Technology should replace human labor

Thank you, Dpowell, for providing your long list of arguments. It seems like you’re using the gish gallop strategy (throwing so many arguments at the opponent it’s hard for him to rebut them all). Just because you have many arguments doesn’t mean you’ll win. To elaborate with numbers: 1+1+1 < 5. Three weak arguments are less powerful than one powerful one. In this round I’ll rebut your arguments to show why technology should replace human labor. 1.1 Technology makes people lazy In the past there were many jobs that were physically demanding. The heavy items in construction got lifted by hand, mail got delivered per bike, clothes were sewn by hand, etc. In the present most of the physically demanding tasks were made easier by technology. We use cranes to lift heavy items in construction, mail is delivered with the internet, clothes are made by machines, etc. So physically demanding labor disappeared. But those cranes had to be built, the e-mail service has to be programmed, the machines had to get designed, etc. All of these jobs are mentally demanding. People got lazier, but they also got smarter and better educated. So technology makes us lazier, but also smarter and better educated. Is this change truly bad? If you ask me this change benefits society. 1.2 People will no longer learn certain skills It’s true that certain skills are lost. There are in the present very few people who know how to weave a carpet by hand and this number is decreasing with the year. However, new skills appeared to compensate for the loss. We now have skills like programming, engineering and analyzing data. 1.3 + 2 Machines aren’t artists / human workers have advantages over technology I never said every single human should get replaced by technology in the short term. It’s not required for me to argue that to hold up my side of the BoP. I merely have to prove the trend where people get replaced by technology is a trend that does more good than harm. This doesn’t include a short-term plan to replace every single person by technology. 1.4 Technology lead to use becoming very specialized + technology increase our dependence on others These two arguments are heavily related to each other, so I’m going to rebut them with the same argumentation. Con creates the impression specialization is bad. Allow me to tell a made-up anecdote to show that specialization is good. There are two people, farmer Frank and builder Bob. Frank has a farm where he produces 1,000 apples a year. Frank does all of the work by hand and he is barely able to survive with this apple production. Bob knows how to make advanced tools like the tractor and those can boost the production of apples a lot. However, Bob doesn’t know a lot about farming, so even though he has advanced tools, he is only able to produce 1,000 apples a year. But then Bob gets the idea to work together with Frank. Bob trades the tractor and promises to maintain it, but in return he wants 50% of the apples that Frank cultivates. Now Frank has better tools and he is able to increase his apple production to 3,000 apples a year. He gives half of them to Bob, and keeps the remaining 1,500 for himself. That’s 500 more than what he had before he started working together with Bob. Bob also increased his apple income by 500. This is a simplified example that show how specialization works. Both Bob and Frank specialize more and they also start to depend on each other. But in return they both are better off than if they were working on their own. So specialization and depending on others aren’t bad. They are ways to increase welfare. 1.5 Technology can be destructive It’s true that some technologies like the atomic bomb are destructive. But just because some technologies are destructive doesn’t mean all technologies are. Take the internet for example. I know you’re using it and I know it hasn’t killed you. Furthermore, claiming that all technologies are bad, because some are destructive is like saying all Muslims are bad, because some attacked Paris a few days ago. 1.6 Technology pollutes the environment It’s true that many technologies pollute the environment. For example, cars that run on gasoline and power plants that run on coal emit a lot of CO2. But how is this argument connected to the resolution? If we decide to use self-driving cars, they are still emitting CO2. But if we stick with cars driven by people they are still emitting CO2. 1.7 Technology causes conflicts between classes So it looks like con suspects replacing people with technology will create conflicts between classes. So what? Multiple conflicts are doing more good than harm. Take for example the conflict between the Founding Fathers of the USA and Britain. Britain wanted that America remained a colony while the Founding Fathers wanted independence. One conflict later and America was independent. This was the first step in changing the USA in one of the biggest economies in the world. 1.8 + 3 Technology leads to unemployment This rebuttal is so long, I split it into two different parts. Part 1: ShadowStats isn’t reliable Con claims the current unemployment in the USA is near the 25% and he uses ShadowStats as a source. This debate isn’t connected to a specific country. But since technology has a similar effect on employment all over the world this specification isn’t going off the topic too far. Now that’s out of the way, let’s go back to ShadowStats. I question the reliability of that site. To show why I question the reliability, let’s take a close look at the graph. I posted it again so it’s not required to scroll. (1) The grey line is U6, the broadest definition of unemployment the Bureau of Labor Statistics uses. This is calculated the following way: (Officially unemployed people + people who work part-time for economic reasons + people who are marginally attached to the labor force) / (civilian labor force + people who are marginally attached to the labor force) (2) Definitions: - Officially unemployed people: people who don’t have a job, but did look for a job in the last 4 weeks (2) - People who work part-time for economic reasons: people who work part-time, but want to work full-time (2) - People who are marginally attached to the labor force: people who want to work and looked for work in the last year, but not in the last 4 weeks (2) - Civilian labor force: all the people who have paid work (2) In October 2015 this was in numbers: ( 7,908 + 5,767 + 1,916 ) / ( 157,028 + 1,916 ) = 15,591 / 158,944 = 9,8% All numbers are from source 3, page 4. They are seasonally adjusted. The answer was double checked by looking at source 3, page 26. ShadowStats adds long-term discouraged workers to both the numerator and the denominator. Since the unemployed according to ShadowStats is 22.8%(1) we can use algebra to calculate the amount of long-term discouraged workers according to ShadowStats. (15,591 + x) / (158,944 + x) = 22.8% x = 26,746 Since all numbers were in thousands ShadowStats claims there are about 26,746,000 people who are long-term discouraged in the USA. That number is unrealistically high. Especially because the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports on the amount of people who want a job, but haven’t looked for one in the last year, which is the same as the amount of long-term discouraged workers. This was about 3,263,000 in October 2015 (4). This is way lower than the number ShadowStats used. Therefore I question the reliability of the unemployment reported by ShadowStats. I’d like to thank Ed Dolan from source 2, because he made this job easier for me. Part 2: technology doesn’t lead to more unemployment Since I question the reliability of the blue ShadowStats line, let’s look at the grey line (U6). It clearly shows that the unemployment is roughly 10%. This is about as high as the U6 was in 1995. But how is this possible? When technology replaces people, aren’t they losing their job? It’s right that some people lose their jobs because of technology. For example, fewer people work in agriculture today than in the past. I already pointed this out in round 2. But there are two reasons why technology doesn’t lead to more unemployment. 1. New jobs are created Technology increases spending power, which increases demand, which creates new demand for jobs. These jobs are mainly created in the caring, creative, technology and business services sectors (5). To give a concrete example, in 1871 there were 9,832 accountants in England and Wales and in 2011 there were 215,678 (5). The graph below shows this increase visually. (5) A very similar increase happened with bar staff. (5) So in some industries jobs disappear, but in other industries new jobs appear. But not all of the jobs that are lost can be compensated with jobs appearing in other industries. The second reason fills those holes. 2. People start working fewer hours In the Netherlands there was the idea to change the work week from 5 days of 8 hours to 4 days of 9 hours (6). This saves 4 hours a week. Multiple companies in Sweden take it even further. They reduced the work day from 8 hours to 6 hours (7). Since every person works less, it’s required to hire a few more people to compensate for the loss in hours. These are my rebuttals to con’s arguments. I now hand the debate over to con, so he can refute my arguments. Sources: 1) http://www.shadowstats.com... 2) http://www.economonitor.com... 3) http://www.bls.gov... 4) http://www.bls.gov... 5) http://www.theguardian.com... 6) http://tinyurl.com... 7) http://www.fastcoexist.com...