Posted on 08/04/2017 1:26:21 PM PDT by aquila48
“You are trying to make an argument that was lost a long time ago. Good luck selling your lemon.”
Your missing his point. Robots make stuff. No one builds robots to make stuff unless there is someone to buy the stuff. If no one has a job and no one can afford to buy stuff then companies will not make it. There will be equilibrium. Most of the stuff we have in our homes was made, in part, by robots. 150 years ago they did not have robots... and they had less, and less complicated, stuff. So more robots = cheaper stuff = people have more stuff.
I am an engineer. I use a computer to get stuff done that would have taken longer by hand 80 years ago... but is there LESS demand for engineers? No. Ditto for lots and lots of industries. Someone made a device for bartenders to mix drinks faster... and bartenders still have jobs.
I understand, you’re too lazy to come up with any specific arguments against the actual article.
Politics will cry for neo-luddism, increased welfare, increased taxes, etc.
Plus, robots are very organized. I expect them to soon unionize and then do what unions do best: limit the number of like workers.
On the other hand, most of them will probably vote for Al Gore.
“The lamenters don’t seem to understand that increased productivity in one industry frees up resources and laborers for other industries, and, since increased productivity means increased real wages, demand for goods and services will increase as well.”
This is a classical theory based mostly on the history of the earlier industrial revolution. It is in error with respect to economic history since the 1990s, and particularly since the “technological” revolution with its dawn at that time.
While corporations have been registering regular productivity gains, those gains have not, since 1980, registered any similar growth in wages, or even total compensation. Neither has that productivity growth stimulated an equal level of job creation. Profits yes, wages and jobs, no. Why? Automated devices and automation hardware and software do not get wages, nor are they counted as “job holders”.
Also, the “creation of new jobs”, as was seen during the onset of electrification, telecommunications, autos and commercial aircraft HAS NOT OCCURRED during the technology revolution in a manner of creating more new jobs than jobs lost.
No. This time, the classic view of the affects of ANY MANNER of productivity has not happened with the technological revolution.
Yes it - technology - does create all kinds of new work, and new jobs, but it has been at a much slower pace and volume than the jobs automation and computerization is doing away with.
“What companies are not trying to save money through automation and A.I.?”
I would hope all of them so I can buy their products cheaper.
“People will initially service the machines, but you don’t need that many people compared to the number of people that were in a job field before. Furthermore, you will not need as many people in time servicing the machines as technology gets better. In other words Robots will service Robots, A.I., etc...”
Truly idiotic logic and ignorance of human nature and potential. Tell me, are the only jobs available today building, fixing, maintaining tractors, combines, sowers, weeders etc?? Over the years, close to 80 percent of the people have been displaced by those machines and yet most people today have jobs that have nothing to do with fixing those machines or working on the farm. What are these people doing today?
Same thing with the digital revolution - how many clerks, secretary, travel agents, tellers have been displaced by that revolution? Yet unemployment today is at 4.4% and illiterate, non english speaking illegal immigrants from AI-free countries are flooding across the border and getting jobs in our AI rich country where all jobs supposedly are going to robots?!
“What industry needs will NOT be affected by technology?”
Hopefully all of them - that’s what increases productivity and your standard of living. Or would you rather be living in AI free Burundi?
I see your handle is Enlightened1, a better one might be “Bamboozled”.
“The automation and AI will only increase such productivity will stagnating wages.”
Looking at wages alone is not looking at the right metric.
The right metric is the difference between wages and cost of living.
If I can buy more with my “stagnant” wages as a result of higher productivity and thus lower costs, I’m better off.
And I think today people are better off than they were a few decades ago.
Even the poorest today has a car, enough food to be obese, flat screen TV, a roof over their head, air conditioning, etc.
“Politics will cry for neo-luddism, increased welfare, increased taxes, etc.”
It’s a coordinated campaign and they’re working very hard at it. See my post #17.
“While corporations have been registering regular productivity gains, those gains have not, since 1980, registered any similar growth in wages, or even total compensation.”
Looking at only wages is looking at only one side of the coin. The other side is what you can buy today with those wages.
For example, today you can buy a magical device that you can hold in your hand for $100 that in 1980 didn’t exist and if it did you would need a big suitcase to carry it in and would have cost 100 grand. Another example is clothes. I’m constantly amazed at how unbelievably inexpensive they are today.
“Also, the “creation of new jobs”, as was seen during the onset of electrification, telecommunications, autos and commercial aircraft HAS NOT OCCURRED during the technology revolution in a manner of creating more new jobs than jobs lost.”
“Yes it - technology - does create all kinds of new work, and new jobs, but it has been at a much slower pace and volume than the jobs automation and computerization is doing away with.”
The tens of millions that hold those jobs in China, Korea, Taiwan, Japan and here, would disagree with you.
Productivity and technology has allowed women to do 'manly' jobs. It has been the great equalizer in society. Now we will go further down that line with AI and such replacing both.
You can brag about the advances in freezers and 4k tv. But, that has also destroyed tv repairmen. I'd say there isn't many of those left. Ya can say, well we have iphone repairmen now; not the same.
This is just the beginning on such revolutions coming. AI, gene editing, etc.
First try to stay focus on this debate. We are talking about the future and not the present or the past.
Well I am glad you admit companies are saving money through Automation and A.I.
That validates my entire point that the companies are hiring less people..., as technology does more and more jobs in all industries and every walk of life.
Then you mention jobs that have been greatly impacted, but say people have moved on to other jobs. Yes they did, but many of their new jobs, like their previous job, are slowly and incrementally being impacted by automation and A.I.
As technology improves it’s impacting more and more jobs. People are being replaced. You some how think most people will be able to run off to some other job that will not be impacted by automation or A.I. That’s complete nonsense.
What you are really arguing is an old augment that would have been true 30 years or more ago, but what was true then is not true in the future. It may be some what true today since at the moment automation, A.I. robots, etc... have not taken over everything. However, it will not be true 30 years from now at the direction we are heading.
You are arguing an old debate that’s already over. Read what guys like Ray Kurzweil, Bill Joy, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Stephen Hawking and even Mark Zuckerberg say about it. They all take different sides of it and how they think it will play out, but all agree technology, Automation, A.I. and robots will for the most part take over most jobs. The problem is that it will create a large welfare class.
You have been hoodwinked lock, stock and barrel. You are obviously still asleep. The arguments you are making is nothing I have never before or considered.
One last point.
You are better off listening to the guys that built products and are heads IN THE INDUSTRY like Bill Joy, Elon Musk, Ray Kurzweil or Bill Gates vs. a college Professor that lives in an Ivory tower. It’s a lot like taking economic advice from Antifa that lives in their mommy’s basement.
Haha! (Shaking my head)
I see this more and more, not only in comments sections but in (presumably) edited articles.
“The tens of millions that hold those jobs in China, Korea, Taiwan, Japan and here, would disagree with you.”
One could say that even there, productivity growth - especially Korea, Japan and Taiwan, has not translated to similar growth in either wages or jobs. China is a bit different, but an Intel exec friend of mine who goes in and out of China frequently on business - a Chinese American - says that you cannot accept the financial figures of Chinese companies or the government - their books are not trustworthy.
Or, taking your statement as fact, one could say any benefit of the productivity spurt from U.S. companies from the technological revolution was EXPORTED to China, Korea, Taiwan and Japan, with a “screw the American worker and domestic economy” stamp on it.
Yet, in both India and China, robotics & automation/computerization are beginning to slacken in terms of net job creation. The one advantage both countries have for maybe another twenty years is that infrastructure development is only high now because it needs to be to catch up with 100 years of higher infrastructure development in the west. Once they are built out as far as needed, that job engine will be much slower, robotics and automation will be even higher, with even slower job growth, for their 1 bil plus populations.
“This is just the beginning on such revolutions coming. AI, gene editing, etc.”
So what??
No one is saying that it’s not a “revolution” whatever that means. There have been many technical revolutions throughout men’s history, starting with agriculture, invention of the wheel, bronze and iron age, aqueducts, scientific revolution, industrial revolution, transportation revolution, medical revolution, digital revolution and now possibly AI revolution.
All these revolutions have in one form or another taken previous jobs away and always CREATED MORE NEW AND BETTER ONES.
I’m not at all worried about the loss of jobs. There will be some destroyed and more new ones created. Our problem is that we are not prescient and imaginative enough to know what those new jobs will look like. Do you think the farmer back in 1900 that just got replaced by a tractor imagined jobs such as programmer, airline pilot, foot massager for the masses, barista, etc, etc.
I pointed out the real reason behind this scaremongering in post #17
Having said all that, the other revolution you mention, genetic engineering, does concern me.
All these other revolutions haven’t had the ability to change human nature, other than in some very peripheral way.
Genetic engineering on the other hand may eventually afford us the ability to remake humans in our desired image.
Given that the left is extremely unhappy about our current nature (greedy, unequal, unfair, envious, etc), once this genetic engineering tool becomes effective, they will be the first to glum on to it and remake humans to their liking. Can you imagine the monster they will create?
Of course, Aldous Huxley predicted this in “Brave New World” where he gave us a taste of what that future will be like.
Vonnegut did the same, using more Stalinistic methods, in his short story “Harrison Bergeron”.
http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html
So if you really want something to alarm me, the genetic revolution could easily do the trick.
QUICKER WEALTH, NOT MORE UNEMPLOYED
What good is fantastic productivity if the Great Big Government BLACK HOLE,
just sucks up that new wealth and transfers it to wealthy oligarchs??
That is why the wealthy elite are pushing Universal Income,
which like handing $20 bills on the street corner is unsound. It is poverty. Better to own stock assets and the Universal Poverty Income is just a back up plan.
Big Government + Robotics = Poverty for people
Small Government + Robotics = Quicker Prosperity for people
The challenge is first fend off the Big Govt DISTORTION of the economy,
which was 2% but now is 70% State owns everything.
eg A call center job is poverty, Govt OUTSOURCED
eg Nursing is wealth, not yet Govt ruined
You folks are determined to specialize in robotics maintenance!
The State may OUTSOURCE those jobs and you are screwed!
Challenge #2, I admit is the biggest, own the land and house beneath your feet.
Life now is cheap, cheap, cheap.
But the Robotic Productivity SURGE, ain’t your biggest problem,
your Big Government owning everything, is your problem.
Assume you now OWN YOUR HOME. Life is cheap now.
That homemaker you wanted to hire is now a Roomba robot,
those landscaping tools are mega efficient.
Each tool has added features, and productivity adds up.
The future Biggest Challenge is pursuing OWNERSHIP yourself,
so Big Government’s, winner picks, do not own everything.
Last example, you now own a laundermat down the street,
productivity increases, even robotics, means getting wealthy quicker.
And if Big City, Big Corporations own all the street sweepers,
you may have to go more suburban or rural, if that is your pick,
because the Big State props its chosen monopolies up.
Instead of a traditional 50 year career,
robot society only needs 20 or 10 years to retire wealthy.
It is NOT more unemployed, that is just the lie the rich sell, to grab it all.
But you must hustle and find that nitch. Its there. :-)
I like the way you think.
We need to allow truly lazy people to die and their innocent babies die as well. First, give them a chance to give up their children they won’t work to feed. If they don’t. Then the family works, or dies.
In natural law, you don’t make children you can’t feed. Because the child dies. Keep it in your pants or your son will die of starvation... until you have a good job and get married.
That is how it should be.
And I am ALL FOR paying taxes to help everyone who is disabled and cannot work.
I believe some of the high tech jobs will still be doable - rote learned tasks - for people of average to low average intelligence. And I am all for jobs being created in industry for the low intel folk, lots of job descriptions include tasks that can be taken from a busy worker and given to people with Down syndrome or such, supervised and worthwhile.
You’d be surprised how seriously some in the intellectually disabled community take their jobs and how proud they are to do them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.