Will robot labor eventually become the new slave labor? (calculate, accounting, company)
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.
Over the past few decades we have seen huge changes with mega-agriculture, aquaculture, robotics, computerization.
All of the changes have resulted in different work but not less work. In fact in many ways jobs are much harder. I am not necessarily talking about hours worked and certainly not about the physical aspects of work. Jobs are harder because they require more education, more brain power, more concentration and better abilities in communicating and working with others. Many people seem to see these trends as negative. They bemoan the passing of the middle class. I see better standards of living with less costs and better productivity. We are not only moving ahead in material things but our knowledge is moving forward at an even getter rate. Wonderful new jobs, products, and services are coming.
There is a downside. Fat, dumb and happy doesn't go very far any more. Those without skills, without education and without the ability to continue to grow those skills are finding fewer jobs and lower paying jobs. Many people blame the recession and the economy in general. Instead the trend towards robotics and computerization and efficiencies of scale and process had become important long before 2008-09. The recession just accelerated the changes.
I've always wondered what life would be like if anything you wanted was immediately yours. Honestly, I think it would lead to a lot of depression. People would just become bored, some would try to become creative so you'd probably see a pick up in the arts, but many just wouldn't know what to do with themselves.
The closest thing we have to this "0 cost automation" world actually comes to us from video games. Take the game MineCraft as an example.
For some people, they like to play the Survival mode. They get their pleasure in the game's world from the feeling of accomplishment that comes from gathering resources and making something from those hard earned resources.
Others like to just switch over to Creative mode, where you can build with unlimited resources, fly, and have no risk of dying. To them, the resource gathering is meaningless and they want nothing more than to automatically have everything so they can enjoy doing stuff with it.
If you put a "survival" player in the creative world, they're usually bored. There's no challenge, and therefore nothing to accomplish. It's a meaningless existance with nothing to do.
If you put a "creative" player in the survival world, they're usually annoyed by the difficulty in building the things they want to build. They have a grand idea for a huge structure, but spend so much time dying and struggling to get what they need that they never accomplish what they really want to do.
Full "slave labor" robot automation would be similar to switching the world from "survival" to "creative" and you'd no longer have to work in theory. But I don't know that the people capable of coming up with the robots would want to live in a world like that.
Personally, I think that income inequality is going to stretch to a breaking where you have almost 0 cost, but with almost 0 worker income it'll result in almost 0 sales. Then it'll break. What happens after that, is a mystery. Either we'll go to the "robot slave labor utopia" (aka "Creative") or things will enter a new sort of dark age as things reset back to "Survival." Either way, I think it'll be one of the most defining moments in humanity's existence.
.......
Personally, I think that income inequality is going to stretch to a breaking where you have almost 0 cost, but with almost 0 worker income it'll result in almost 0 sales. Then it'll break. .....
The problem with this analysis (and several other statements I did not quote) is that your definition of "work" is out of date. We are reaching the point where work is no longer part of plowing the fields and hoeing the weeds. Less and less human "work" is involved with assembling parts and manufacturing products. "Workers" are going to be making a living doing other tasks. Actually for a very long time very few of us have been involved with manufacturing.
The problem with this analysis (and several other statements I did not quote) is that your definition of "work" is out of date. We are reaching the point where work is no longer part of plowing the fields and hoeing the weeds. Less and less human "work" is involved with assembling parts and manufacturing products. "Workers" are going to be making a living doing other tasks. Actually for a very long time very few of us have been involved with manufacturing.
I'm not limiting my statements to manufacturing. There was once a time when people said there was no way an accountant could be put out of a job via automation. Then a lot of tax accountants were put out of business by Tax Prep software.
As technology advances, the level of job it will be able to put out of business will continue to increase as well.
The gathering of resources, the conversion of resources from one raw to finished, the processing of information, decision making based on criteria and information, the answering of questions, and the majority of services provided... all these things can be automated.
If you object to the definition of work, what do you consider the "other tasks" that are immune to automation? Beyond the arts, there's little that can't be automated.
If you object to the definition of work, what do you consider the "other tasks" that are immune to automation? Beyond the arts, there's little that can't be automated.
In theory it does sometimes seem that there is little that cannot be automated. It also seems that the complexity of automated systems requires constant updating and improvements and a small army of highly knowledgeable "workers".
Before retiring I worked in a highly automated medical laboratory. When it was first designed and implemented about 15 years ago it was one of the first in the country and one of a handful in the world. The level of automation and robotics was truly impressive. The system could process blood samples and produce hundreds of different laboratory measurements at astounding rates, producing many millions of laboratory tests per month without anyone actually doing any of the tasks required. Sounds great except that it took a substantial number of highly trained people to keep in going. Quite a few of us were needed to keep the systems up to date, to deal with the bugs and glitches and to prevent any possibility of failure. A great many computers were required. These included the simple computers operating components, the major computers controlling the smaller computers and a major system located out of State. A small army of programmers were needed because the system was constantly in need of updating. In addition to the big robotic system, there were dozens of other stand alone robotic systems. These all required operators. Someone had to order the supplies, keep the thousands and thousands of supplies in place, etc, etc, etc. Then in addition to the production facility, we had a separate quality control group, a sales force, business management, human resources, facilities maintenance, transportation, etc. Everyone had computers by the dozens and other systems but lots and lots of high level employees were needed. So far I have only mentioned the clinical (chemical) laboratory. We also had laboratories for pathology. Lots of robotics were involved in preparing the specimens, but the final work as done by pathologists, cytotechnologists and other highly trained individuals. Beyond that there were physicians, phlebotomists and others involved in collecting and transporting specimens.
Yes in theory it should be possible to automate almost any specific task. But I found that things were changing so rapidly no matter how fast we could introduced new technology and new automation we still needed more and more people. Almost everything we did (thousands of tests, with many tens of thousands of steps) needed to be updated and replaced every few years. Old tests vanished and were replaced by new and completely different tests. Components wore out and had to be replaced. New more efficient modules replaced the other ones. And on it went.
I am sure I have done a poor job of explanation but perhaps I have been able to communicate just a bit of my experience with a very complex, highly automated work place.
In theory it does sometimes seem that there is little that cannot be automated. It also seems that the complexity of automated systems requires constant updating and improvements and a small army of highly knowledgeable "workers"....
Don't get me wrong, I completely agree we are far from being able to automate everything, but I believe it is something we're progressing towards faster and faster as time goes on.
The big thing I focus on is that with your situation, you were a bit on the cutting edge. Normally, with every passing iteration a business goes through, the less knowledgeable workers were eliminated to be replaced by fewer more knowledgeable workers. The process continued to become more and more refined and more and more efficient. It may take years or decades, but the inevitable conclusion of your situation is that a small group of programmers would be responsible for improving the automation of the process once done by hundreds.
As people become more familiar with the automation itself, you may eventually start to see the process of automating being outsourced. Repetitive demands for automation (e.g. Accept sample from a standard package, process sample, deliver report in standard format and dispose of sample in standard way) may start to appear and even automation may become automated to some extent.
If you doubt that is possible, you need to look no further than most installation programs. You have stand programs that install, format, and set up other programs. The next step of a program being able to determine which programs need to be installed is already here(e.g. Windows Update). Why is it far fetched to believe that a program couldn't determine you accept samples in a standard box of X format and own Y Reporting program for your output, so it needs to installs the standard Z Automation package.
Like I said, I don't think we're even close to the point of eliminating all workers entirely, but I do think we're getting to the stage where new technology is eliminating jobs faster than creating them.
When the horse carriage builder lost his job to the car, they still needed people to build cars. When the car builder loses his job to the robot, they still need people to maintain the cars and robots... but a lot less of them. That fact is why I think this time may be a little different. We're just eliminating entire fields and creating new ones that employ a lot less people.
I don't truly believe we'll eliminate all workers... but I don't know what happens when we eliminate 99% of them.
Jeo, you have some very interesting ideas. I agree with most of them, but I do not believe that new technology eliminates jobs faster than it replaces them. Think of this from the perspective of a business. Suppose you owned a business that provided goods or services and automation allowed you to make these products or services with little or no labor. You would not be able to make your products or provide services any cheaper or better than anyone else. You would be out of business. Long, long before that happened you would be making new, better and different products. You would use every automated process and tool available and you would be looking for new automation and new tools for your newer products and services. Every advance in robotics and computers allows even more possibilities and the cycle goes on and on at an ever faster rate.
Personally, I believe we're getting to a more extreme cycle of job elimination and job creation.
When a new technology comes out, smart phone apps as an example, I think it does create a boom in new jobs that didn't previously exist. But then shortly afterwards, it contracts. Where originally freelance app development was popular, a swing starts to occur to centralized "app production" companies who will build your app for you. Consolidation occurs and the cycle begins anew, except I think once the dust settles, we have less jobs per capita than before.
Yes, without a doubt the owner in your example would need to come up with a better product than the current automation provided. But by that same stance, while 1 may innovate an improve, 9 other companies may not be able to beat the no cost automation quality. Those businesses will fail. It's part of the cycle of business that the companies that can't keep up fail(capitalism requires it, almost a survival of the fittest approach). But it sets the bar higher and higher each cycle.
Let's say that 1 out of 10 businesses are able to improve the product. How long before automation is then chomping at them? Sure, there will be a few jobs created, but they'll have to compete with incredibly low costs vs their relatively(to automated) high overhead in terms of salaries. The innovaters will be forced to automate to compete in terms of price, and a new cycle begins. To some extend, I'm sure patent laws would protect the innovators for a while, but eventually it will be a battle among the 10% who survived the last cut to automate again.
I completely agree with you that the cycle is going on at a faster rate with each iteration. Tesla for example probably created countless jobs at first, but I'm sure it's already looking for more ways to automate production to cut costs. The gap between innovation and automation is shrinking as time goes on.
You wouldn't describe robot labor as slave labor because a machine cannot be a slave any more than your car or your tablet is your slave. It'll just be robotic labor and yes we're heading in that direction. In fact, it is already here - just look up "robotic surgery."
Robot labor will basically free up people for.... more work. That's right work. If you're thinking of a utopian future where you get home and just relax on the couch while your robot takes care of you, sorry, that's probably not going to happen. It means that instead of taking time off to take your kid to the doctor, attend to personal business, run errands, pick up your kids, etc, etc; you now sit right there at your cubicle while your robot does it for you. That means more time devoted to work and productivity will increase, in turn the economy will benefit.... But it will be an even more competitive future. People will work more because they will have more time for work. The rat race dictates that the overachievers will use the extra free time to get ahead in their career, so if you want to keep up you better do it too, or get left behind.
The countries who are early adopters of robotic labor will be the ones who move ahead of the pack. Naturally rich developed nations will be able to adopt earlier, therefore the rich will be get richer while the poor nations will struggle to keep up. Same goes for families. Those households who can afford robots will be more productive at work or devote more time to education/training and get ahead while the poor families will get left behind. Robotic labor will create more inequality, but that is always the case with new technology and free markets.
And lastly, as mentioned, robotics will be a new lucrative industry that creates many jobs. Millions of engineers, accounts, marketers, administrators, managers, human resource, etc, etc will be needed to filled those positions. There will probably be robot mechanics (like car mechanics) who service/repair your robots.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeo123
Tesla for example probably created countless jobs at first, but I'm sure it's already looking for more ways to automate production to cut costs. The gap between innovation and automation is shrinking as time goes on.
Automation does not necessary eliminate jobs, often it creates jobs. Take a real life example - two people were hired to answer phone calls for a retail company. The company automated the purchasing process online so from now on, no phone calls necessary. Does that mean they are out of jobs? No. The website drew so many sales that they transitioned the two employees to order processors and customer services. They got pay raises and the company is getting so many orders that they are looking to hire more people to handle it.
The purpose of automation is not to cut cost, it is to increase productivity. Just like Henry Ford automated because the existing way could not possibly produce enough cars to meet the demand. The automation was so successful he had to hire more people to keep up with the automation.
And lastly, it will be even more of a knowledge based economy. Those with knowledge will get paid well, those without will find themselves competing with robots for works.
Automation does not necessary eliminate jobs, often it creates jobs. Take a real life example - two people were hired to answer phone calls for a retail company. The company automated the purchasing process online so from now on, no phone calls necessary. Does that mean they are out of jobs? No. The website drew so many sales that they transitioned the two employees to order processors and customer services. They got pay raises and the company is getting so many orders that they are looking to hire more people to handle it.
Automation itself does eliminate jobs. Increased demand is what created the new jobs in your scenario. Without an increase in demand for the products, the story would have ended at the phone operators no longer being need.
Viewed from another perspective, had the company continued to grow due to increased demand and not automated it's call center, they would have needed both the phone operators and the order processors/cs reps. The fact that in the scenario above, the employees got the jobs of people who didn't get hired yet, doesn't change the fact that 4 jobs were reduced to 2.
The better example would have been that creating the website required them to hire a web site administrator, but even then, you're eliminating all the phone operators to replace the job with one website administrator.
If it wasn't a reduction in cost, it wouldn't have made financial sense for the company to do it.
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.
