Comixbooks
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 22,019
I bet Walmart goes more Robot orientated I can't wait to talk to my Robot Boss who makes me wear a ugly vest with a Spark Symbol the cult of the Spark or as my last crew called it.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I bet Walmart goes more Robot orientated I can't wait to talk to my Robot Boss who makes me wear a ugly vest with a Spark Symbol the cult of the Spark or as my last crew called it.
There won't e enough positions to employ the number of people that will be out of work due to the robots.
Some people will adapt, but overall will have higher unemployment, record people on welfare, and an insane amount of homeless, poverty, and government assistance.
There is no two ways about it, we will have to keep more people employed then the direction we're headed.
That will be 1 out of every 4 jobs in the next 5 years will be taken over by an automated process. McDonalds and other fast food places are already looking into it so they don't have to pay their employees the $15 an hour they're demanding.
[Tripod]MajorPayne;1041148612 said:You know, there's always a possibility that using robots to do menial, repeatable, hazardous, or undesirable jobs will just free up people to perform other economic activity that better benefits society. Instead of paying people to make our food, we can pay them to do something else that adds more value.
Every disruptive event in economic production has led to more prosperity for all, not less.
The very height the great depression, when the economy seemed teetering on collapse and the period you see all those despair-filled 'dust bowl' pictures from...was only 29% unemployment. Here, we are talking about 25% unemployment minimum in a decade - and no 'civil service' program or war is going to be able to fix that. Humans will become replaced in economic activity as obsolete parts, with the only people retaining any economic value being those who own the machines that do work in place of other humans.
That's really not true if you think about it - when automobiles came along, did it "free up horses to do more interesting labor"? Kinda, sure - now horses just do show work, have rides for entertainment, etc.
Oh, there's also only about 20-30% the number of living horses at the moment vs their peak. Because, it turns out, once you replace something so completely, it certainly DOES change the work done, but also means you need a LOT less of them...
No we won't. We just will need less people -- and the people at the top who control the robots will see to it that they have robots capable of eliminating the "excess" workforce.
Ebola, Enterovirus EV-D68 and socialized health care should take care a large part of the problem.
That's the dumbest analogy I've ever heard.
Horses were a tool that did a job and were controlled by humans.
Machines now do the works horses and guess what they're controlled by humans.
A horse didn't just wake up in the morning, make a cup of coffee, read the funnies, eat a beagle and head out the door to complete a job. Wow.
the push to use robots is to lower costs, increase efficiency and make more profits. in order to make any profit, you have to make sales. if people have no jobs, they cant buy anything. unless you can come up with money without a job, sales and profits will fall. there will have to be an equilibrium at some point.
the whole capitalism economy is based on consumption. if that cycle stops, it all goes downhill, fast.
face it, we are just termites on this planet.
Its not a bad analogy at all.That's the dumbest analogy I've ever heard.
Horses were a tool that did a job and were controlled by humans.
Machines now do the works horses and guess what they're controlled by humans.
A horse didn't just wake up in the morning, make a cup of coffee, read the funnies, eat a beagle and head out the door to complete a job. Wow.
Also, software and robots aren't generally customers, so good luck with that whole automating service industries thing and eliminating your customer base. Not saying they won't try, but automation isn't going to be some money printing magic for the man, it's going to be highly disruptive to existing economic models.
Its not a bad analogy at all.
There are a bunch of REALLY stupid people out there that can't contribute anything more than doing really simple repetitive tasks or manual labor chores day in and day out. They simply don't have the mental capacity or discipline to learn a skilled trade.
Like horses, when these people are replaced, they are replaced. They will have nothing to do, because they aren't suddenly going to become smarter and learn how to program robots.
Most likely, we will just have a larger and larger portion of society leaching off societies teet, as the top 50% produce all the food/goods/services needed to support the bottom 50% that are too dumb to do anything that robots don't already do better and cheaper.
Yeah, reality doesn't work like that. If enough humans are irrelevant to the economy, then they tear down the system until they are relevant again. The question is are we smart enough to come up with a different system that accommodates this eventual reality or will we just sleepwalk into it, resulting in some sort of massive collapse. Given how broken things already are, I think the latter option.Humans will become replaced in economic activity as obsolete parts, with the only people retaining any economic value being those who own the machines that do work in place of other humans.
If they raise the minimum wage to $15/hour we just might see these numbers come true.
Paying $15/hour for unskilled burger flippers is just asking for those jobs to go away. The companies either have to raise prices (and suffer the corresponding drop in sales), or eliminate some of those expensive workers through automation.
I always thought the society in Soylent Green was the most accurate scenario (minus the recycled cannibalism), but yeah, Judge Dredd isn't a bad prediction either!The idealist in me hopes that humanity can embrace a post-scarcity concept like the Star Trek economy, but the realist in me envisions things turning much more Judge Dredd-like, with vast expanses of urban ghetto populated by the masses, while a few elites act as the puppet-masters. Maybe it's because we're arguably close to that scenario now...
So are you volunteering to run your business at a loss, so your employees can keep shopping at both our stores?
Because I'm going to cut my costs in half by firing all my humans and replacing them with machines, then reducing the price on MY stock (currently very closely priced to yours as we presently have similar costs) down 33% vs yours.
How are you going to compete with that? Or are you going to be forced to do the same thing I'm doing to reduce your own costs?
Classic prisoner's dilemma - each of us making, individually, what appears to be 'the best decision for ourselves' in a vacuum, instead results in the worst possible outcome for EVERYONE...
Nope, doesn't work like that. In the past, human muscle was relevant for the application of force, but these days its not.Yeah, reality doesn't work like that. If enough humans are irrelevant to the economy, then they tear down the system until they are relevant again.
And that TOTALLY would not create a resistance movement towards the authority with some sort of ideological backing. Plus killing civilians on a massive scale tends to undermine morale and erode the power structure.Nope, doesn't work like that. In the past, human muscle was relevant for the application of force, but these days its not.
One guy with a machine gun, can overpower fifty unarmed people. One guy in a tank with five autonomous drones can overpower fifty guys with machine guns. One guy in an aircraft carrier with a swarm of automated ships (we are working on these RIGHT NOW) and a bunch of pilotless aircraft can take out fifty of the tank guys.
This only works if the majority people are meeting base needs. If your population starts starving and the power structure is simply not providing means for them, it's simply not a stable system and is prone to being overthrown. This would be double in a place like the USA which has rebellion as as part of our cultural narrative. The exception to this would be some place like North Korea, where people are exposed to propaganda or brainwashing from cradle to grave, so the ideology necessary to overthrow a corrupt power doesn't hit a critical mass.So ultimately the machines can be such a force multiplier, that the number of people needed to rule over a large population becomes tiny. And it will never be all that hard to elevate some people from the population to exert force on the rest.
So going forward, less and less people will have more and more power, not just economically but martially as well.
I worked for years in the paper industry writing software for automating production lines. Glad it will move forward in many other areas. Those who push a $15 minimum wage, pat yourself on the back. This movement will just create more jobs for my students.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rz8Ve0lsW4E&list=UUsatbp-uFL23zPka50mH4VQ
I worked for years in the paper industry writing software for automating production lines. Glad it will move forward in many other areas. Those who push a $15 minimum wage, pat yourself on the back. This movement will just create more jobs for my students.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rz8Ve0lsW4E&list=UUsatbp-uFL23zPka50mH4VQ