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.
Power and wealth. "What do men with power want? More power."
You are still talking in generalities. What wealth are you talking about? Money? You said this is not a profit driven economy, so what is this "wealth" you are referring to? At the same time, you said they still use currency so supposedly wealth would be measured in money. ... But again, you said profit is not important so there is a giant contradiction here that is very confusing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rruff
Why do you think it adds to the cost? That's ridiculous. Particularly when I can task robots to do anything I'd normally need a human to do. Small quantity production is still much cheaper and better quality if it is done by machine. This is true even now, and will only become more pronounced.
It cost money to built/buy robots. To give you an example, it can easily cost over a million dollars to implement a customer relation system, it cost $10 an hour to hire something to file the same data in a file cabinet. And if the wealthy has to design and built its own system from scratch like they have to do in such economy, then the cost of said system can easily be over $10 million. $10 million up front cost vs $10/hr to hire someone. Of course automation is more costly, the only reason to automate is if there is a large volume to offset the cost. But.... you kept saying this is not a consumer driven mass production economy, so there is no volume to offset the cost!
Once you take away the consumer capitalism part, automation is more costly than manual labor. You're taking an entity meant to do mass production and reducing its role to small production. That's like buying a 32 gallon paint when all you have to do is cover up a 2-inch patch.
This is doublely so in your world, where many people would work for scrapes. How can automation be cheaper than labor with scrapes wages? This one needs an explanation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rruff
Plus the quantities of things produced will not necessarily be small anyway. It depends on what it is. Robots will be specialized of course, but they will have a wide range of function too. In other words you won't custom build one for every task. Computer components, electrical systems, solar panels, windmills, batteries, building materials, etc.
By your definition, the quantity of things produced will be much smaller than what they would be compared to our world. You are taking away billions of people from the consumer market, of course production is going to decrease; you can't have it both ways.
Unlike humans, who are breed to do many things, a robot is not - every function you add to a robot adds cost. A multi-task robots is by definition more costly than a specialized robots. It is always more cost effective to have the proper amount of specialized robots than a bunch of multi-task robots but filling in the same roles as specialized robots. I can't picture how you can make it work, you'll have to explain this one too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rruff
Tyranny and capitalism aren't remotely "opposed". The "guiding hand" of capitalism is greed and power... which it seeks to maximize. In the capitalists' home country that has previously been achieved by consumer-capitalism, with a strong system of laws, a fairly egalitarian wealth redistribution, and relative freedom. But if the capitalists wish to pillage the resources of a country, they most certainly don't want a democratic government there. In many cases democratic regimes were overthrown and tyrannical puppets put in place to facilitate it.
In that case, the problem is NOT automation. It's with the governing system. What you didn't explicitly say but implied is that if the tyranny is removed and Democratic government restored, then things would not be as bad and maybe even back to normal. In this case, automation is not a cause of misery, it's a symptom of the cause.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rruff
For the last 40 years the symbiotic relationship in the US (and many developed countries) between capitalists and consumers has been systematically weakened by globalization and debt escalation. This doesn't necessarily prove that they are phasing out consumer-capitalism, but when you consider the other factors that are occurring, you should be very suspicious.
I don't know what you're talking about. The relationship is pretty much been the same for me.
.
Aren't we kinda there with phones. Who could've predicted less than 20 years ago that the cellphone would transform our lives the way it has. I just wish I could've bought stock in Apple, LG, or one of the companies that make components for smartphones
I wrote a paper about this very scenario twenty years ago. I actually went one step further and say we will not need paper money because your phone will act like your credit card and debit card all rolled into one.
But that still doesn't mean robots will push most of humans out of jobs.
.
It cost money to built/buy robots. To give you an example, it can easily cost over a million dollars to implement a customer relation system, it cost $10 an hour to hire something to file the same data in a file cabinet.
.
The $10 costs an employer $17 with taxes, workers comp, health insurance. $35k a year. A customer relation system can get rid of dozens of those employees. If we say 12 emps go, payback is quite acceptable 2.4 years.
The $10 costs an employer $17 with taxes, workers comp, health insurance. $35k a year. A customer relation system can get rid of dozens of those employees. If we say 12 emps go, payback is quite acceptable 2.4 years.
Again, you are missing the point. We are discussing within rruff's universe.
In this universe, there is no volume, no mass production, not a consumer-driven economy.
There is no dozens of employees because there is not enough volume to command that many employees. Over 80% (if not more) of the consumers are no longer consumers. Let's say the company would have 10 employees, now it needs two. At $35k a year that makes it $70k a year for two. It takes over 100 years to recoup the cost.
You are still talking in generalities. What wealth are you talking about? Money?
I see you are still very confused about what money is.
Let's say I want a pyramid 100 miles on a side and 100 miles tall, filled with all sorts of luxurious amusements and distractions, just for myself and my close friends. I want it finished in a year. I'll task my human or AI designers to come up with some concepts I might like, then do a feasibility study regarding the energy and material resources I'd need to use or obtain in order to build it. They come back and tell me (in about 1 nano second) that it would exceed my budget (of resources), but if I downsize to 50 miles on a side it could be done. I'm disappointed, but at 50 miles it would still be more spectacular than any other structure on the planet, and I could always build a bigger and better one later, after my project to terraform and develop Mars ramps down.
Quote:
How can automation be cheaper than labor with scrapes wages? This one needs an explanation.
There currently isn't a production economy in the world where extensive automation isn't used. China is very highly automated. Even if the humans worked and ate and slept in the same shed, and were only given enough to keep them alive, they will soon be costlier than robots.
Quote:
In that case, the problem is NOT automation. It's with the governing system.
I've never said that automation was itself a problem. On the contrary, it's essentially the only way that our living standards have risen.
The problem is that the extremely fortunate symbiotic relationship that has existed between oligarch-capitalists and consumers is about to end. What happens then depends on where the true power lies. There is plenty of evidence to indicate that the oligarchs have the means to create the outcome that suits them, and by the time the masses understand what is happening (if ever) they will not be able to stop them.
Again, you are missing the point. We are discussing within rruff's universe.
In this universe, there is no volume, no mass production, not a consumer-driven economy.
There is no dozens of employees because there is not enough volume to command that many employees. Over 80% (if not more) of the consumers are no longer consumers. Let's say the company would have 10 employees, now it needs two. At $35k a year that makes it $70k a year for two. It takes over 100 years to recoup the cost.
Why would the elite automate?
.
2 employees is a mom and pop shop, insignificant to economy. The elite do not automate; everyday Americans do running corps all over the nation. My last employer produces more today with 35% fewer positions than it did just 12 years ago. We laid off no one, just did not backfill spots as automatin cut jobs. profits soared, and we reinvested every single year.
PS: Buy a calculator, payback 2 emps is 14 years ( 1 mill/$70k). Not 100 years.
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.
