Yes, automation will be a problem.

[DetlefK]

http://www.epi.org/publication/robots-or-automation-are-not-the-problem-too-little-worker-power-is/

This article tries to make an argument that it's not a problem.

Robots and automation allow us to increase efficiency by making more things for less money. When goods and services are cheaper, consumers can afford to buy more robot-made stuff, or have money left over to spend on other things. When consumers spend their leftover cash on additional goods and services, it creates jobs. These new jobs help compensate for the jobs lost to automation.

The counter-argument is fairly simple:
Imagine I have a robotic factory where I can produce and sell stuff for 1 cent a piece.
How many cars will you buy?
How many bathtubs?
How many washing-machines?
How many TVs?
How many Smartphones?
How many pants, how many shoes, how many jackets?
How much food?
How many decorative vases will you buy, how many carpets, how many paintings, how many statues, how many fragrances?
How many songs and apps will you download?

There is an upper limit on how much a person will buy, no matter how cheap it is. "Buying more robot-made stuff" ain't gonna happen if you don't need it. THERE IS AN UPPER LIMIT TO THE CONSUMPTION OF GOODS.

"Money left over to spend on other things." Like what??? Our appartments are already full of piss-cheap stuff!!! We cannot buy more because we cannot consume more!!!
The only way out is to spend your additional money not on goods but on services. Except that not only is our appartment full of goods, our time-schedule is already full of services. THERE IS AN UPPER LIMIT TO THE CONSUMPTION OF SERVICES.

When consumers spend their leftover cash on additional goods and services, it creates jobs.

Except that the consumption of such goods and services is limited per person => their production is limited => the number of creatable jobs is limited.

THE NUMBER OF POSSIBLE JOBS IS NOT INFINITE.
THE NUMBER OF ECONOMICALLY SENSIBLE GOODS AND SERVICES IS NOT INFINITE.
THE NUMBER OF CONSUMERS IS NOT INFINITE.
THE AMOUNT OF RESSOURCES IS NOT INFINITE.

The whole "don't worry about automation"-argument is based on the premise of infinite consumption.






We need to give the robot scare a rest. Robots are not leading to mass joblessness and are not the cause of wage stagnation or growing wage inequality. ... Instead, we should focus on policy choices that lead to things that truly threaten workers and their families like eroding labor standards, declining unionization, elevated unemployment, unbalanced globalization, and declining top tax rates.

Robots are not leading to mass joblessness yet because they cannot replace human workers yet. Right now, they are still on the level of tools: They need human overseers. But once they are so advanced that they no longer need human overseers, there is no longer a point in hiring any humans.

[Squinch]

1. Automation was SUPPOSED to give us all more leisure. Instead it has given a thousand

people more money than they could possibly spend if they lived lavishly for a million years, and put the rest of us on a gerbil wheel struggling for survival.

And that's only going to get worse.

[DetlefK]

2. Just wait until factory-owners no longer have to pay any wages.

Tricky. Whom to hire? A human who wants a wage or a robot who doesn't want a wage?


They will have all the products, but nobody can afford to buy them.

[Squinch]

3. Yep. And we STILL won't have a national minimum wage.

I think what you describe will be the tipping point: when they can make the products but no one can buy them. But that will take a lot of hardship and heartbreak on the parts of the rest of us before they'll realize that this system is doomed and needs to change.

[HAB911]

4. Tech CEOs back call for basic income as AI job losses threaten industry backlash

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/21/technology-ceos-back-basic-income-as-ai-job-losses-threaten-industry-backlash.html

Mark Cuban: Basic income ‘the worst possible response’ to job losses from robots
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/22/mark-cuban-basic-income-worst-response-to-job-losses-from-robots-ai.html

[ParanoidFactoid]

5. Basic Income sustains status quo inequality

I don't like basic income solutions either. My concern is it will ensconce the status quo of wealth inequality and neoliberal policy, making for a new aristocracy. People will be dependent on their basic income with no opportunity for upward mobility.