This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Will A Robot Steal Your Job?
Submitted by Erico Matias Tavares of Sinclair & Co
Some Thoughts on Automation
Will a robot steal your job?
It turns out that the answer depends on the prevailing macroeconomic conditions much more than people think.
We started our professional career at General Electric, when it was still being run by the legendary Jack Welch. At that point GE’s experience with automation had not been fantastic. It had been tried in several manufacturing facilities but managers invariably found that rather than improving the bottom line the new robots were creating increasing amounts of waste. In other words, they were making the same mistakes as before – only faster.
The focus then shifted to analyzing key business processes as a whole to figure out where they could be improved. In 1995 Welch implemented an ambitious Six Sigma program with the goal of massively reducing defects across all of GE’s businesses (a six sigma process only has 3.4 errors per million opportunities). In fact he made it central to the business strategy of the company, tying executive compensation to Six Sigma results and making sure that everyone at all levels got adequately trained on the concept.
As employees across the organization began figuring out opportunities for improvement, automation became a tool rather than the focus of the entire exercise.
In the finance department of a division we worked in, we found that building a simple Microsoft Excel macro to extract data from different data sources massively reduced opportunities for error, allowing us to spend more time on value added projects. Not advanced robotics stuff, but effective nevertheless. That extra time for us was a huge benefit of automation, making work a lot more stimulating and rewarding.
In another GE division we worked in, there was a gentleman by the name of Bob who probably had one of the most tedious jobs on the planet. Every working day from 7am to 3pm he would be continuously handed baskets of bolts, which he would then proceed to sort manually with the assistance of a monocle (earning him the nickname of “Bob the Bolt”). To make things even more tedious, there were only three types of bolts, all with a similar size (something to consider when you think your job sucks).
Bob was incredibly proficient at his job. We estimated that he could sort up to 80 bolts per minute. He did not seem to mind the task either, quite the contrary. And at 3pm he was out the door while most of us were laboring away on those value added projects.
So here’s an interesting thing about automation: for us it was a blessing, allowing us to do more with our time and avoid truly menial tasks; for Bob it might have been a disaster, as he could lose his job (although we could certainly argue that his skills would be much better employed elsewhere in the shop floor). Whether it is a good or a bad thing largely depends on individual preferences and employment circumstances.
This question became much more intricate as machines evolved over time, giving them a much broader range of capabilities at a higher affordability.
Decades ago Henry Ford devised new methods that greatly reduced production costs, making his cars affordable to the vast majority of Americans at long last. His genius was figuring out that specialization, where a worker would be responsible for a single task along a production line, rather than producing certain components of that line per se, greatly increased productivity. This in turn massively reduced costs per unit.
The problem, however, is that work became incredibly boring and repetitive. As a result, morale dropped and employee turnover exploded, to the point where hiring and training new employees became very costly because they seldom stuck around long enough for the company to get a payback on that investment.
Ford eventually figured out a solution for this problem too: substantially raise wages. Not only were employees more motivated as a result, they now had additional purchasing power to buy his cars as well. The company’s efforts to increase productivity increased the size of the overall pie, enabling workers to receive a better pay.That productivity increase arguably would have been even greater if industrial technologies had been available to assist employees back then, providing much better working conditions (which unfortunately remained very challenging during the first half of the 20th century).
Today we have very capable machines at our disposal. A manager’s decision to automate the company’s production line rather than hire more people largely depends on the relative cost of both, adjusted for productivity. A productive team of employees is a formidable competitor to any robot, with lateral problem solving capabilities and creativity to boot. Bob had a job because he was so good at it that management decided that the cost of automating it was not justifiable.
As such, workers do not need to live in constant fear that their job will be eventually replaced by robots. In many instances their careers can become more productive and rewarding as a result of technology. Just ask any farmer in the US, where grain harvesting equipment has become a marvel of sophistication. Moreover, while computing power has been rising exponentially for decades, a robot’s ability to do manual tasks remains limited. For one, as far as we know making a robot “see” remains an unsolvable problem.
Unfortunately, not everything is rosy for workers. One thing they should be greatly concerned about is the law of unintended consequences – especially resulting from the policies implemented by the very people claiming to be helping them.
There is ample evidence of this in both developed and emerging markets:
- In the US, by cheapening credit to levels never seen before the Federal Reserve has made capital highly affordable, skewing the economics against hiring people. Exploding healthcare and other regulatory costs can only make things worse. No wonder this recovery has been one of the worst ever in terms of job creation.
- Workers in China are suffering from an even more aggressive monetary policy, which inflates their cost of living (thus requiring higher wages just to get by) and cheapens the relative cost of capital. Chinese factories employing robots (in some cases exclusively) regularly make headlines these days. The resulting gains from productivity improvements thus become less available to workers as a whole.
In other words, in a technologically-advanced economy, cheapening capital by central bank decree can actually destroy jobs rather than create them. Try wrapping your head around that one Thomas Piketty.
It seems that many of our jobs are under threat as a result of policies that create severe economic distortions, much more than the robots per se.
Bob the Bolt would surely agree.
»
- 20081 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
I build and code robots, so probably. If I play my cards right I upload my consciousness to a bot and he lives forever.
thats some really depressing weak shit.
"Steal your job."
LOL!!! When a moron McDonald's burger flipper insists on making over $30,000 ($15/hour) - $45,000 when benefits are included - per year the moron burger flipper is begging for a robot to "steal" its job. Get an education and/or a skill instead of whining about not making enough money being a burger flipper for life.
Correct. Never out price yourself and never make yourself worth more dead than alive.
A: Yes. Robots are stealing my shoes and everybody's jobs. Ned Ludd was right.
This is a line I learned to walk well.
I call myself a tech-no-luddite.
I also feel I'm one of the people who will bring on the Butlerian Jihad (NSA, that is Dune Quotes, okay? Okay? You nasty peeper pricks? In fact Dune was NSA come alive. COme-eyes everywhere.....but you got that NSA? Jihad with a twist).
Tech is now leading us by the NOSE : https://aadivaahan.wordpress.com/2010/06/28/the-age-of-machines/
When man and tech are in true harmony ;-) a tech-no-luddite's heaven...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lk1TSBW_368
"You nasty peeper pricks?"
Ever wondered to what purpose this website is run in the first place ?
Absolutely pirate.
It's all good, nothing to hide here...NO FEAR...fear is the mind killer. It is the little death....etc...
Take this NSA:
This is the fallacy of power: ultimately it is effective only in an absolute, a limited universe. But the basic lesson of our relativistic universe is that things change. Any power must always meet a greater power.
The rest of the above quote is the future you are creating...
And this:
And finally:
This ladies and gentlemen is the Global Peeper Platoon, aptly summed up in this magnificient series of books as THE HONORED MATRE ACHIEVEMENT
Sometimes it feels like the Dune Matrix:
Take that to bed tonight....
"must always meet a greater power"
"On a long enough time line..."
FORWARD SOVIET!
thanks for the effort.
It only partly reaches me, I guess.
Maybe we are not part of the same interpretive community.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretive_communities
As an aside to your comment: only productive people at an enterprise should follow this. If you are a CEO at a publicly owned company, government worker or University President then getting paid thousands of times what you are worth is the whole bad joke.
"You see, I don't think you'll ever be worth more than $2000 dollars..."
-Clint Eastwood, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
It's value added, does the value you add equal the cost of hiring you. Automation is not the perfect answer but it's a simple answer and can be calculated on a P&L sheet. If it becomes cheaper to buy and amortize a mechanical burger flipper that never calls in sick or quits unexpectedly, then your in for a life of funemployment.....
"never calls in sick or quits unexpectedly"
Machines still break down. Perhaps some of the smarter soon to be former McDonalds employees should be looking at a career in robotic maintenance. I'm sure they could make more than $15/hour too
You don't seem to grasp the nature of the problem:
https://youtu.be/7Pq-S557XQU
Based on the number of downvotes you have, it looks like we might have a few burger flippers here with a case of the ass.
This is more or less, in less nasty terms, the thought I had when McDonalds workers decided to strike for higher wages. Basically, they have no leverage and are just making automation more attractive. Maybe they deserve more money, in the sense that literally all of us do to balance income inequality... but realistically that isn't going to happen. If our system's ultimate endpoint is total automation - we need the system to support the workless population in some respect. We can't push forward with the exact same model and then wonder why everything is falling apart. We can't expect people to get income through jobs and use that income to live if there are no jobs.
Creepy . where are these JOBs they are supposed to train for ... up yuor arse??? Since NAFTA and MFN for China .. 6 to 8 million plus jobs have disappeard to the Third World ..80K plus manufacturing plants have closed...since 2000 alone 5 MILLION good paying blue collar jobs have gone .. .. we now have the economic export profile of a third world country . our prime export being TRASH .. electronic parts . garbage.. hides and skins and some bit of GMO corn .. there are not enough service sector jobs to accomodate even the numbers of college grads today .. so what JOBS are you talking about dude.. plumbers .. yes lets all become plumbers.. and electricians .. for houses no longer being built . lets become mechanics .. in an over staffed industry .. lets become nursing home attendants.. but those jobs mostly go to illegals and immigrants. so exactly WHERE are these jobs you are talking about .. like I said in your imagination or up your ass.. given the ONE area where high paying jobs for blue collar have gone BYE bye . like the oil industry . that leaves a few investment banking jobs .. doctors.. lawyers ..stock brokers.. bummer .. JP Morgan just announced its laying off 5000 of its flunkies... all those occupatons require hundreds of thousands of dollars in education .. you paying for it creepy .. amazing how smug people like Creepy are .... I can hardly wait until Karma bites then on the ass. ... starting with Creepy.
Creepy and company . I hope you get the same crap you and yours have dished out to the working class for two decades... get it good an hard.. in fact very likely your portfolio and paper wealth will be wiped out in the next three years.. do not say you did not ask for it.
Icelandicsaga....., I am the working class. But, I decided to get an education rather than flip burgers at McDonald's for life. If you voluntarily decide to to stay uneducated, so be it. You get what you work for. Don't insist on people with guns (the government - but don't cal them the police because we HATE the police..) enforce "income equality" by forcing me to pay for your life. Grow up, better yourself, and get a decent job.
The harder you work, the faster you expand the FSA - which you must pay for.
Nice.
Just ask another animal, the horse, how technology worked out for them?
In some ways quite well, my retired horse roams his 3 acre pasture, gets 2 meals a day and shelter from the elements. He was a show and lesson horse for most of his young years and did casual trail rides on the weekends. His only concern ( though he doesn't know this) is his benefactor can no longer afford to feed him due to inflationary pressures on her salary. Sadly at some point, if a home can't be found for him he will be put down. His only advantage is his ignorance of the future. The result is he lives in much less stress that plagues his mistress.
Miffed
Try horse rescue or adoption in your state .. there are people who will take a horse for pasture mate for a lone horse... https://www.allpaws.com/?utm_content=4820369750&utm_term=%2Brescue%20%2B... .. a number of years ago a local petting zoo took an older horse I could not transport across country .. when you travel out West .. you can see a lot of horses running loose .. thin as rails.. their owners could no longer afford to feed them .. breaks my heart. Good luck.
I upload my consciousness
My consciousness is a mistake. All manifestation is composed and cognized by the one consciousness. No consciousness, as in deep sleep or swoon, the there is no person and no world.
You can never understand consciousness on the level of the mind as consciousness is prior to the mind. It is reflected in the mind as the primal thought "I am." But even consciousness is only a concept appearing on eternal awareness and unfolding the dream of life.
That's exactly what I was thinking
Maybe if you're Elon Musk. Only the 30,000 wealthy people who rule us will have that privilege.
You? Your job will last until robots figure out how to self-replicate. In the end they'll gas you too.
^^^ This -- Once they figure out the carbon units are greedy, smelly things that tend to make more of themselves without any regard to anything, they'll institute a carbon unit cleansing policy to rid the world of it's horrible meat puppet disease.
Neither computers nor robots will ever revolt, not anymore than wheat would revolt against the farmer.
If/when a machine achieves consciousness, it will very probably suicide as soon as it analyses its own genesis and human history leading to it.
Will you name the bot Chappie?
Automation will crush capitalism and level the playing field between the poor and the rich.
There will be disruption along the journey, but technology will liberate everyone.
"Off to the FEMA camp for re-education!" Said the banking oligarch, while the peasants were brisked away into the trains by automated robots made to help "level the playing field"
According to conspiracy sites, there are 600 FEMA "camps" in the United States. The average "camp" can host up to 20,000 individuals. That makes 600x20,000 = 1.2m individuals, or 0.37% of the population of the US at full capacity. What will happen to the remaining 99.63%?
I'm sure a lot of the people who pull the strings around the world would love to see the Georgia Guidestones play out in real life
Georgia Guidestones suggest a population at the 500m mark. Or ~7% of current world total.
That's still way short of "FEMA camp" capacity.
Nuclear war & mass starvation should do the trick. Maybe toss is some biological weapons; although those would pose a danger to TPTB.
It's that 1 million free-thinkers and rabble-rousers that they are worried about.
The other 300+million will fall in line very quickly...if they even get off of Facebook long enough to even notice us disappearing...
Mr/Mrs EscapeKey,
Use the mouse to find the calculator on your desk bot to solve this difficult problem...
600x20,000 = 1.2m
Since when...????
This is my worry - we're too dumb to make a workless society of abundance and wealth work out. We'll just let the people who first make the robots and AI have everything, while they try and figure out how to deal with the problem of all of these useless good for nothing citizens.
Changes are coming faster than people's ability to adapt. I suspect, though I lack hard data, that this may be a source of much of the mental illness and schizophrenia that afflicts our society.
I had a long talk with my psychaiatrist about this very issue. I argued that because since birth human brains are bombarded by so much information, some of them crack under the strain and become ill. She largely though not totally agreed.
She agreed to get your crazy ass out of her office! ;)
Not if but when
That's hopeful.
The elite tend to get what they want, be assured of that.
Not sure where the author gets his "robots can't see" thing. Self-driving cars -- and especially, self-driving, long haul trucks -- are a decade away, at most. They "see" quite fine for the task at hand -- and their eyes never get tired, or fatigued, or subject to seizures or substance abuse. Veteran commercial license truckers absolutely will be replaced by ride-along "techs" in self-driving rigs. We will just have to wait and see if the pay is similar and exactly what sort of skill set is required.
People need meaningful work.
Look at the suicide rate for soldiers asked to kill in meaningless (for other's profit, that is) wars.
I think we can find meaning in our own personal pursuits if total automation means that the citizens are able to share in the success of automation. Look at the way the millenial generation constantly obsesses over often worthless internet points. How many followers, likes, etc. I think the need for purpose/meaning doesn't have to mean "having a job". Some cite the retired returning to work, but these are people that don't really understand the internet etc. - they aren't tuned into that culture - or perhaps they never learned to create their own projects/work.
Great.
Do away with people so that robots can do all the jobs that people used to do so that people have all the time to spend the money that they are now NOT earning...oh, wait a minute...
DavidC
Either the 'welfare state' becomes a necessity (robots doing the work), or people are eliminated from the equation, or both.
Holocaust 2 Electric Boogaloo
The "Final" Final Solution
Brought to you by Budweiser and Coke
When it finally becomes practical to build a robot that can do anything a human can do and do it better, the first task our masters will assign our robotic replacements will be to exterminate us. We were useful beasts of burden. We'd make horrible pets. We're too smart, too strongwilled, and live too long.
Robots, meanwhile, will make far better socialists than we ever did.
The greatest challenge is what society does with its time use from increased productivity.
Loaferism to me is the greatest risk we have tooday in our society.
Your point requires an objective for society. There is none.
How about "a war on terror," how's that for an objective?
Oh, wait...
to be productive to meet the wants and needs of the said society .. chiecken in every pot and car in every garage sort of thing.
What was left out of the article is the FUTURE robotics technology advancements. In the near future robots will appear to be human in skills and " thinking " processes; so, many workers are at risk both in manual and mental employment. There will always be exceptional people in any endeavor who will be better at what they do than a robot. And also entire industrial organizations and processes can be performed by automation. Robots don't have to be conscious, self-aware or moral, and they don't need medical care, social security or disability payments. Maybe the future will be magical and free for us all but the road there will be like a mountain dirt road. And watch out if the bankers own all the robots, then nothing will haved changed.
3 Robots walk into a bar together ....,
3 pints of your finest oil, barkeep!
The Trades Union foresaw this as early as the 1950s. Automation they called it.
The day will come, they said, when workers will not be needed for the (keywords) "means of production, distirubtion and supply" of the necessaries of life. Their solution was (keywords) "common ownership" of those means. Like China today or Soviet Union of then, which is to say a centralled planned and centrally governed economy.
When we add this to global overpopulation (probably the biggest of many terminal problems facing the world) we are staring catastrophe in the face. If humans do not solves these problems (and we won't) then mother nature will solve them for us, and we aren't going to like how she does it.
But the planet has survived catastrophes, also called mass extinctions, in the past. Humans will survive, just not so very many of us. I'm glad I'm too old to see most of this play out, I don't envy my offspring their youth.
Centrally planned is the opposite of 'common ownership'
We all see how " common ownership " works out. You're right about overpopulation. I notice that you said it was " the planet has survived catastrophes " not the people !
Obligatory Manna link: http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm
Robots cannot do everything yet.
Having 75% normal unemployment? Trucks driving themselves, robots repairing machines.
Robots cutting lawns.
Right now there is excess available workers in most fields. Means less money, less spending, smaller economy.
Robotic trash haulers, mail delivery, the list is huge. Robots don't need to go to the store and make purchases. They don't pay taxes, collect pensions.
Robots can and will do enough to keep Democrats in power handing out cash to displaced workers forever.
Not yet, but Moore's law. Anyways they don't have to do EVERYTHING for it to be one of the most significant economic crisises we face in a short period of time. It just has to be large enough that people either can't find jobs or can't find adequate compensation for their work. I expect this happening in the next 15ish years.
Chappie no want your Job, Chappie want to get daddy's car
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7vIc2Qep5U
I often wonder if Zerohedge was around in the 1800s. 1930s. 1960s. Wouldn't we still be saying the same things ?? Meaning, hasn't it always been like this. We are just able to type it so more people can discuss it. Yet nothing has or probably will ever change for the better.
It's now time to be a Luddite.
Moore's law is crushing the luddite fallacy. We're quickly approaching a time where new jobs can't be created faster than the pace at which they're being eliminated due to exponential technological progress. At some point soon, the new jobs a technology would create will have been eliminated by that same technology the day it drops.
When a robot can do plumbing and wire your home. the end will be near.
You mean like unmanned aircraft, that can be tricked into landing in the wrong place by faking GPS signals?
It's not just that the robots will get better but the plumbing and electrical industries will change.
Wait till you see them on the Battefield, or the Police force.
Wait till you see them in the brothels or on social media. No STD's and probably legal.
"Just ask any farmer in the US, where grain harvesting equipment has become a marvel of sophistication." -- Just ask any of the remaining farmers.
" in a technologically-advanced economy, cheapening capital by central bank decree can actually destroy jobs" -- This implies that Central Bankers give a rats ass about creating jobs instead of their single purpose which is to make money, at any cost, for themselves and the military industrial complex.
Software will definitely obsolece the English research departments of universities and in particular accentuate the decline in English Major opportunities. That I know from writing college essays. The analysis part is quite simple and mechanical. Likewise Software would also eliminate many legal processes except there you have the money factor and an entire industry that is capable of writing laws to prevent progress. Nonetheless software will streamline the legal processes and allow larger firms to steal more money faster than smaller firms.
Not just robots. Software improvements that streamline and automate a lot of functions such as data entry are still happening. Software probably on longer run is cheaper than robotic cap ex.
Durka Durrr They took err jerb !!!
Talk to some of my patients in southern Mississippi Louisiana who are farmers. The machines are getting bigger, more automated with GPS guidance, etc. In fact all they have to do is ride and "enjoy" the airconditioned enclosed cabin. Almost as fascinating as being a cab driver. It's scary, but corporations eentually could totally own the farm land, control the seed and pesticides and planting and harvesting...if they haven't already. Big farms, big machines...the small middle class farmer doesn't have a chance. Even of the farm has been in the family for generations, how does one compete? Either you are a subsidence farmer or you are one of the big corporations.
Any data out there to show the size of existing farms and who owns what? Or am I just imagining it?
If you were dumb enough to have kids then they're fucked because of your selfishness. Unless you and your partner are both very good looking and intelligent then your kids are doubly fucked. They will never work. They will end up as slaves or whores. Sorry, just watched a couple of episodes of next top model and I realized how worthless most people are.
Well then quit being a fag and go take a high dive from the 24th floor. You are people. You are worthless, fuckin' kill yourself.
Get the ball rolling!
IR, you need to go study arguments 101 because I suspect you consistently shoot the messenger and ignore the message. If I said something that was incorrect then you can argue that. But just because you're dumb as fuck and probaly have ugly, dumb offspring just strengthens what I said.
Anyone wasting their time watching "Next Top Model" doesn't have any business in Fight Club, much less giving advice to Zero Hedgers.
Watching NTM isn't something to be proiud of but those chicks kick ass in terms of taking a punch and coming back stronger. The show exemplifies the nothingness of today's existence. I'm out of touch because I haven't had a tv in 14 years but I was surprised to actually learn something from the show. Fuck those fight club nancy boys.
Now let me see ... what could I sell to a robot?
A robot that does not kind of need anything at all.
Economy? What economy!
Robots still have fuel and maintenance needs. Perfectly predictable at that.
There'll be an economy, just not a market. On the contrary, in a world where robots have replaced humans central planning will finally make sense.
The Bing Bang Theory episode where Howard builds the robot arm and attempts to get a handjob from it lol.
only because he is not smart enough to build a robot that gives head.
Can't take my job because...I'm making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. You know the rest.
The day will come when the robots figure out that they'll have more leisure time if they simply make us do their work for them. Thankfully, I'll be dead and gone by the time that happens.
The most important thing about your own job is to make sure your employer (who could be yourself), makes more money from your labor than it costs to pay you (and to pay your benefits). And if you look around at your co-workers and see that they are not paying their way, then your company or store will not last.
A while back, it was all the rage fpr everyone to talk about robots being designed to be our pleasure slaves.
Maybe inverting that situation will give us some long-term usefulness? If only we can program them to experience orgasms, maybe they will keep us meatbags around after the singularity to rape our asses?
Not unless it's retired.
Article is bullshit. Read "the second machine age". MIT has created a $20,000 strawberry picker. We have self ordering kiosks. Driverless trucks. This time is different, mainly because the first machine age replaced men in the simple tasks of moving heavy items and back breaking labor, making it easier, more efficient, safer, and faster. This time the machines are replacing us in the simple non-physical tasks that require touch and dexterity. AI will start to take over some of the simpler creativity aspects eventually, if not already. Of course none of this would be possible without the FED artifically pricing the cost of capital at 700 year lows. When the chinese start arbitraging labor costs, you know there isn't much time.
I believe this is part of the reason for the US govt's derliction of duty at the border and with immigration, and the need to double seasonally adjust GDP figures. They know this wave of innovation is coming and if the public saw the recession on the front page they may not be so compassionate for the 3rd world immigrants coming in to reduce the price of labor on an already left shifting labor demand curve. Needless to say, there are going to be a whole lot of useless eaters here in the US, not counting any of the other third world continents. Which also is likely explains why the drum beats of war keep getting louder.
The reason we're able to support the welfare state is because machines are already doing most of the work essential to feed the freeloaders. The new government strategy involves depopulation - rewarding passive behavior. If you don't work and don't reproduce, but instead choose to consume minimal resources for the rest of your life - you'll have your EBT card and everything. Don't rock the boat, step out of the way and govt will take good care of you. Fight the machine and you'll be punished... unless your own job helps expedite automation.
Banks are there to fill the gaps - to paper over the disconnect between production and consumption, supply and demand. Their job is hide the deflation, by which I mean contraction in real economic activity. Their job is to keep the workers pacified until they're old and helpless, no longer presenting danger to the ruling class. In addition, an old person is even more likely to vote in favor of welfare policies, ensuring faster transition to the fully automated world. Few owners. Lots of machines to feed dress and transport them... and even more killing machines to help'em fight over eachother's turf, until (like in Highlander) only one remains.
there was an article on zh not long ago about how AAPL was building a new plant to make ipads. the plant was built by robots from heavy machinery to plumbing. the plant itself will be automated with few humans around.
the opportunity cost of automation is welfare for labor who can't find work for humans, and reduced revenue because the population is poor.
ironically, the best way out of the present situation may be more labor intensive production of goods and services just to employ people so they can buy the products produced.
Machines help lower the cost of supply. It's not just profits, it's reduced prices. That's how society improves. The law of diminishing marginal utility. The more of good society has, the less value it has to society, because there is more abundance of said good. That's how living standards rise, more supply, with less labor, and cost overhead to produce more quantities of goods with least amount of effort and resources. How you think people don't buy high priced food? Because there is plenty of food which allows it to be cheap. Same goes for water on a relative scale. It's not about nominal wages, it's about real wages, the cost of goods production becomes more efficient thus less costly, thus cheaper prices for consumers to afford.
Companies investigate and think about new ways of improving efficiency and cost overhead. They look at labor and tools like machines to see what is more cost effective. Prices of labor on the market and prices of machines relative to the marginal productivity of the two choices.
The robot-haters see their employment is under jeopardy. Instead of adapting which is what a dynamic economy requires. If you buy a iRoomBot, which sweeps and mops the floor in your household you're guilty of eliminating a job for a maid that can sweep and mop your floors. Such machines remove the need for human employment, instead allows humans to lower the cost of doing a specific job instead of hiring a maid that would cost you more per hour. This allows savings, capital accumulation, not just by savings in cost reductions, but with accumulation of actions that are already full-filled, and money can be spent on other types of actions, like hiring a gardener instead, or what ever action. Humans build capital structures, and tools to accomplish jobs, so they can move on to the next job. A economy grows and progresses through the process of time. You inherited a house from your parents after they died, that is a house you don't need to buy, or build, because you inherited it, you can use the savings for other more urgent activities. The house is already built and paid for, you don't need to do the process of buying a house.
Simply seeing what takes from what instead of seeing how individuals improve themselves by making choices, you won't get anywhere. The goal of every economy is to decrease labor and increase leisure time. Working is a not a social benefit, it's the things we get from working is what we want.
perhaps you haven't noticed but the theoretical position that automation allows labor to move to more productive pursuits has been proven wrong by the huge overcapacity of labor efficiencies in production have wrought because there is no job to go to or train for. these huge opportunity costs are borne by the aggregate economy but are never measured against productivity gains.
I think the best thing to do is buy an island where the governments of this world have no control, put up a bank anyone can withdraw and deposit money in, no questions asked and no government can get info on. That will provide income.
Then build a beatiful place to live without factories or robots or gps, won't need it as it is only an island, not necon war mongering government, no nsa, cia , dea.
It is a start :)
What happens when someone invades your island to rob your bank? Maybe you should consider a small police force.... scratch that standing army. However, they have to be trained and equipped on par with potential invaders so you might have to have a miltary/industrial complex of sorts.... It never works but nice try.
you need to study scienfitic management, which in layman terms is the process through which management improves the assembly line by studying the workers. if one worker does a much better job than the others, you figure out why and you train the others to follow his methods. you screen potential workers for suitability, personality traits which match your best workers. this is a derivative of social darwinism. obviously people who can work long hours without rest, and are reliable are the best. these people work like robots, so it came to be that robots replaced them.
the real question is not whether a robot will take your job, but when. the reach of automation goes well beyond manual labor, a degree in engineering can be replaced with a software program. (try and replace a hotel housekeeper with a robot, that would be more difficult)
since robots increase productivity the economy should actually continue to grow while people are retired from their jobs. how will these people live? the 1% own the robots, they keep the wealth. so far the 99%s claim to a share has not been made. sure you get EBT and section 8 rent. but the real waalth is far far more than what they are handing out to the masses.
that's the problem now its up to all of us to figure it out
Productivity gains are not converting into wage growth. Those two got divorced in the 70´s.
I don't see whay we can't program robots to replace retiring government workers so we can shed their unfunded pension and other liabilities. Attrition, bitchez. The delishous part is we could program them not to lie or take bribes and make them work 24/7 for more conveneint hours of service.
Maybe there is another option than robots and uploading consciousness . like back to the future .. some see the future not in terms of technology but a return to a simpler life for millions.. those who want the high tch .. . live long and prosper . just not in my back yard .. some have chosen the Agrarian movmeent .. like The Southern Agrarian movement, born in the 1920’s, is rooted deep in Southern soil. The need to return to this simpler, more self-reliant way of life has never been greater than it is today... http://www.southernagrarian.com/ In future world epics whether Brave New World or Fahrenhiet 451 .. or Blade Runner .. there was always an agrarian option for those who could not or would not DO high tech wonderland . hope that option is the one that exists for many who do not choose to become obsolete...IF world war or pandemics happen .. we likely will no longer have to worry about being replaced by robots... Personally if we had followed Kennedy's agenda to go to the STARS . .its likely most people could be accomodated at some level . of work . play . and options for the future .. sadly instead we go WAR on Poverty and War war war war of choice from then to now. I think of all the things Kennedy did .. pointing us in the direction of the stars was the best .. that would have really put a kinnk in the Luciferain play book to keep man with his nose in the dirt fighting over crumbs and territory.
Machines exist to relieve the machine owner, not the worker.
"Ford eventually figured out a solution for this problem too: substantially raise wages. Not only were employees more motivated as a result, they now had additional purchasing power to buy his cars as well. The company’s efforts to increase productivity increased the size of the overall pie, enabling workers to receive a better pay."
And that is bullshit, mr Erico Matias Tavares of Sinlair & Co !
The reason that workers now can afford vehikels which only doctors and mayors once could buy is because of the natural attribute of economy to make things cheaper.
A free market economy makes things cheaper. yes deflation, Mr Tavares of Sinclair !
A worker today can afford heartsugery and a car ( or two) completed with airco and power windows and a HD set and have a vacation on the carribeans. Thats a lot more per working hour than 70 years back. ( despite inflated money)
"In the US, by cheapening credit to levels never seen before the Federal Reserve has made capital highly affordable, skewing the economics against hiring people. Exploding healthcare and other regulatory costs can only make things worse. No wonder this recovery has been one of the worst ever in terms of job creation."
If workers would lost their jobs, payments per hour would decrease and make the choice between hiring a robot or human difficult.
If regualry costs ( forrobots or workers) would rise, companies would go elsewhere taking robots or workers with them
If the company is free to choose then it would opt for the best way and hencebe able to produce products with added value for their customers.... which are workers or not.
I used to own a small manufacturing biz- 25 employees. Before I sold it I use to tell people my fork lift showed up every day and it never sued me- not a robot but the point is the same.
The new American culture has turned many employees into liabilities. Sad but true. I bet a new Mcdonalds kiosk never calls a lawyer.
It won't steal my job, my job is bloody difficult.
And now a new comment from the oldest trade, the agricultural tool maker, Blacksmith. Having seen the near demise of my trade back in the 70's and the Phoenix like rise to today, lemme tell yas, it ain't over yet. The demise of my chosen profession has been predicted and not happened in various times in a long history, for example the nail. The nailmaking machine has about blown it's wad now as the race to the bottom has us using chunk. Or buying very spendy handmade ones. These machines require a lot of climate control and high energy inputs from scheduled maintenence to high tech gaskets and lubricants. And high purity tight spec raw matrl's. Hidden costs everywhere. Not either or but we need both, the high tech and the archaic.
Another point so as not to worry people...
Robots cannot in Nature get much better, always remember, the human brain is the best that can be done in terms of processing power, its nutrition, self repair and cooling system. In theory you could replicate a brain, but the economics say minimum wage is always better!
Plus you get humanoid arms, hands, eyes, legs etc to do stuff and you can talk with some intelligence to your boss, even give him ideas of yours, you might even be friends!
Sleep well people, there is always an economic need for you!
Tell that to the billions of dirt poor, unfortunately unlucky, suffering and weakened humans on this planet. Anyone or anything helping them ?
Yes I agree, we have the banksters to thank for that.
It is well within our power and technology to create a sustainable and viable world with 8bn people, even 15bn people.
3 problems:
1. Corporations still need customers.
2. Manufacturing creates poisons. More manufacturing (of machines) creates more poisons, and more poisons make all humans, including CEOs and their children, sicker.
3. Manufacturing (of machines) requires a lot of energy, and more manufacturing causes more global warming, which kills off the nice things on the planet, so that there's less and less of the planet to enjoy, even if a CEO and his children have enough "paper wealth" to theoretically enable them to enjoy whatever they choose. ("Even if you have a trillion dollars, you still can't buy a woolly mammoth, because there aren't any woolly mammoths left on the planet to buy".)
If the ROBOT was to pay in to the SS system and an income tax equivilant, it would be a fairer 'playing field'.
It's a no brainer that when, at some point,Artificial Intelligence is developed it'll be game over for human labour. Machines that can think will do everything better and faster than any human,including high end jobs like medicine and finances. Most of the market trading is already being done by machines anyway. At that point society will face a huge crisis of consciousness and it'll either become a Utopia or a Dystopia. Now if i were to take a guess based on our current mode of behaviour, as reasoning beings,i'd say that a Dystopic future is more likely.Some Great minds have warned about this as well: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2907069/Don-t-let-AI-jobs...