsakin6885]

I think this highlights the importance of not resisting automation but instead focusing on creating a viable system for it to be successful for all. Automation is going to happen so we need good policy to make sure that the future is one we can all look forward to.

[@Green__one]

The best policy for that would be to leave it alone. Let it happen. So far all it has done is increase the quality of life for everyone (including the poorest in society) without reducing the number of jobs at all. So it's been great so far. I can't tell you what the jobs of tomorrow will be. But I can be certain that they'll exist, the past several hundred years has seen the unemployment rate remain relatively the same despite all our automation.

[@AramisWyler]

From it's brutal start to it's brutal end, this video told me things I already knew. The biggest surprises were the flicker of hope that it might be otherwise, and the suggestion that economists were better at predicting the future than computer scientists. This story is the grand tragedy of our time, and should be made into a Broadway musical while there are still actors to perform it.

[@denisl2760]

The biggest surprise is the vast majority of people ignoring the problem and just assuming we'll always have jobs.

[@gijsvandergiessen1150]

Even if apples are 2 cents each, what am I going to do with 30 apples? Except maybe if they are Apple's Apples. Great video by the way, I love the way that you're a complete realist.

[@EconomicsExplained]

Thanks mate always great to hear that people are enjoying my little videos :)

[@ainz-san48]

OOF this is scary but it actually makes sense ... let's just hope that people are actually kind in general as we think and not just machines basically who want to make profit.

[@EconomicsExplained]

Yeah overall the problem may be that only the cruel humans are able to profit in this kind of system. Scary stuff indeed!

[@Antiyoukai]

Lol I got news for you bud

[@Pyriold]

@@mykytadiachyna1608 Minerals are never actually destroyed. Given a cheap energy source, everything can be recycled. So the only real problem is cheap energy. There are some developments that could lead to just that.

[@ArticBlueFox96]

@MetraMan09 The problem is that the robots that make the goods, and the land and resources they make the goods out of, will all be owned by a few people who will not share and will use force to keep others from taking their excess, and they can use robots as their force or if they use humans, they will give desperate people food and housing to keep other desperate people from taking what the few own.

[@ArticBlueFox96]

@MetraMan09 WHAT are you talking about? I never mentioned skin tone and I consider all humans to be equal to one another. Also, to your second comment about resource entitlement, all land and resources were originally owned by no one and available to everyone, and then someone stole from everyone by drawing lines and saying that this or that piece of land belonged to them and then used force to defend that claim (usually the force of state violence).

[@answerman9933]

It is a good thing I have a career repairing industrial robots and automation lines.

[@glens18account]

this video just changed my life.

[@nickui]

how so?

[@glens18account]

@@nickui can't remember now.

[@simonsiddique]

As always, this was a nice video👍. But I have a disagreement with you. As far as I have seen, amount of wealth has a opposite relationship with amount of offspring. Rich+Educated households are seen to have less babies than Poor+uneducated households. So, when Universal Basic Income becomes active, people wouldn't necessarily take more babies to increase income. Parents has to educate and take care of children. It is hard work and excess money doesn't change that.

[@wiselinden]

Hey EE I've been thinking about this for a longtime. But I was thinking, why would people let themselves starve to death when they could just farm with traditional methods? Is there a scenario when the economy essentially splits in two groups. 'The haves': who control automation. 'The have nots': who do not have automation and have no way to effectively buy into 'the haves' economy so they just service each other. This obviously will then result in the 'have nots' developing their own versions of automation soon after the 'haves' do.

[@pushkarlakhe13]

Read Homo Deus by Yuval Noah Harari , the book explains the problem of "useless class" mentioned in this video in great detail

[@e.l.5402]

Give us a summary

[@nikolaynikolov4086]

I think Adam Smith essentially disproved the "useless class" term with his labour theory. People who turn the raw materials into usable goods actually do contribute for the value of those goods. Plus as consumers of said goods, their contribution is doubled at least.

[@TM-et7wi]

First 5 minutes for explaining supply and demand? Damn, time to find a new economics channel

[@fglg]

Good video but Johannesburg is a city, not a country

[@EconomicsExplained]

Yeah I know major derp on my end!

[@swojnowski453]

Economists are famously bad at geography, a bit like mathematicians at driving ;).

[@oisnowy5368]

If you have people who can't afford services from business, but do have demands, I can imagine a second "shadow" or underworld economy creeping up. People still exist and have needs.

[@Sk0lzky]

"The internal combustion engine made steam obsolete" joke's on you, how do you think we get electricity and what are electric cars powered by? :v

[@evannibbe9375]

I think he was referring to an economy based entirely around trains as opposed to their reduced use now as a percentage of the economy.

[@Sk0lzky]

@@evannibbe9375 yeah transport is a key to the modern way of living, I just wanted to make a funny smartass comment

[@andrewkorneychuk586]

That feeling when u were taught this supply and demand in college and now it's all free on KZbin

[@barbapapaplouf5419]

I like your videos, but this one seems kinda economically mistaken. You just forgot to mention the most parsimonious hypothesis: automation will reduce the cost of products, allowing people to buy more, creating new demand and jobs in other sectors. Automation will basically increase purchase power and standards of living. In the same way as assembly line work reduced the number of hired employees, but participated in economic growth cutting down the prices. All that fuss about automation is quite weird. Looks like an irrational robot-phobia!

[@asfmankey3672]

Agreed There's many misconceptions about automation and robot-phobia stemming from Hollywood's exaggerations As you said, automation will create new demand and jobs in other sectors Just looking at the Industrial Revolution proves the previous point, although machines (like mechanized cotton spinning machines) came and some people were put out of jobs, many new jobs (like a new sector of workers who were experts with the machines) came about. This video is pure Luddite hogwash and jumps to conclusions with no real evidence (although that is the point of the video, it misleads viewers and leads to more of this "robot-phobia" we're seeing nowadays)

[@tymandude1510]

That's likely for a period of time between full automation and hyper intelligent AI. Singularity level AI will replace every possible job just due to the concept of it.

[@chillorangutan4482]

@@asfmankey3672 the industrial revolution cannot be compared to the AI revolution (which is the automation revolution currently under way). After the industrial revolution, humans could do things the machines could not, and so, new jobs could be created. After the AI revolution, computers will be better than humans at everything, even novel tasks, advancing themselves, creating art that humans enjoy and so on.

[@asfmankey3672]

​@@chillorangutan4482 Here's the thing, it won't even be such a bad thing when it comes to hazardous and/or repulsive jobs like a slaughterhouse worker (who has to encounter very difficult conditions since he/she has to handle a lot of blood and dead carcasses as well as earning minimum wage). Along with dangerous jobs such as these being automated away (which is a good thing), new jobs will still arise (for example, more jobs of improving AI and maintaining AI would most likely come). Plus, with proposals such as UBI, the AI Revolution will hardly be a human extinction catastrophe as the scare mongers are leading people to believe.

[@barbapapaplouf5419]

@@chillorangutan4482 you will at least need humans to design IA and figure out the needs to be satisfied by it. And if, in a far far scifi future, we don't need humans, I mean, we will have bigger issues to deal with than universal revenue and birth rate! If that would happen, machines would be like humans, being able to perform any function that a human can perform. So they may also have desire, consciousness, a will on their own. I won't venture on what may happen then. But currently, as developed as IA is, we are SO far away from this point. So, I concur with @Asf Mankey : it will be a gradual process very similar to mechanization during the industrial revolution. IA will each decades replace some jobs, and help creating new jobs in other domains. Nothing to worry about (yet! ;) ).

[@Seapears]

Steam wasn't made obsolete by the engine itself, but rather by the price of of fuel

[@bruhdabones]

There’s one option I think you didn’t talk about much: media. When people have lots of free time (the Good scenario in your video), they will go to art - as you said. However, people will pay for art. Yes, ultimately AI can (and already has) produce music, and soon it will be able to make movies with coherent plots, etc. but at the end of the day, just like how many people prefer vinyl to MP3, “human made” will be like “hand made” is for luxury items today. And with art, you can be independent. Many artists may chose to basically be owned by a record company, but another sizable amount can be alone, only using companies for consulting. Also, some people forget that segments of the population are of legitimately negative value to the economy. Whether they are truly disabled, or just not very bright, these people are already less valuable than a robot, and society will have to continue supporting them if we care.

[@willsk3122]

Not everyone is creative in that aspect and there is already way too much supply for people such as actors and musicians i mean hell go to Hollywood and see how many people there are working as a waiter that are also actors.

[@saradanhoff6539]

Except AI will be able to produce music that can touch you more deeply, play upon your feelings more intensely and complexly, and have greater *meaning* to it than any music humanity has produced thusfar. Do remember that feelings are sensory feedback from the physiological emotive reflex, mixed with external sensory stimuli. If you think art/media is safe... you're so wrong it's not funny.

[@bruhdabones]

Willsk Nope, never said everyone can be an artist. We have a lot of supply right now, but we haven’t reached peak demand. Once everyone has a lot of free time the demand will spike. And some demand will be met by AI, but I think like I already said anything “made by a human” could fetch a premium.

[@bruhdabones]

Sara Danhoff right, and it could have maybe 70+% market share. But handmade products, despite being lower quality at times, are still in demand over robot made products. So likewise I’m simply predicting that Human Made art, which may be less emotional or lower quality, will still be in demand

[@southafricanizationofsociety20]

Modern Art is degenerate. No salvation there.

[@AP-yx1mm]

The third scenario reminds me of the actual patterns of trade. North-South trade is actual very low, and that biggest chunk of trade is actually north-north.

[@Logstickz]

I feel like the disqualifying statement ‘I am someone who claims to be a KZbin economist’ should be louder & repeated more in this video.

[@Green__one]

Given his complete lack of understanding of the relationship between automation and employment rates (the fact that there provably isn't any correlation at all). You're right. I've enjoyed many of his videos, but the whole premise of this one is demonstrably false.

[@tfat00]

I’m hooked. Thanks for the quality content 🤙

[@r0se838]

Damn we really do be living in a society

[@_vallee_5190]

I can kinda see this video and agree with sections of it. I slightly am annoyed you did not speak on one of the major reason for working in a field Enjoyment and Interest. Most people choose a job which pays well and also they enjoy, this is one of the major thing in choosing a job, you are going to be spending almost every day spending half of your time awake on your Job so getting one you enjoy usually is a high priority. As an example I am studying physics because I enjoy it, not because it pays well. (Although that is nice.) In an ideal world most work days would look as the following: 8 Hours of Work, 8 Hours of Time, 8 Hours of Sleep However in many place it looks like this: 10 Hours of Work, 6 Hours of Time, 6 Hours of Sleep Fundamentally getting a job you enjoy is going to be important because of how much time you will spend working on it, I personally would trade a boring job that pays 100,000 for a Job I love that pays on 30,000 and while this might be to extreme for most people the general concept still applies. The part about child care is completely absurd and i utterly disagree with it, if you have a child you are going to need to take of it which is a takes a massive amount of time and energy even if day care is payed moreover the more advanced a society the more availability of contraceptives and abortions, children will always be a massive hassle to take of why on earth would you want to have dozens of them? The primary reason for people having mass amount of children in old days is because contraceptives where not available and Sex feels good, however with contraceptives you can have the good feeling of Sex and not a mass amount of children.

[@AureliusLaurentius1099]

Once automation kicks in, the entire economy would flip over its head. As we see, workers loosing there jobs to machines means there would be no consumer base that the companies need to stay profitable also a tax base where the government can get there budget. It is predicted that 54 percent of people would loose there jobs to machines The logical choice will be the total abandonment or modification of the current economic system.

[@inventor121]

@Hi How Are You? but he is english, not american, but english

[@wtfscene6993]

Ir maybe each person will adopt a machine and they will help her and work whit her

[@kayakMike1000]

Good thing i am in the supply side for the automation industry!!!

[@jeevenravi]

Damn, this got depressing fast

[@e7venjedi]

7:43 Why have I never heard of this response to this issue... It's so straightforward and logical...

[@macberry4048]

I have two thoughts when this subject comes up. My first thought is that automation will run into a dead end and not be the amazing technology some people hope and some people dread and my second thought is people will shift to more service jobs like the jobs in India and China where everything is delivered within the hour. A third thought I have is what if completely new type of technology is created in the future that gives birth to a new industry like the airline and film industry

[@qtkingdom5527]

mac berry actually, the way automation is going, we could have self driving cars with only box space and I’m sure there are algorithms that could get robots to fill up these cars as purchases are being made from local warehouses. One robot takes items and stores them out of self driving semi trucks , one robot to deposit said items into self driving compact cars and come to your home. The whole system could be automated in which they send you a text with a 5 digit code, then u put in the code so the door opens and you could grab the items, close the door and it drives back to your local warehouse.

[@qtkingdom5527]

Service jobs are the first to go, we need to invest into creative jobs. Creative jobs are much harder to automate. Everyone talks about skilled trades but honestly, skilled trades need education such as plumbing or welding and once you get past a certain supply of these skilled tradesman or tradeswoman, it wouldn’t be cost effective to do so. Take time out of your life to learn a trade just to find out you’re in a graduating class of thousands of competitors isn’t feasible.

[@macberry4048]

@@qtkingdom5527 when I say service jobs I mean personal service jobs like delivering all types of products the same day. I'm basically saying in the future people will not have to leave the house for anything and their will be more in the home services. People in America want to be treated like royalty but that lifestyle isn't affordable for anybody except the rich. My idea is the world will shift to more luxury products and services because their will be more workers available to do jobs that mostly serve rich people

[@qtkingdom5527]

mac berry we don’t need humans to do delivery jobs.

[@qtkingdom5527]

mac berry if done wrong, people won’t have a future in which they own houses cause they can’t even afford property taxes 🤣

[@wilhelmsarasalo3546]

As a productivity consultant who does write software, I have to agree with the necessity of UBI. How it will be funded is an issue. May I suggest that we forget about trying to collect revenue from the production/consumption cycle (a potential source of great wealth) income tax, sales tax, VAT, whatnot. Instead we should collect revenue from the use of limited resources, by a machine or human, doesn't matter. CO2 etc. emissions, domain name space, vanity plates, fresh water from the ground or other sources, patents etc., all limited resources. The highest bidder will get possession, after paying the price to the current owner or the current owner will need to pay the usage fee based on the new value, the bid. Some time limits will likely be practical. If there are activities that we want to discourage, collecting revenue from that, should be fair game, too. Cigarettes, speeding, bad parking, whatnot.

[@patw.6567]

Intuitive surgical making even prestigious doctors obsolete one day

[@stuffmorestuff6647]

Am I just a nihilist or does anyone one else love these kinds of distopia future videos?

[@D4PPZ456]

I have a feeling that we are going to move towards the good outcome. We know, for a fact, that societies can only contain so much inequality before things get violent. The rules will be rewritten to be in favour of the good outcome, the only question is whether or not the people that get in the way of it have to be killed first to do it. In the ugly scenario, the rich would just be living in luxurious prisons, they would be targeted for assassination every time they left the house, even they would chose to rewrite the rules once the body parts of their children are slowly sent to them in the mail. Piece by piece.

[@rooooooby]

The good outcome is not that great. Studies conducted in mice has shown that when all the basic necessities are taken care of, they lose a sense of purpose, become lethargic, and engage in more aggressive and self-harming behaviors. Eventually the population destroys itself and become extinct.

[@wtfscene6993]

@@rooooooby yes but eventually we will start space colonization and we would have more things to think about

[@peterharris3096]

This explains the disparity between the value of capital markets and main street.

[@prachetasnayse9709]

I have always thought of Detroit Become Human as a Communist Utopia.

[@magnusm4]

The main issue my dad points out is that: "The works of lower education gets replaced and the only work left require a higher understanding and expertise, something not everyone can, including programming. Today many menial tasks require you've been to high school even if it's completely useless in your line of work." Another problem you can see is, nobody wants that work. After brexit they will have to shut down much of their agriculture due to foreigners driving them. And those few they managed, about 5, to get to try it quit in less than a week and couldn't even pick half as well as the foreigners. One didn't even arrive on day 1. There's many other jobs that the industry is SCREAMING for including metal workers. But nobody wants these jobs even if the pay is sweet. But as my dad said, not everyone can be a programmer or get these higher education jobs that require you're capable of critical and out of the box thinking, something you don't learn but have. Like a passion for drawing. And about 10% of the people in the US has such a low iq "regardless of how unreliable iq is" that they don't qualify for European military service, and the US's lowest point is really low. And of about 331 000 000 people. That's a lot of people that don't qualify ever for the work that will exist in the future.

[@Amalokch]

I believe current jobs will evolve into something new and new ones will emerge. Same happened in the last industrial revolution.

[@Green__one]

Bingo! same unemployment rates today as in the 1800s, despite massive increases in automation. For the whole premise of this video to make any sense at all that wouldn't be the case.

[@kimchibbq5242]

Extremely thought provoking🙏

[@mcsquisherton]

Thanks for this video. It gives a little more insight than the "Ther takin ur jerbs" mentality. I honestly hope the Good version of UBI becomes a thing in my country, it's good to hear ways it could be critiqued without just throwing the idea away.

[@Green__one]

There is no "good version of UBI", UBI has been tried many times, it's called communism. It never works. Also, all of history proves that they AREN'T "takin ur jerbs" at all. In fact unemployment today is the same as it was in the 1800s despite massive amounts of automation. All we've really done is improve the lives of all of society. For the whole premise of this video to make any sense we'd already be living in a dystopia with massive unemployment, we're not.

[@mcsquisherton]

@@Green__one mkay keep telling your self that. Mabye it was good for alot of white people. It's been a whole different story for a large group of other people.

[@zachweyrauch2988]

This is a great example of when economics goes too deep with assumptions. You can't base entire premises off of knowing the behavior of future people in a hypothetical situation.... it's just too much.

[@dingfeldersmurfalot4560]

What does a future look like where humans are no longer the creators of value? Great last line(I think I got it right.) Well, much of history has looked substantially like that already. Most people were peasants, and treated as virtually a human sub-species by the powerful, and as slavery has been widespread throughout history, slaves were thought of as less than that; as though they were farm implements, sex toys, free war machines, simmply property. Something often to be treated as without soul, or at least without mind to any interesting extent. Effectively inanimate. So why not grind them into poverty? dispose of them in wars? subject to religious purges or any sort of tyranny of your choice? The U.S. enshrines the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness only because that clutch of ideas was thought non-obvious at the time. Those ideas may become less than obvious in the future, as well. Think of how the wealthy may not imagine themselves blue-blooded in the future, held above others by divine right or bloodline, but by genetic engineering and implants that make them superior not just in their imaginations but, at least in some ways, in actual fact. Those ways, those facts, will undoubtedly be played up as the important ones, perhaps even the determinative measure of merit. Any little bit of luck or advantage, earned or unearned, generally is by social darwinists and those who inherit alike. When that happens, perhaps the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness will come to seem outdated. After all, it wasn't a widespread or generally agreed upon outlook before, and in the future, how will those with power elect to see those with little or no work or opportunity to work and improve themselves, who have no genetic improvements or special implants to help them meet the new norms of the better-than-human? Do we let dogs roam free, even though most of us probably like them? Or do we cage them, moderate their numbers, and, when we can't think of anything better to do with them, euthanize them?

[@unholyrevenger72]

Same thing will happens as it has always happened the masses will kill the oligarchy and society will be restructured.

[@dingfeldersmurfalot4560]

@@unholyrevenger72 The masses have never led a revolution. It has always been the middle class or higher.

[@green_crow-b9v]

@@dingfeldersmurfalot4560 best believe It Will happen again

[@jooky87]

Wow, way darker than I was expecting

[@deogthepoeg7872]

I think this video relies on the assumption that we somehow have to keep capitalism and capitalist trade networks afloat.

[@alexanderdiaz2196]

A fall of the capitalist system is extremely unlikely.