Robots will take many of our jobs – and that's good

[Chris]

The problem is the capitalism.

Like I said, some people don't even understand what the topic is.

[kilgram]

Like I said, some people don't even understand what the topic is.

I understand perfectly the topic.

Cannot I disagree with the conclusions from the topic?

And that jobs disappear in this system is not good. It means more unemployment. And the liberal thesis can say anything, the structural unemployment increases. If there are 2000 lost jobs and thanks to technology are created 1000 jobs, it means that a 50% of people becomes unemployed without possibility to be incorporated.

Facts are that technological jobs require much less people. Therefore, it means less jobs.

Let's suppose that for a farm you needed 10 workers. Now thanks to the machines, you just need 5 workers. But to repair and control the machines you need only 1 worker. So you've destroyed 5 places and you've created only 1. Let's suppose that you need engineers and designers, you have 3 jobs created and 5 destroyed. There are 2 people that go to the structural unemployment.

Those are the facts. So, yes, technology is necessary to advance. But as technology advance the capitalist system will become more an obstacle than anything.

And I've been generous with the numbers, because reality would be much more harsh.

I don't care of productivity if it does not benefit the whole society. We are still working 40 hours/week and there is no hope to change it. While the productivity is from 300% to 500% superior than when those 40 hours/week were introduced. It is the problem.

[Chris]

It also creates service sector jobs and higher paying jobs in the same company, fewer of them though. It is the only way to stay competitive.

Agree. The money saved through automation goes to innovation of new products and services. That's the creative-destruction part.

[Don]

If the schools did a better job of teaching kids the basics and how to learn as opposed to how to indoctrinate, people would have an easier time adapting to changes in the workforce. Losing your job for whatever reason can seem devastating at the time but if you can properly read and write and do basic math you have no problem learning how to do a new job. How many times has a person walked into a new environment and seemed completely overwhelmed and think there is no way I will ever be able to do this. A few years later most of them have mastered it and chuckle to themselves when they see new people show the same worries or fears.

[Chris]

The problem is the capitalism (crony, free market and any form of capitalism you guess).

As I've told many times, this improvements go to the means of production owners. Not to anybody else.

You're in the wrong thread, kilgram, go start your own.

[Chris]

I understand perfectly the topic.

Cannot I disagree with the conclusions from the topic?

And that jobs disappear in this system is not good. It means more unemployment. And the liberal thesis can say anything, the structural unemployment increases. If there are 2000 lost jobs and thanks to technology are created 1000 jobs, it means that a 50% of people becomes unemployed without possibility to be incorporated.

Facts are that technological jobs require much less people. Therefore, it means less jobs.

Let's suppose that for a farm you needed 10 workers. Now thanks to the machines, you just need 5 workers. But to repair and control the machines you need only 1 worker. So you've destroyed 5 places and you've created only 1. Let's suppose that you need engineers and designers, you have 3 jobs created and 5 destroyed. There are 2 people that go to the structural unemployment.

Those are the facts. So, yes, technology is necessary to advance. But as technology advance the capitalist system will become more an obstacle than anything.

And I've been generous with the numbers, because reality would be much more harsh.

I don't care of productivity if it does not benefit the whole society. We are still working 40 hours/week and there is no hope to change it. While the productivity is from 300% to 500% superior than when those 40 hours/week were introduced. It is the problem.

The jobs are displaced. Disappear is mistaken, it's only half the creative-destruction picture.

Here is more from the OP link:

Farming used to employ plenty of manual labor to do very physical work. But today, technological innovation – from basic tractors to complex irrigation systems – has not only eliminated backbreaking tasks but has also created new, more-skilled jobs. In fact, there are so many jobs in agriculture due to the increasing intricacy of the industry that approximately 60,000 positions remain vacant. Much of the work has moved out of the fields and into labs, where microbiologists, meteorologists and veterinarians all play an important role in getting safe foods to tables across the country. And these jobs requiring higher skills also pay higher salaries.

That is the creative side of jobs.

Your analysis considers only jobs lost, not jobs gained.

[kilgram]

The jobs are displaced. Disappear is mistaken, it's only half the creative-destruction picture.

Here is more from the OP link:



That is the creative side of jobs.

Your analysis considers only jobs lost, not jobs gained.

The jobs gained is lower than the lost.

The automatization destroys more jobs than the ones created. The jobs that are created are high qualified jobs. Those jobs are accesible with fewer people than less qualified jobs. Also, there is a high percentage of people that won't never be able to access to those jobs. Also, they've lost the jobs for which they were qualified. What do you do with that people?

As I said, the structural unemployment will become greater as the technology advances and destroy jobs. Yes, destroy. There are some jobs that are replaced but others are destroyed.

Let's do a simple analysis.

You have a factory that manufactures basically. You have there 100 workers.

You get enough machinery to automatize the tasks, and it is cheaper than the workers. So you fire most of the workers.

To run the machines you only need 10 workers (low level of qualification)

To maintain the machines (technics): 2-5 workers. (Middle-level of qualification)

To design the machines: 1 worker (high level of qualification)

To build the machines: 20-30 workers (from low to high level of qualifcation, depending of the tasks)

So, you go from 100 workers to 46 workers.

You've left 64 workers without job. Maybe I am leaving some other job that I forgot, but there is not a replacement of 100 jobs destroyed and there are 100 created jobs, that would be a replacement as you say. But that is not realistic.

So my question stands: What do you do with the people who won't be able to get a new job?

And, also we are in times where the automatization is replacing not only menial jobs, and it will go further.

The big idea of robots and for this I mentioned capitalism, is that the menial jobs being done by robots and people being able to dedicate to creative jobs. It means, changing the economic system to do that.

If it does not happen, the scenario will be one where a lot of people will lose the jobs and won't have anything.

[Bob]

It was easier for Henry Ford to hire men to install bolts and nuts to hold parts together than it is to train a person to become highly skilled in an electronics field who watches that job depart to some Asian country. When robots can put parts together, the day of the man on the job greatly decreases. This is the aim of the factory in fact. When men working translates to profits, men were more valuable. When robots make at least equal profit, men are less valuable for personal reasons robots do not suffer. Food breaks cost production as does just talking. Robots talking is super fast.

There is no mystery why jobs are less today than 10 years ago. And what of that belongs to Obama? Probably little except he blocks energy production where he is able to block it. This of course puts men out of work who would otherwise work.

[Chris]

The jobs gained is lower than the lost.

The automatization destroys more jobs than the ones created. The jobs that are created are high qualified jobs. Those jobs are accesible with fewer people than less qualified jobs. Also, there is a high percentage of people that won't never be able to access to those jobs. Also, they've lost the jobs for which they were qualified. What do you do with that people?

As I said, the structural unemployment will become greater as the technology advances and destroy jobs. Yes, destroy. There are some jobs that are replaced but others are destroyed.

Let's do a simple analysis.

You have a factory that manufactures basically. You have there 100 workers.

You get enough machinery to automatize the tasks, and it is cheaper than the workers. So you fire most of the workers.

To run the machines you only need 10 workers (low level of qualification)

To maintain the machines (technics): 2-5 workers. (Middle-level of qualification)

To design the machines: 1 worker (high level of qualification)

To build the machines: 20-30 workers (from low to high level of qualifcation, depending of the tasks)

So, you go from 100 workers to 46 workers.

You've left 64 workers without job. Maybe I am leaving some other job that I forgot, but there is not a replacement of 100 jobs destroyed and there are 100 created jobs, that would be a replacement as you say. But that is not realistic.

So my question stands: What do you do with the people who won't be able to get a new job?

And, also we are in times where the automatization is replacing not only menial jobs, and it will go further.

The big idea of robots and for this I mentioned capitalism, is that the menial jobs being done by robots and people being able to dedicate to creative jobs. It means, changing the economic system to do that.

If it does not happen, the scenario will be one where a lot of people will lose the jobs and won't have anything.

The jobs gained is lower than the lost.

Your entire argument rests on the premise. You offer theory to back it. No facts. If we accept your theory then millions and millions of people would be out on the street dying of starvation. I don't see that. No, what you see is a shift in the workforce, from agriculture as the Industrial Revolution hit, and now from manufacturing to service.

And your theory omits the very point raised in this topic, the creation of new products and services.

What I don't get is automation ought to actually be celebrated by a communist like yourself. Work will be done by robots and people will be free to do whatever they want. And yet you see it as doomsday.

[Chris]

It was easier for Henry Ford to hire men to install bolts and nuts to hold parts together than it is to train a person to become highly skilled in an electronics field who watches that job depart to some Asian country. When robots can put parts together, the day of the man on the job greatly decreases. This is the aim of the factory in fact. When men working translates to profits, men were more valuable. When robots make at least equal profit, men are less valuable for personal reasons robots do not suffer. Food breaks cost production as does just talking. Robots talking is super fast.

There is no mystery why jobs are less today than 10 years ago. And what of that belongs to Obama? Probably little except he blocks energy production where he is able to block it. This of course puts men out of work who would otherwise work.

Your focus is too narrow, 10 years, we've been in a Great Recession that began under Bush and continues under Obama.