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 is so far fetched it's laughable. So machines are going to mine for resources, build factories for everything needed in the pipeline, then build vehicles and complete transportation systems to get the resources to those factories without a single human? LOL Someone has been watching too much Star Wars.
Well I wish you were right instead of just being ignorant.
The article cited in the OP says a 50% reduction in workforce at Deutsche Bank. The is the bank CEO saying this.
Actually I am listening to those in these technologies like Elon Musk. Humans will still be part of it but instead of 10 you may need 1.
They are already replacing warehouse workers who took 2 hours to do a task and the robot takes 5 minutes. There are endless news stories showing what is happening now and what is coming aroudn the corner.
If you want to believe all this will never happen go ahead. But if you are young enough to expect to work in your field at least another 20 years you might want to do some research into what is coming up.
That is so far fetched it's laughable. So machines are going to mine for resources, build factories for everything needed in the pipeline, then build vehicles and complete transportation systems to get the resources to those factories without a single human? LOL Someone has been watching too much Star Wars.
It's funny because every single employment sector you mentioned uses less workers to get the job done than in previous years. Companies have managed to obtain higher productivity per worker using less of them thanks to technology.
Mr. Ford would hardly recognize the automobile assembly lines of today.
Mining? Began using less to get more years ago, that is one of the problems "putting miners back to work" faces.
The best thing to get into now is the software, hardware and maintenance involved in all of the automation and robotics. Most people aren't going to be able to become an engineer that designs it all but if you can do it, hey you have it made.
The private schools don't want you to know this they want you to go into debt for 80k for a degree in basketweaving.
There you go, I just gave you a good paying job that will be good for the next 100 years, and saved you 80k
I think at this point there would be a universal basic income. (Maybe along the lines of how all Alaska residents get money from the government).
Not to put too fine a point on the matter, but the Alaska Permanent Dividend Fund is funded largely through revenues from oil production, representing a resource base that very few UBI proposals incorporate, or even contemplate.
Most UBI proposals also fail to adequately justify, either economically or philosophically, a system of public payments tendered in exchange for zero productivity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7
And yes, boards and CEOs can easily be replaced by AI robots. That's why it's important to amass capital that can be invested now.
"Easily," you say? Perhaps it has not occurred to you that the boards of directors and the CEOs would have to 1) place the issue before their shareholders and 2) recommend a "Yes" vote to said shareholders to replace them with these AI robots. I can hardly conceive of anything less likely to happen, quite frankly.
Even if a majority of shareholders see some benefit in having their investment managed by AI (a rather unlikely prospect), most, if not all of them, would prefer having humans in charge, for accountability purposes, if for no other reason. When the AI robot's decisions send the value of their shares through the floor, from whatever cause, the shareholders are going to be looking for a scapegoat.
And when that AI failure occurs (as it inevitably will at some point), who is responsible? Do you figure the AI robot will commit corporate hara-kiri? Will it resign in disgrace? Will the AI robot stand before the shareholders at the annual meeting and admit, "Hey...I screwed up"? Will it face the wrath of the securities authorities? Can the shareholders sue the programmers of the AI robot, seeking to be made whole? Even if the shareholders can bring such a suit, what guarantee will there be that the AI vendors possess sufficient assets to pay off some massive judgment against them?
I guess once you start thinking about the real-world implications of having corporations run by AI, the last word that comes to mind is "easily."
Not to put too fine a point on the matter, but the Alaska Permanent Dividend Fund is funded largely through revenues from oil production, representing a resource base that very few UBI proposals incorporate, or even contemplate.
Most UBI proposals also fail to adequately justify, either economically or philosophically, a system of public payments tendered in exchange for zero productivity.
"Easily," you say? Perhaps it has not occurred to you that the boards of directors and the CEOs would have to 1) place the issue before their shareholders and 2) recommend a "Yes" vote to said shareholders to replace them with these AI robots. I can hardly conceive of anything less likely to happen, quite frankly.
Even if a majority of shareholders see some benefit in having their investment managed by AI (a rather unlikely prospect), most, if not all of them, would prefer having humans in charge, for accountability purposes, if for no other reason. When the AI robot's decisions send the value of their shares through the floor, from whatever cause, the shareholders are going to be looking for a scapegoat.
And when that AI failure occurs (as it inevitably will at some point), who is responsible? Do you figure the AI robot will commit corporate hara-kiri? Will it resign in disgrace? Will the AI robot stand before the shareholders at the annual meeting and admit, "Hey...I screwed up"? Will it face the wrath of the securities authorities? Can the shareholders sue the programmers of the AI robot, seeking to be made whole? Even if the shareholders can bring such a suit, what guarantee will there be that the AI vendors possess sufficient assets to pay off some massive judgment against them?
I guess once you start thinking about the real-world implications of having corporations run by AI, the last word that comes to mind is "easily."
AI doesn't need to run corporations for UBI to be feasible just get to the point where people who work are so productive thanks to technology that redundant jobs aren't needed. Do some research on this its coming if only 30 percent of current jobs were automated with no new ones created we are in serious trouble.
Should have supported small businesses instead of buying the cheapest and unhealthiest food out there (fast food).
Stop going to CVS and Walmart or ordering so much online
The need for convenience and laziness is why automation will continue to take jobs
Corporate and Banking Lobbyists are the cause for the downfall of small business.
They got in bed with politicians and made trade deals with slave labor countries.
Why hire an American worker under Capitalism, that has rights, when you can hire a Chinese Worker just kicked off his farm to make widgets, under Communism with no worker rights?
Corporations love the cheap labor under Communism and the profits under capitalism.
One has to go back to the Gilded Age to find business in such a dominant political position in American politics. While it is true that even in the more pluralist 1950s and 1960s, political representation tilted towards the well-off, lobbying was almost balanced by today's standards. Labor unions were much more important, and the public-interest groups of the 1960s were much more significant actors.
Corporate Lobbyists went on a Union destroying spree so they would have all the power and the consumers and workers would have none.
All of that shareholder and executive money will be used to bribe politicians to prevent an AI tax + UBI.
The endgame is this: desperate poverty for all but the top 0.01%. The top 0.01% will own everything: all the natural resources, all of the valuable real estate, all of the shares of all of the major corporations, all of the machines, and (most ominously) all of the worlds’ governments. The bottom 99.99% will be economically obsolete left to starve. Or the top 0.01% will eliminate (kill) by the bottom 99.99% if they become a threat.
And that would also be the result of corporatism, not capitalism.
In Capitalism, all parties have power, but not so today.
Corporations have teams of lawyers to fight consumers, teams of lobbyists to purchase politicians and they team together when they want to create trade pacts with anti capitalist slave labor countries.
Then the corporate cheer leaders tell to workers, why do you need unions? Stand on your own two feet and support yourself.
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.
