You are replaceable.

[Cthulhu]

Robots.

They can replace you for many things. Driving, delivery, even dosage of chemicals, to fighting wars.

I read that pizza hut has designed a drone car that is basically an oven on wheels and can deliver a pizza hot and ready.

Various fast food giants are developing robotic burger makers that actually do a better job than the people doing it.

1 in 4 workers in Amazon is actually a robot.

So what is the population response going to be when these companies decide to get the human replacement because you don't need to pay a bit to work for 15/hr?

Riot due to unemployment?

Why aren't politicians discussing this problem? This kind of stuff is like 4-6 years away from being mainstream.

The only thing I see as an option is for the people to either get work maintaining these machines or to do work for which they are still not good enough to do - at least until a dynamic AI is developed that is.

Then we're in big trouble.

Sent from my evil, baby seal-clubbing cellphone.

[Peter1469]

No we are not. Or, I should say, motivated people are not in trouble. The Internet is flooded with the "Sky is Falling" due to robotics stories. However, there is another point of view. They follow two different themes.

One, new jobs will develop with the new technology. Non-skilled labor likely left out. Answer: learn a skill.

Two, robots will only truly take over work when the problem of scarcity is solved. Or the process of robots taking over work solves the problem of scarcity. Either way, if the problem of scarcity is solved, there is no reason to work- other than to pass the time.

[JohnfrmCleveland]

No we are not. Or, I should say, motivated people are not in trouble. The Internet is flooded with the "Sky is Falling" due to robotics stories. However, there is another point of view. They follow two different themes.

One, new jobs will develop with the new technology. Non-skilled labor likely left out. Answer: learn a skill.

That's an awful lot of people that will be left out, though. You still have to deal with them - feed and shelter them, or find (make) work for them.


Two, robots will only truly take over work when the problem of scarcity is solved. Or the process of robots taking over work solves the problem of scarcity. Either way, if the problem of scarcity is solved, there is no reason to work- other than to pass the time.

Then we would need to find a different way to distribute our economy's production, since the labor market will no longer do the job.

I read something yesterday that I thought was pretty profound. Economics is not about scarcity at all, it is about distribution. In our economy, not much is actually scarce; we have plenty, but it is very unevenly distributed.

[Chris]

Robots.

They can replace you for many things. Driving, delivery, even dosage of chemicals, to fighting wars.

I read that pizza hut has designed a drone car that is basically an oven on wheels and can deliver a pizza hot and ready.

Various fast food giants are developing robotic burger makers that actually do a better job than the people doing it.

1 in 4 workers in Amazon is actually a robot.

So what is the population response going to be when these companies decide to get the human replacement because you don't need to pay a bit to work for 15/hr?

Riot due to unemployment?

Why aren't politicians discussing this problem? This kind of stuff is like 4-6 years away from being mainstream.

The only thing I see as an option is for the people to either get work maintaining these machines or to do work for which they are still not good enough to do - at least until a dynamic AI is developed that is.

Then we're in big trouble.

Sent from my evil, baby seal-clubbing cellphone.


Riots, probably, provided robots replacing human workers could become reality. Consider, greedy or not, businesses operate on profit motive, the more they automate the less they have consumers to purchase their products. Just not going to happen. What does happen is savings in manufacturing costs are invested in new products that require human workers. This has been true since man discovered fire, the wheel, fishing net, etc, people are put out of work temporarily--the fishing net replaces fishermen, but in time find new work--fishermen become distributors, who knows.

From Gregory Clark's A Farewell to Alms:

https://i.snag.gy/Fbu2BX.jpg

Something else might change that, but not the thing that created it.


Politicians ignore because it looks bad and they can't control it.


The future is bright.

[Peter1469]

That's an awful lot of people that will be left out, though. You still have to deal with them - feed and shelter them, or find (make) work for them.

I don't need to figure that out. Society does. I did my part: I got a skill, and a very lucrative one. I also can survive if the SHTF.





Then we would need to find a different way to distribute our economy's production, since the labor market will no longer do the job.

I read something yesterday that I thought was pretty profound. Economics is not about scarcity at all, it is about distribution. In our economy, not much is actually scarce; we have plenty, but it is very unevenly distributed.

Absolutely. Robotics will solve that. Think with the 3D printing model. Build everything locally and people can get their rations. They will be printing food soon.

[Chris]

...I read something yesterday that I thought was pretty profound. Economics is not about scarcity at all, it is about distribution. In our economy, not much is actually scarce; we have plenty, but it is very unevenly distributed.

Sounds like an old solution to all things, a post-scarcity society. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-scarcity_economy#Marxism


Karl Marx, in a section of his Grundrisse that came to be known as the "Fragment on Machines",[22][23] argued that the transition to a post-capitalist society combined with advances in automation would allow for significant reductions in labor needed to produce necessary goods, eventually reaching a point where all people would have significant amounts of leisure time to pursue science, the arts, and creative activities; a state some commentators later labeled as "post-scarcity".[24] Marx argued that capitalism - the dynamic of economic growth based on capital accumulation - depends on exploiting the surplus labor of workers, but a post-capitalist society would allow for:



The free development of individualities, and hence not the reduction of necessary labour time so as to posit surplus labour, but rather the general reduction of the necessary labour of society to a minimum, which then corresponds to the artistic, scientific etc. development of the individuals in the time set free, and with the means created, for all of them.[25]



Marx's concept of a post-capitalist communist society involves the free distribution of goods made possible by the abundance provided by automation.[26] The fully developed communist economic system is postulated to develop from a preceding socialist system. Marx held the view that socialism—a system based on social ownership of the means of production—would enable progress toward the development of fully developed communism by further advancing productive technology. Under socialism, with its increasing levels of automation, an increasing proportion of goods would be distributed freely.[27]

But by Das Kapital Marx had abandoned that idea.

[MMC]

I don't need to figure that out. Society does. I did my part: I got a skill, and a very lucrative one. I also can survive if the SHTF.




Absolutely. Robotics will solve that. Think with the 3D printing model. Build everything locally and people can get their rations. They will be printing food soon.



I'll go with some of the Klingon Claw and Romulan ale. Tab that to the governm uhm I mean the Federation. :laugh:

[JohnfrmCleveland]

Riots, probably, provided robots replacing human workers could become reality. Consider, greedy or not, businesses operate on profit motive, the more they automate the less they have consumers to purchase their products. Just not going to happen. What does happen is savings in manufacturing costs are invested in new products that require human workers. This has been true since man discovered fire, the wheel, fishing net, etc, people are put out of work temporarily--the fishing net replaces fishermen, but in time find new work--fishermen become distributors, who knows.




I think the difference today is that it is getting difficult to consume everything that we can produce. You work so you can consume, but how much harder do you want to work just to consume more? 12 hours/day? 16? And will your employer even allow you to do so? Is there sufficient demand for what you do? Labor used to be in high demand, but that isn't true anymore.

100 years ago, when people were leaving farms to work in factories, productivity was still low. One farm worker could feed, probably, 2 to 10 people. Today, one American farm worker produces enough food for about 100 people. You have to be able (as a country) to consume all of that production. Plus, you have to decide for yourself (if you are even in a position to do so) how much you want to work and earn. We still consider 40 hour work weeks and 2000 hour years to be proper, even though our productivity has risen dramatically, and even though we have a lot of unused laborer available. But workers are not in any position to change that, especially when jobs are precious.

Our economy is becoming one in which we are able to produce far more than we can sell (consume), and adjustments need to be made.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Riots, probably, provided robots replacing human workers could become reality. Consider, greedy or not, businesses operate on profit motive, the more they automate the less they have consumers to purchase their products. Just not going to happen. What does happen is savings in manufacturing costs are invested in new products that require human workers. This has been true since man discovered fire, the wheel, fishing net, etc, people are put out of work temporarily--the fishing net replaces fishermen, but in time find new work--fishermen become distributors, who knows.

From Gregory Clark's A Farewell to Alms:

https://i.snag.gy/Fbu2BX.jpg

Something else might change that, but not the thing that created it.


Politicians ignore because it looks bad and they can't control it.


The future is bright. The invention of the telephone didn't put anyone out of work. In fact, job-killing technology is needed to free workers for job-creating technology.

[Chris]

The invention of the telephone didn't put anyone out of work. In fact, job-killing technology is needed to free workers for job-creating technology.


job-killing technology is needed to free workers for job-creating technology

Precisely my point!


Telegraph and telephone certainly displaced workers in the paper and postal industries.

[The Sage of Main Street]

I think the difference today is that it is getting difficult to consume everything that we can produce. You work so you can consume, but how much harder do you want to work just to consume more? 12 hours/day? 16? And will your employer even allow you to do so? Is there sufficient demand for what you do? Labor used to be in high demand, but that isn't true anymore.

100 years ago, when people were leaving farms to work in factories, productivity was still low. One farm worker could feed, probably, 2 to 10 people. Today, one American farm worker produces enough food for about 100 people. You have to be able (as a country) to consume all of that production. Plus, you have to decide for yourself (if you are even in a position to do so) how much you want to work and earn. We still consider 40 hour work weeks and 2000 hour years to be proper, even though our productivity has risen dramatically, and even though we have a lot of unused laborer available. But workers are not in any position to change that, especially when jobs are precious.

Our economy is becoming one in which we are able to produce far more than we can sell (consume), and adjustments need to be made. What about quality rather than this exclusive concentration on quantity? Technology can be the difference between the Motel T, which would be a golf cart or a kiddy ride today, and the modern car.

[Chris]

I think the difference today is that it is getting difficult to consume everything that we can produce. You work so you can consume, but how much harder do you want to work just to consume more? 12 hours/day? 16? And will your employer even allow you to do so? Is there sufficient demand for what you do? Labor used to be in high demand, but that isn't true anymore.

100 years ago, when people were leaving farms to work in factories, productivity was still low. One farm worker could feed, probably, 2 to 10 people. Today, one American farm worker produces enough food for about 100 people. You have to be able (as a country) to consume all of that production. Plus, you have to decide for yourself (if you are even in a position to do so) how much you want to work and earn. We still consider 40 hour work weeks and 2000 hour years to be proper, even though our productivity has risen dramatically, and even though we have a lot of unused laborer available. But workers are not in any position to change that, especially when jobs are precious.

Our economy is becoming one in which we are able to produce far more than we can sell (consume), and adjustments need to be made.


It was suggested to the development team that we work overtime to get next release out the door. But certainly the marginal utility diminishes generally to where it's not worth it and yes productivity is up, because of continued division of labor, specialization and automation. But my point had more to do with the fact if robots replace human work then they will be no consumers and thus no profits, given a view that subjective value is generated in exchange, not somehow objectively inherent in labor, so such an economic system simply cannot come about.

[The Xl]

Most of these really depends on how the technology in question is produced, who its produced by, and how or if it's distributed. It could either free or enslave humanity.

On the matter of being replaceable, the vast majority are replaceable. Even many people who think they have high skill jobs that pay well. In reality, those jobs aren't particularly high skill. There are a very select few in our society that are not easily replaceable.

[JohnfrmCleveland]

The invention of the telephone didn't put anyone out of work. In fact, job-killing technology is needed to free workers for job-creating technology.

Well at the moment, it sure seems like there are a whole lot of freed-up workers with nothing to do, and no jobs on the horizon.



What about quality rather than this exclusive concentration on quantity? Technology can be the difference between the Motel T, which would be a golf cart or a kiddy ride today, and the modern car.

Sure, quality has certainly improved, but that's not really the issue here. The issue is that, while we are getting much, much better at producing things, we aren't getting any better/smarter about how we divvy up the profits.

If one worker can now produce what two workers could produce five years ago, why don't we cut our work week in half, to 20 hours/week, and keep both workers employed? Because in a weak labor market, all of the gains go to ownership. The owner of the company isn't going to pay the same amount for half the production, and one worker isn't going to cut his salary in half just so another worker can keep his job. So labor competes itself out of jobs and income. And the market isn't going to fix this problem on its own.

In the past, there have always been other opportunities where displaced workers could go. But I think that things are different today.

[JohnfrmCleveland]

It was suggested to the development team that we work overtime to get next release out the door. But certainly the marginal utility diminishes generally to where it's not worth it and yes productivity is up, because of continued division of labor, specialization and automation. But my point had more to do with the fact if robots replace human work then they will be no consumers and thus no profits, given a view that subjective value is generated in exchange, not somehow objectively inherent in labor, so such an economic system simply cannot come about.

I'm with you, right up until the end. The system we have now cannot survive without consumers, of course, but that doesn't mean things can't devolve in the meantime. We are going to stick with our capitalist, get-paid-via-the-labor-market system right up until the bitter end, I believe. Business pulls the strings in this country, not the government.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Precisely my point!


Telegraph and telephone certainly displaced workers in the paper and postal industries. No it didn't. Before those inventions, people communicated less. It didn't impinge on another market, it expanded the market that slow, impractical, and limited to the strictly necessary communications had provided.

[Chris]

No it didn't. Before those inventions, people communicated less. It didn't impinge on another market, it expanded the market that slow, impractical, and limited to the strictly necessary communications had provided.

Right, I saw one of these gallup up the street just minutes ago...

https://i.snag.gy/WyjtXT.jpg

[Chris]

I'm with you, right up until the end. The system we have now cannot survive without consumers, of course, but that doesn't mean things can't devolve in the meantime. We are going to stick with our capitalist, get-paid-via-the-labor-market system right up until the bitter end, I believe. Business pulls the strings in this country, not the government.

Agree, it could be other factors than business driving themselves out of business with automation. We could certainly fall back into the Malthusian Trap.

Business pays the government to put the strings...called rent seeking.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Well at the moment, it sure seems like there are a whole lot of freed-up workers with nothing to do, and no jobs on the horizon.




Sure, quality has certainly improved, but that's not really the issue here. The issue is that, while we are getting much, much better at producing things, we aren't getting any better/smarter about how we divvy up the profits.

If one worker can now produce what two workers could produce five years ago, why don't we cut our work week in half, to 20 hours/week, and keep both workers employed? Because in a weak labor market, all of the gains go to ownership. The owner of the company isn't going to pay the same amount for half the production, and one worker isn't going to cut his salary in half just so another worker can keep his job. So labor competes itself out of jobs and income. And the market isn't going to fix this problem on its own.

In the past, there have always been other opportunities where displaced workers could go. But I think that things are different today. If, because of technology, a worker produces twice as much, he should either get paid twice as much or work half as many hours for the same total pay as before. The owner doesn't pay anyone; the workers pay him. Profit is a tax.

[Crepitus]

I don't need to figure that out. Society does. I did my part: I got a skill, and a very lucrative one. I also can survive if the SHTF.




Absolutely. Robotics will solve that. Think with the 3D printing model. Build everything locally and people can get their rations. They will be printing food soon.
AI lawyers with instant access to every law library there is?

[Peter1469]

AI lawyers with instant access to every law library there is?

That is fine if you need black letter law advice. That is not all to the practice of law that there is.

[Crepitus]

That is fine if you need black letter law advice. That is not all to the practice of law that there is.
Not right now, but what if that's the only way an AI judge can comprehend?

[Peter1469]

Not right now, but what if that's the only way an AI judge can comprehend?

I don't think we want a legal system that is that black and white that an app can provide all legal advice, legal judgments, and new laws. But I think if society was going in that direction the lawyers would be in a better position to take advantage of the creative destruction caused by robotics than many other people in society.

Especially lawyers with my military back ground.

[The Sage of Main Street]

AI lawyers with instant access to every law library there is? CEOs, too, can be replaced with computer programs.

[The Sage of Main Street]

That is not all to the practice of law that there is. The sagacity of that statement depends on what the meaning of the word is is.