Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's an interesting anecdote, but it doesn't address the threat we now face.
In order for automation to not eliminate jobs, it's necessary that the productivity gains from automation are shared with consumers (higher real pay). Some jobs are eliminated, but new ones created to supply consumer demand, and prosperity increases. This is a prerequisite for sustainable consumer-capitalism and has been the story since the industrial revolution began.
For the last 40 years median compensation has been flat even though productivity and GDP/capita have increased >80%. Most of the gains ended up with a tiny fraction of the population. Consumption was boosted via debt escalation and an increase in workforce participation (women), although the later has fallen quite a bit since 2008. Automation wasn't the cause of this, rather it has been economic policy. Apparently the people running things are not interested in keeping consumer-capitalism on a sustainable track. Unless wages come roaring back there will be no mechanism in the future to replace jobs lost to automation.
But even if incomes rose, we'd still be in for a major change. Computers are becoming ever more capable, and are on track to match human brain processing ability in ~30 years. This further limits any competitive advantage that humans would have, and many people will become unemployable because of it. This can be easily "fixed" by progressively reducing the work week, and giving every citizen a basic income (BI). This is the utopian scenario, where people live comfortable and interesting lives with little or no work required.
The problem is, this isn't the ideal scenario for the oligarchs and it isn't the direction we are headed. For the first time in history they will not be dependent on the labor and support of the masses. The logical solution from their perspective will be marginalization and elimination of "worthless eaters" rather than wasting resources on them. Instead of consumer-capitalism, they will shift to a feudal system, where robots and computers occupy the place of serfs and peasants, and create whatever they desire. Human population will be greatly reduced. They will live on a garden planet in unimaginable luxury, served by robots and whatever humans they wish to keep.
Exactly. And the latter outcome you highlight is the dystopian outcome, if you are a median human being. Human beings are neither inherently selfless nor stoic, but they are capable of either. In my experience on this Earth, and as a human being myself, I am much confident humans would gravitate to the selflessness required to kamikaze the oligarch's castle, than stoically watch my progeny starve. You can count me in personally into that demographic. In my historical lifespan that is not going to touch me, but I expect similar behavior of those who come after me. An economy that does not work in the interest of the proletariat is an economy worth sabotaging and terrorizing afaic. Much of the radicalization of current fringe global populations is due strictly to the leverage lack of economic opportunity creates on their willingness to terrorize. If people think only "brown people" exhibit that proclivity, they got another thing coming if we don't start rocking the boat on this post-globalized automated economic system in 100 years.
We are a gregarious species, so there's still a lot of potential for the non-sociopathic intellectual and leadership outliers within the 99% to stop the 1% and the robots. So I'm not all that worried about humanity.
We are a gregarious species, so there's still a lot of potential for the non-sociopathic intellectual and leadership outliers within the 99% to stop the 1% and the robots. So I'm not all that worried about humanity.
I'm convinced from recent events and trends that the .01% are effectively manipulating us to acheive the best outcome for themselves. The masses will only organize to oppose them if they are stupid enough to make it obvious. It is easy enough to keep us divided and confused. Propaganda must be a hard science by now. If the transition is slow enough, and the social safety net generous enough (just enough), there will be no uprising. Just a slow deterioration of rights and living standard. Get rid of supports for having children and few will want them. VR will make it easy to keep people entertained with minimal resources. The excess humans will die off eventually.
So never a harsh dystopia, but the end result is a lot fewer people. And utopia for the ones who are left.
I'm convinced from recent events and trends that the .01% are effectively manipulating us to acheive the best outcome for themselves. The masses will only organize to oppose them if they are stupid enough to make it obvious. It is easy enough to keep us divided and confused. Propaganda must be a hard science by now. If the transition is slow enough, and the social safety net generous enough (just enough), there will be no uprising. Just a slow deterioration of rights and living standard. Get rid of supports for having children and few will want them. VR will make it easy to keep people entertained with minimal resources. The excess humans will die off eventually.
So never a harsh dystopia, but the end result is a lot fewer people. And utopia for the ones who are left.
Yep. We did during industrialization in order to maximize prosperity and military power, but before long most people will be a liability even in developed countries.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,551 posts, read 81,085,957 times
Reputation: 57750
Last night we felt like eating out but nothing fancy or expensive, and went to Red Robin. We were surprised to see that every table had a tablet on a stand called Ziosk. We were seated and the waitress took our order, but you could call her back, order more drinks or dessert, even play games ($1.99) on it. When it came time to pay, rather than wait for her, and then for her to come back with the debit card, we simply touched "Pay Check", swipe the card and have the receipt printed or sent by email (which I did). My only problem with it is that the default tip was 20%, but it's easy to slide the scale down to 10-15%. It saved us time, but was actually a bit fun. I don't know that this will replace employees, but at least hopefully will save them time so they can deliver food to tables faster.
Sounds like better service with less worker-time. That's usually how it goes with "luxury" businesses that aren't bottom feeding.
That reminds me of something regarding gas stations. They used to pump your gas, clean your windshield, check your tires, etc. This was routine. We transitioned to a situation where service dropped a huge amount. Of course price dropped a lot as well. But man, what a change! Now instead of pulling up and waiting in your car while everything was done for you, you get out (blizzard, pouring rain, whatever), handle the dirty gas hose yourself, and then usually have to go inside the store and stand in line to pay (before they put CC machines on the pumps).
Not really a tech thing but rather a cultural issue, and an artifact of consumer incomes being squeezed so they focus on saving money rather than service.
Last night we felt like eating out but nothing fancy or expensive, and went to Red Robin. We were surprised to see that every table had a tablet on a stand called Ziosk. We were seated and the waitress took our order, but you could call her back, order more drinks or dessert, even play games ($1.99) on it. When it came time to pay, rather than wait for her, and then for her to come back with the debit card, we simply touched "Pay Check", swipe the card and have the receipt printed or sent by email (which I did). My only problem with it is that the default tip was 20%, but it's easy to slide the scale down to 10-15%. It saved us time, but was actually a bit fun. I don't know that this will replace employees, but at least hopefully will save them time so they can deliver food to tables faster.
I've seen those in CA at Chili's, I think they're great. I hate waiting on a waitress or waiter when you're ready to go or need something. I wouldn't be surprised if this helps the restaurants serve more people and turn over those tables quicker. Better for everyone.
Something has changed. Any guesses on what that is?
I read an article about automation today that referred to a point in time where expected behavior changes. I found it pretty interesting. So for example, water continues to get hotter as you apply heat to it. You would expect if you keep adding more and more heat, it will just keep getting hotter and hotter. Suddenly, though, it reaches a point where it boils and evaporates. They equated this with automation. Automation was excellent for society for hundreds of years, but perhaps it's getting to a "flashpoint".
The remaining jobs will continue to place additional demands on people in multitasking, ability, and knowledge. Not everyone can achieve these heightened levels. IE a bell curve of skill and aptitudes can't have everyone being good. I see it a lot in the accounting field as a CPA. Tons of low skill, mundane work has been eliminated. But there is still an avalanche of higher level work that can't be automated now and I don't think it will EVER be able to be automated. It requires too much human interaction. Too much judgment and skill. This places more burden on the people who CAN achieve this level, and basically leaves others who used to maybe be employed in the absolute lowest levels of accounting like payroll, AP/AR, ect on the street. In other words, you have overworked, high skilled professionals making a decent living with their work/life balance continually under threat....and people who are unemployable.
I grew up in the rustbelt and see the rot first hand. I feel for people. As much as I believe in competition, not making excuses, and adapting in life I often wonder at what point it COULD go too far in the future. I don't know the answer to it though, because business will always push towards a goal of using less resources to achieve more....and I absolutely think they are right in chasing this goal.
One fallacy that keeps getting repeated in such discussions, is the fallacy that you need certain numbers of consumers to support the economy, and therefore the unemployable need some kind of income support to avoid a disaster of the whole economy. The fallacy uses logic such as: if most consumers have no money, who will buy the goods produced by the robots? The robots won't, because they don't need those goods. Multinational corporations have no loyalty to Americans. They would rather sell to Brazilians, Chinese, Japanese, Indians, Europeans, AND Americans. The globe is the ultimate prize. Not America.
One answer to that fallacy is that the kind of economy a society of robots would have, would be different, because robots would have different needs than humans have. One of the biggest expenditures of an intelligent autonomous robot would be for maintenance and improvements. Add more power to its brain, add more strength to its arms, give it better batteries and/or other energy sources, etc. In a society of intelligent robots, the economy would be huge, just from providing those goods and services robots would need for maintaining and improving themselves.
Another answer to the same fallacy, if the robots are owned by the 1%, and are slaves to them, the 1% could be the consumers who consume all the goods of the whole economy, while the 99% starve in the gutters. One major item of consumption might be weapons, such as bodyguard robots, to defend the 1% from the 99%.
There is no limit to how much anyone can consume. Therefore, the whole idea that the economy needs the 99% to be consumers, is nothing but a fallacy. The economy will do fine, and even boom, while the 99% starve in the gutters and deserts.
Should this be construed as good news or bad news? It depends on your point of view. If you're one of the 1%, it will be paradise. All you have to do is make sure you're one of the 1%, not one of the 99%. So start working towards that goal, and stop worrying about the end of the world.
If we provide income support and/or other such welfare for the 99%, it will only be because of our hearts are bleeding, not because the economy would benefit from any such income support.
And of course the fallacy that the peasants will revolt and therefore need welfare, is even easier to refute. The peasants won't be able to revolt, because the robots will round them up and corral them.
The biggest answer to the fallacy is that multinational corporations who push the envelope of automation don't NEED to rely entirely on the American market. If 20% of people across the world can afford their products, that's more people than just relying on American consumers. The American consumer is an anomaly created by 2 world wars.
The reality is Americans always complain about the evil rich...living too well. The 1% as they call them. However, Americans are the 1% of the world....and the shift in globalization is this power being slowly, but surely shifted to the REAL 99%. In other words, the rest of the world. American's should be careful what they wish for while bashing the "1%". The wealth transfer they want has already been LONG underway.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
