Wall Street Cheers Replacement of Cashiers with Digital Kiosks

[kju1]

Why is it when people talk about degree's it's usually some silly degree like Art History major? I really doubt that many people went to school to be a clown or learn woman's history. I have no idea what trade schools are but when you're in high school everyone tells you to go to college and get a degree. Now its trade schools, which I have no idea what they do. I doubt many people are aware of them as well. I really doubt they're free, as anyone who made the mistake to go to college probably can't afford even trade school, since they're now working a minimum wage job to pay back their student loan.

Because its an easy example. Here are the breakdown of majors: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2...or-four-decades-of-college-degrees-in-1-graph

That aside you missed the points:

1) A degree is not a guarantee of a higher income or even a job, nor should it be.
2) A degree is basically training in a concentration of skills. Dont expect to get into a high paying field with a limited skill set if you trained in a different field.
3) You need to be able to sell yourself (i.e. your labor) in the market. That might mean doing work you dont like because what you DO like doesnt pay well enough to suite the lifestyle you want. You have to either do this or adjust your expectations.

A trade school teaches you specific skills like AC repair, welding, etc. Things that traditional colleges do not teach but are still jobs that pay better than minimum wage and as you progress can actually pay quite well. An entry level AC repair tech has a median starting salary of 40k. A median welder salary is not too far off.

Nobody said or made the implication that trade schools were free. You made that point up.

 

[mesyn191]

Feel free to believe whatever you want.

Solid evidence beats beliefs every time. If you got you'd have already posted it.

Solid evidence?

Yes, a direct cite that clearly shows McD's is putting these kiosks out due to $15/hr min. wage in a few cities. They've been doing tests for decades but they only started to install these finished product kiosks in the last few years.

I've got better things to be doing.

If you did you wouldn't be posting at all in this thread and certainly wouldn't have made this last post either.

 

[Gorankar]

They would put them out there eventually anyways. However, rising payroll costs would almost certainly be considered in any decisions as to the speed or locations of any roll out of this tech.

 

[mesyn191]

Because its an easy example.

Its a dishonest one though. Going by your chart they're not a particularly large amount of Art/History majors at all vs say Business. Even Healthcare or Education by themselves are nearly the same as Art/History combined. And the rest of those degrees generally seem pretty from from the typical "LOL Liberal Arts Degrees LOL" trope that constantly gets trotted out by others.

1) A degree is not a guarantee of a higher income or even a job, nor should it be. 2) A degree is basically training in a concentration of skills. Dont expect to get into a high paying field with a limited skill set if you trained in a different field. 3) You need to be able to sell yourself (i.e. your labor) in the market.

A) It sure was for decades and is still being pitched as such by both colleges and the media in general only now the focus is on STEM degrees which contrary to popular commentary aren't really a gateway to higher paying jobs anymore either. 2) There is often quite a bit of skill crossover though and many degrees are designed to teach a student how to handle many different types of problems which is quite valuable. 3) This doesn't matter much in the least at all in today's work place where everyone is treated like a cog in a machine and the right certs, resume, and experience are what dictate whether you even get seen for a interview in the first place.

A trade school teaches you specific skills like AC repair, welding, etc.

Trade schools are a joke at this point and anyone who says otherwise doesn't understand one iota how bad the job market for any of those fields are. Quite a lot of them are straight up scams on par with ITT. They might as well be the next big "get a STEM degree" trope at this point.

An entry level AC repair tech has a median starting salary of 40k. A median welder salary is not too far off.

Those numbers are highly regional though and both those jobs are shit that chew people up and spit them out with life long chronic injuries that frequently prevent them from working. Back injuries and COPD are no joke. As are the safety standards that are followed while on the job in either of those careers. Its all about getting the work done just well enough to pass inspection as fast as possible while cutting every corner and if that means employees get injured no one seems to care a bit.

If the pay was better, less half assed safety wise, and the worker protections were better too trades would be a more reasonable path but that isn't how it is at all right now.

 

[kju1]

Its a dishonest one though. Going by your chart they're not a particularly large amount of Art/History majors at all vs say Business. Even Healthcare or Education by themselves are nearly the same as Art/History combined. And the rest of those degrees generally seem pretty from from the typical "LOL Liberal Arts Degrees LOL" trope that constantly gets trotted out by others.

Nope its not, I could just have easily picked education which also doesn't pay well relative to other career choices. Your implication that I am trying to mislead someone is petty at best. You missed the point.

A) It sure was for decades and is still being pitched as such by both colleges and the media in general only now the focus is on STEM degrees which contrary to popular commentary aren't really a gateway to higher paying jobs anymore either.

Just because someone advertises it as such to you doesnt make it true. It was NEVER a guarantee that you would get a job otherwise you would have had a contract with the institution you get the degree from stating you will have a job when you graduate. Advertising it to be that way is not a guarantee. If you think it is I have a bridge to sell you...

2) There is often quite a bit of skill crossover though and many degrees are designed to teach a student how to handle many different types of problems which is quite valuable.

Your point? It doesnt invalidate my point at all. There are some common areas in *learning* which is why you have to take all those non degree classes. But I don't think anyone will try to argue that a CS major should be able to get a job as a surgeon without going to med school...

3) This doesn't matter much in the least at all in today's work place where everyone is treated like a cog in a machine and the right certs, resume, and experience are what dictate whether you even get seen for a interview in the first place.

Being marketable by possessing the skills necessary (which should be on your resume) isnt important at all? Utter bullshit.

Trade schools are a joke at this point and anyone who says otherwise doesn't understand one iota how bad the job market for any of those fields are. Quite a lot of them are straight up scams on par with ITT. They might as well be the next big "get a STEM degree" trope at this point.

Now who is being dishonest? You picked an article that pointed out a minority of the available schools. Its akin to saying ITT and Phoenix are degree mills so all colleges are scams... Go you. Show me stats that say the majority of them are scams. Tell that to my cousins who went through trade schools on the GI bill and are now making 50k+ yr in areas where that is a hell of a salary...

Those numbers are highly regional though and both those jobs are shit that chew people up and spit them out with life long chronic injuries that frequently prevent them from working. Back injuries and COPD are no joke. As are the safety standards that are followed while on the job in either of those careers. Its all about getting the work done just well enough to pass inspection as fast as possible while cutting every corner and if that means employees get injured no one seems to care a bit.

Whats your point? Dangerous work is bad for your health? No shit. It doesnt change the median pay. It doesnt change or invalidate my point at all. Just a red herring from you...

If the pay was better, less half assed safety wise, and the worker protections were better too trades would be a more reasonable path but that isn't how it is at all right now.

Show some stats. Prove it. We can play your game of picking new examples:

Automotive technician: Median salary is 38k/yr. Not a really dangerous job for the most part.

Too dangerous for you still? How about plumbers?

The median annual wage for plumbers, pipefitters, and steamfitters was $51,450 in May 2016. The median wage is the wage at which half the workers in an occupation earned more than that amount and half earned less. The lowest 10 percent earned less than $30,430, and the highest 10 percent earned more than $90,530.

 

[NoOther]

So just as the car replaced horse and buggies, workers in the horse and buggy industry transitioned to other jobs around the auto industry. And just as robots replace workers, like the horse, they transition to uh...

Someone has to make and maintain the kiosks. Where do you think those jobs came from? I also stated it would not be a one for one trade. Nor are the kiosks going to take away all of the jobs at the store. My comment about the transitioning of technology is that people are always afraid when it happens, but there are always other jobs and opportunities that come up.

 

[NoOther]

I think you are right on the money here .... well except for that "people laugh at the horse and buggy" part. No one in this part of Arizona laughs about horse and buggys

I live 20 miles from this;

You can't really beat good old fashioned horsepower for some things.

 

[Deleted member 184142]

Someone has to make and maintain the kiosks. Where do you think those jobs came from? I also stated it would not be a one for one trade. Nor are the kiosks going to take away all of the jobs at the store. My comment about the transitioning of technology is that people are always afraid when it happens, but there are always other jobs and opportunities that come up.

There has been freak out after freak out over new tech replacing jobs time and time again, and every time, new jobs form from that tech, or new jobs become possible because of the extra production we now have. Back when diesel engine trains started to come around there was MASSIVE backlash and unions started by saying it was going to kill rail road jobs etc etc, for a while they even required the engine crew to STILL be on the new engines, even though they did nothing and had no coal to feed etc etc. Today, people think of those old engines as huge pollution and waste of resources and man power. Same with computers, people used to be called "computers" and when what we know of today as computers came along people also fought against it, because we are going to lose SO many jobs to technology. And yes, those people who functioned as "computers" were out of work and had to move into other areas, or become programmers etc, yet no one goes back to these people who shouted doom and gloom of mass unemployment, to the now whole job sector computers have created, not to even mention the production increase we have seen from computers and their integration into just about every other job in the world.

 

[tetris42]

Someone has to make and maintain the kiosks. Where do you think those jobs came from? I also stated it would not be a one for one trade. Nor are the kiosks going to take away all of the jobs at the store. My comment about the transitioning of technology is that people are always afraid when it happens, but there are always other jobs and opportunities that come up.

In both the industrial revolution and the computer / internet transition, we of course couldn't envision all the jobs this was going to lead to, but we had at least some idea. So you lose your job as a barrel-maker, but get a job at the gear-making factory. You lose your job as a filing clerk, but get a job as a database administrator, or designing websites, the new jobs were sprouting up as the old ones were disappearing. What I'm seeing this time is a whole lot of unskilled or lower skilled labor being replaced by way less jobs in highly skilled areas like programming and robotics maintenance. Those, by definition, are going to be SUBSTANTIALLY lower than the jobs they're replacing, otherwise automation wouldn't be economical in the first place. I know you're not saying a one to one trade, but I'm seeing more 1 to 0.1. We can't know the future with certainty, but what are at least SOME of these booming new jobs that automation is creating, particularly for the types of workers they're replacing? I haven't heard any real answers to this, yet this is a question that had answers both during the industrial revolution and the advent of computers and the internet.

If you can't answer this, then at the core, you're making a faith-based argument, which can't really be argued against, because then it's on faith. It may as well be a Field of Dreams "if you build the robots, the jobs will come" situation.

 

[NoOther]

In both the industrial revolution and the computer / internet transition, we of course couldn't envision all the jobs this was going to lead to, but we had at least some idea. So you lose your job as a barrel-maker, but get a job at the gear-making factory. You lose your job as a filing clerk, but get a job as a database administrator, or designing websites, the new jobs were sprouting up as the old ones were disappearing. What I'm seeing this time is a whole lot of unskilled or lower skilled labor being replaced by way less jobs in highly skilled areas like programming and robotics maintenance. Those, by definition, are going to be SUBSTANTIALLY lower than the jobs they're replacing, otherwise automation wouldn't be economical in the first place. I know you're not saying a one to one trade, but I'm seeing more 1 to 0.1. We can't know the future with certainty, but what are at least SOME of these booming new jobs that automation is creating, particularly for the types of workers they're replacing? I haven't heard any real answers to this, yet this is a question that had answers both during the industrial revolution and the advent of computers and the internet.

If you can't answer this, then at the core, you're making a faith-based argument, which can't really be argued against, because then it's on faith. It may as well be a Field of Dreams "if you build the robots, the jobs will come" situation.

You aren't even making fair comparisons, as losing a job as a filing clerk doesn't automatically make you qualified to be a database administrator. But in answer, it doesn't necessarily take a lot of skill to learn to service certain machines either. And industrialization took a lot of simple manual labor jobs away from people. But it then produced a lot of skilled trade jobs in fixing and maintaining the equipment for the factories.

So no, I am not making a faith based argument, nor are you making a true accounting of industrialization and how it went down.

 

[TwistedAegis]

In both the industrial revolution and the computer / internet transition, we of course couldn't envision all the jobs this was going to lead to, but we had at least some idea. So you lose your job as a barrel-maker, but get a job at the gear-making factory. You lose your job as a filing clerk, but get a job as a database administrator, or designing websites, the new jobs were sprouting up as the old ones were disappearing. What I'm seeing this time is a whole lot of unskilled or lower skilled labor being replaced by way less jobs in highly skilled areas like programming and robotics maintenance. Those, by definition, are going to be SUBSTANTIALLY lower than the jobs they're replacing, otherwise automation wouldn't be economical in the first place. I know you're not saying a one to one trade, but I'm seeing more 1 to 0.1. We can't know the future with certainty, but what are at least SOME of these booming new jobs that automation is creating, particularly for the types of workers they're replacing? I haven't heard any real answers to this, yet this is a question that had answers both during the industrial revolution and the advent of computers and the internet.

If you can't answer this, then at the core, you're making a faith-based argument, which can't really be argued against, because then it's on faith. It may as well be a Field of Dreams "if you build the robots, the jobs will come" situation.

People currently in the field of AI agree that it isn't likely to repeat the past and jobs will continue to be maintained and created at the same rate, despite automation and AI (written by a VC in the AI field):

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/24/opinion/sunday/artificial-intelligence-economic-inequality.htm

As automation and AI increase in complexity, so would human knowledge and function, but I would posit we've reached an area of substantially diminishing returns - not everyone will be able to be a PhD in a very specialized field.

 

[tetris42]

You aren't even making fair comparisons, as losing a job as a filing clerk doesn't automatically make you qualified to be a database administrator. But in answer, it doesn't necessarily take a lot of skill to learn to service certain machines either. And industrialization took a lot of simple manual labor jobs away from people. But it then produced a lot of skilled trade jobs in fixing and maintaining the equipment for the factories.

So no, I am not making a faith based argument, nor are you making a true accounting of industrialization and how it went down.

It's of course a simplification. The industrial revolution also was able to produce items on a scale unthinkable prior, which led to employment for unskilled workers, even if less were needed for the same specific task. Or the file clerk might be able to transition to data entry, or else he loses his job, but somebody out of school gets employed in this bright new computer field.

Regardless, the point is, what are some of the new jobs on the horizon being created by automation besides programming and maintenance?

People currently in the field of AI agree that it isn't likely to repeat the past and jobs will continue to be maintained and created at the same rate, despite automation and AI (written by a VC in the AI field):

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/24/opinion/sunday/artificial-intelligence-economic-inequality.htm

As automation and AI increase in complexity, so would human knowledge and function, but I would posit we've reached an area of substantially diminishing returns - not everyone will be able to be a PhD in a very specialized field.

I'd have to see their evidence for the argument that jobs will be maintained and created at the same rate. The link you posted doesn't work.

I definitely agree with your latter statement.

 

[NoOther]

It's of course a simplification. The industrial revolution also was able to produce items on a scale unthinkable prior, which led to employment for unskilled workers, even if less were needed for the same specific task. Or the file clerk might be able to transition to data entry, or else he loses his job, but somebody out of school gets employed in this bright new computer field. Regardless, the point is, what are the new jobs on the horizon besides programming and maintenance?

Let's see, just to name a few, creating the parts of the machine, graphic design, quality control, help desk center for support, installation, etc.

It is amazing the lack of knowledge people have for what it takes to put systems into place. That is why people are afraid, they just don't understand what all goes into producing these things, they only see the jobs that may immediately suffer by putting them in place.

Also, as I said in previous posts, these automated kiosks are already being used worldwide, this isn't some new phenomenon.

 

[tetris42]

Let's see, just to name a few, creating the parts of the machine, graphic design, quality control, help desk center for support, installation, etc.

I think you don't get what I mean. All of those jobs are created at rates drastically smaller than the jobs in other industries they're displacing. If they weren't, they wouldn't be cost effective, because then the overhead costs would cost more than the workers themselves. I'm talking about example of either:

1. Jobs created in completely different fields being opened up by automation in quantities to suggest we're at the tip of the ice berg as far as potential. For the industrial revolution, we were losing blacksmith jobs, but gaining industrial smelting jobs, steel factory jobs, later parts for combustible engines, pumps, etc. Even if one industry didn't compensate for all the jobs, collectively, it exploded in many different directions to have us covered in the long term. So what are some jobs being created outside of creating and maintaining the robots themselves are coming?

OR

2. Evidence to suggest that the jobs created directly from robotics would be so numerous, it's realistic to expect there would be so many openings to compensate for all the jobs lost in other industries over time. All those jobs you mentioned above are nothing compared to what we stand to lose from fast food and trucking alone.

The point is if you create 3 new jobs, but lose 20, but 12 more on the horizon, with probably more coming, we'll likely be okay in the long term, even if there's disruption in the short term. If you create 3 new jobs, lose 20, but nothing obvious is on the horizon, I don't see how that adds up.

 

[NoOther]

I think you don't get what I mean. All of those jobs are created at rates drastically smaller than the jobs in other industries they're displacing. If they weren't, they wouldn't be cost effective, because then the overhead costs would cost more than the workers themselves. I'm talking about example of either:

1. Jobs created in completely different fields being opened up by automation in quantities to suggest we're at the tip of the ice berg as far as potential. For the industrial revolution, we were losing blacksmith jobs, but gaining industrial smelting jobs, steel factory jobs, later parts for combustible engines, pumps, etc. Even if one industry didn't compensate for all the jobs, collectively, it exploded in many different directions to have us covered in the long term. So what are some jobs being created outside of creating and maintaining the robots themselves are coming?

OR

2. Evidence to suggest that the jobs created directly from robotics would be so numerous, it's realistic to expect there would be so many openings to compensate for all the jobs lost in other industries over time. All those jobs you mentioned above are nothing compared to what we stand to lose from fast food and trucking alone.

I get what you are saying, it just is not accurate. So industrialization was the result of not wanting to reduce the costs of labor? Come on man.

1. For automation you will need all the jobs I talked about. They are new positions for people, just like during the industrialization. You are asking for something ridiculous. The replacements you speak of from industrialization are not all accurate. You leave a lot out, yet then you want me to fill in the magical gaps to automation, without using the same comparisons you used for industrialization. I am afraid you have me at a loss trying to find your magical unicorn scenario.

2. I don't need to provide any evidence of that. I already said it probably would not be a 1 to 1. It was not a 1 to 1 during the industrialization period either. But there are lots of trades in this country that are currently at a loss for employees because we don't have enough skilled workers. And yet there are schools and companies providing free education and training for people wanting to learn the trades.

There is always transition. Crying the sky is falling because something new is coming and you don't have 100% of the answers is just not a valid argument.

 

[TwistedAegis]

The proof is in the pudding, look at what is actually happening in the world today - automation is increasing at such a rate that even labor in China is being displaced by automation.

Income has been stagnant at the median since 1970, growing at ~0.1% when adjusted for inflation; income inequality means that those that own the means of production, the AI and machines, are earning more and more while nearly everyone else is earning less or unable to find a job. That's a quantifiable reality today - I and others posit AI and automation are the drivers of this.

Since incomes aren't growing in reality, I would say the burden of proof is on those that claim that AI and automation will continue to produce jobs and income just like it happened in the industrial revolution.

 

[lcpiper]

I remember that!! I never did find out if the live bullets were intentional or a total accident :O

Stupid accident, the actor was coming in to do a show and he had been at the range shooting. He had been shooting with his stage gun, forgot to unload it and replace the ammo. Because he was dragging ass coming in late, they missed checking his guns and didn't find the live rounds. He fired 5 rounds and put one into another actor who lived. But the place was crazy and no live shooting for most of a year before the tourism demand pushed them into doing the gun fights again.

 

[NoOther]

The proof is in the pudding, look at what is actually happening in the world today - automation is increasing at such a rate that even labor in China is being displaced by automation.

Income has been stagnant at the median since 1970, growing at ~0.1% when adjusted for inflation; income inequality means that those that own the means of production, the AI and machines, are earning more and more while nearly everyone else is earning less or unable to find a job. That's a quantifiable reality today - I and others posit AI and automation are the drivers of this.

Since incomes aren't growing in reality, I would say the burden of proof is on those that claim that AI and automation will continue to produce jobs and income just like it happened in the industrial revolution.

That is actually not very accurate. Society is more the cause of this than automation. We currently have a vast shortage of trade skill jobs. Why? Because starting in the late 50s it became popular to devalue trade jobs and tell everyone they needed to get an education and go to college. There has been a decline then in trade jobs as people see them as "beneath them". Automation and AI haven't really been around in any quantity since the 70s. That is really more of a new thing in the past decade especially.

However, I will posit that as we progress so does the need for knowledge either for skilled trades, knowledge based trades, jobs in science, computing, engineering, etc. That is part of progress. You are never going to solve the problem of employing everyone.

 

[tetris42]

I get what you are saying, it just is not accurate. So industrialization was the result of not wanting to reduce the costs of labor? Come on man.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Where did I say anything about not wanting to reduce the costs of labor? What are YOU talking about? I'm hesitant to try to clarify now considering how far off my point you got.

1. For automation you will need all the jobs I talked about. They are new positions for people, just like during the industrialization. You are asking for something ridiculous. The replacements you speak of from industrialization are not all accurate. You leave a lot out, yet then you want me to fill in the magical gaps to automation, without using the same comparisons you used for industrialization. I am afraid you have me at a loss trying to find your magical unicorn scenario.

It's obvious you still don't get what I'm talking about, I guess I'm a sucker for punishment, I'll try once more:

This is ONE LONE EXAMPLE for the sake of explaining the concept, so don't get too hung up on the specifics: Nobody was making steam engines before the industrial revolution. Mass manufacturing helped enabled that. Even before we had a railway system, model Ts, and the rest, it was easy to envision how this could change things in a lot of ways. We could ship loads heavier than what horses could handle, maybe transport people. Or hell, this could have use in construction, being able to move heavy loads faster than ever before. You didn't have to be a genius to understand the concept. It would have boggled the mind how much opportunity this would open up being able to move heavier loads around without horses. Even if we didn't know if railway construction was going to be a new job, we could see that this would help merchants move more goods, which could mean more business and more enterprise alone, which could lead to more jobs, simply because business could expand so much it would need them.

These were concepts INDEPENDENT of manufacturing and maintaining of the steam engines themselves. So these were potential new jobs being created because of OTHER employment opportunities springing FROM the new technology, not JUST from manufacturing and maintaining the steam engines themselves.

Now apply that to robots. What are some of the NEW opportunities on the horizon from increased automation SEPARATE from just the creation and maintenance of robots / AI? Every example job you listed is still part of their creation and maintenance, not a NEW FIELD being opened up because of automation that was previously not possible due to lack of this technology.

Crying the sky is falling because something new is coming and you don't have 100% of the answers is just not a valid argument.

I'm trying my best to communicate here, but you're not making it easy. Pray tell, how does me saying this:

we of course couldn't envision all the jobs this was going to lead to, but we had at least some idea

We can't know the future with certainty, but what are at least SOME of these booming new jobs that automation is creating, particularly for the types of workers they're replacing?

Translate to me demanding you have "100% of the answers"? I'm not asking for 100% of the answers. I'm asking for ANY percetnage of the answers BESIDES the creation of the robots / AI itself. If you still don't understand what I mean, I don't know if I can make it much simpler.

 

[NoOther]

Translate to me demanding you have "100% of the answers"? I'm not asking for 100% of the answers. I'm asking for ANY percetnage of the answers BESIDES the creation of the robots / AI itself. If you still don't understand what I mean, I don't know if I can make it much simpler.

Im done. I have answered, you. I have expounded upon my answer. I have expounded upon the first expanding. I have rebutted your inconsistencies. You keep moving the goalposts and re-imagining history, especially industrialization. You can't see or understand the correlations, that is fine. But this was all stuff I learned over 2 decades ago in college before automation even began taking off.

 

[tetris42]

Im done. I have answered, you. I have expounded upon my answer. I have expounded upon the first expanding. I have rebutted your inconsistencies. You keep moving the goalposts and re-imagining history, especially industrialization. You can't see or understand the correlations, that is fine. But this was all stuff I learned over 2 decades ago in college before automation even began taking off.

Yeah I'm asking what's the square root of 64 and you answered Paris is the capital of France, then double down on how I don't understand geography. Thanks for enlightening me.

 

[NoOther]

Yeah I'm asking what's the square root of 64 and you answered Paris is the capital of France, then double down on how I don't understand geography. Thanks for enlightening me.

No, I answered your questions directly. You asked what jobs would be created. I answered. I then gave even more examples. I cannot give you all of the jobs that might be created because I don't know. But I gave you a healthy list based on actual research that has gone on for decades on this topic.

 

[tetris42]

No, I answered your questions directly. You asked what jobs would be created. I answered. I then gave even more examples. I cannot give you all of the jobs that might be created because I don't know. But I gave you a healthy list based on actual research that has gone on for decades on this topic.

Really, you answered this question:

Now apply that to robots. What are some of the NEW opportunities on the horizon from increased automation SEPARATE from just the creation and maintenance of robots / AI? Every example job you listed is still part of their creation and maintenance, not a NEW FIELD being opened up because of automation that was previously not possible due to lack of this technology.

That was post #219, I guess I missed your answer underneath that. Unless you're answering a different question and referring to these:

the parts of the machine = part of their creation
graphic design = part of the their creation
quality control = part of their creation
help desk center for support = part of their maintenance
installation = part of maintenance

I'm not hearing anything that's derivative AND creating jobs, which was a huge part of previous technological revolutions. Meanwhile let's look at my steam engine example:


Creating parts for steam engine = part of their creation
People working at factory assembling the engine = part of their creation
repairmen for the steam engine = part of their maintenance
A merchant opening up a branch of his stores in the south, because now he can ship goods more affordable = NOT part of their creation or maintenance, but derivative of the technology
Building a steam powered railway that can charge people for ferrying and goods = NOT part of their creation or maintenance, but derivative of the technology
Building a machine that can move rubble and materials faster for construction = NOT part of their creation or maintenance, but derivative of the technology

You talk like I'm asking for the equivalent of space shuttles based off the steam engine. Again, SOME things we can envision, others we can't. I'm hearing nothing. But no, excuse me all to hell. Asking for ONE example from a NEW field is apparently the same thing as asking for ALL jobs that will be created + unicorns.

 

[NoOther]

Really, you answered this question:
...
You talk like I'm asking for the equivalent of space shuttles based off the steam engine. Steam powered railways were being built within a couple years after the invention of the steam engine. Again, SOME things we can envision, others we can't. I'm hearing nothing. But no, excuse me all to hell. Asking for ONE example from a NEW field is apparently the same thing as asking for ALL jobs that will be created + unicorns.

I did, by saying I was done going down your rabbit hole that you try to continue. You kept shifting the goal posts. But the answers also apply to robots. They are machines that need parts, programming, upkeep, design, support, etc. I am sorry you just cannot comprehend.

Your "NOT part of their creation or maintenance, but derivative of the technology" can apply pretty much the same for kiosks. You can use kiosks for a great many different things that allow other would be store owners to actually open up a store they would not be able to otherwise. The internet itself has created a vast number of jobs and businesses for people who would never have been able to otherwise. All because of similar technologies to what would be used for kiosk systems. If you think about the design of these systems, they stem from the design of other types of automated systems, which stemmed from systems before them. All of them branching off and creating new companies, new jobs, new opportunities for people. So really I have no idea why you are having such a hard time comprehending.

 

[DejaWiz]

This news just caused their stock to hit the highest ever...

Wish I had picked up some stock back in the late 90s/early 00s when I was single with lots of disposable income.

 

[tetris42]

I did, by saying I was done going down your rabbit hole that you try to continue. You kept shifting the goal posts. But the answers also apply to robots. They are machines that need parts, programming, upkeep, design, support, etc. I am sorry you just cannot comprehend.

Your "NOT part of their creation or maintenance, but derivative of the technology" can apply pretty much the same for kiosks. You can use kiosks for a great many different things that allow other would be store owners to actually open up a store they would not be able to otherwise. The internet itself has created a vast number of jobs and businesses for people who would never have been able to otherwise. All because of similar technologies to what would be used for kiosk systems. If you think about the design of these systems, they stem from the design of other types of automated systems, which stemmed from systems before them. All of them branching off and creating new companies, new jobs, new opportunities for people. So really I have no idea why you are having such a hard time comprehending.

Well I guess that's ironic that's the point of this thread, but yes, I'll give you that, that's one potential NEW job creation path from the technology. I'm still not seeing a lot of others that don't destroy more net total jobs than they create, but at least we're actually communicating now. Kiosks maybe aren't the best example, since Redbox required less employees than video rentals before that, but they were new jobs. The trick is you have to have a greater number of new jobs being created at a faster rate than the old ones are being eradicated. I'm still not convinced that's the way things are going, but you did at least answer the question.


EDIT:
While I'm on the topic, I'm predicting it's going to be more like Blockbuster v. Netflix. Blockbuster used to have about 85,000 employees, Netflix has 3,500. That's more representative of the trend I'm seeing from robotics / AI automation. Blockbuster would be the equivalent of the industries that're being encroached on, Netflix would be the robotics manufacturers and maintenance. I'd love to be wrong, but I'm just not seeing the path.

 

[NoOther]

Well I guess that's ironic that's the point of this thread, but yes, I'll give you that, that's one potential NEW job creation path from the technology. I'm still not seeing a lot of others that don't destroy more net total jobs than they create, but at least we're actually communicating now. Kiosks maybe aren't the best example, since Redbox required less employees than video rentals before that, but they were new jobs. The trick is you have to have a greater number of new jobs being created at a faster rate than the old ones are being eradicated. I'm still not convinced that's the way things are going, but you did at least answer the question.

How is that ONE? That is thousands upon thousands. The branches this type of technology has created is enormous. You see it as ONE, I see it as millions of new jobs. We were communicating before, you just weren't really listening.

As far as your "rates" go, how many new income opportunities have been provided by the internet alone? How many by Amazon, Ebay, Etsy, Pinterest? How many by Craigslist and other services like it? All of these provide some form of "kiosk" where someone can go see someone's wares, click on them, contact that person, or purchase directly. That is a lot of jobs created out of almost nothing. People's hobbies now become income. They can reach markets much farther away.

I will say this again, the lack of jobs is more to do with Society than it is technology.

 

[tetris42]

How is that ONE? That is thousands upon thousands. The branches this type of technology has created is enormous. You see it as ONE, I see it as millions of new jobs.

It's one FIELD. Yes, it can create millions of jobs, and it can make tens of millions irrelevant. If enough new fields with new jobs pop up to add up to the ones lost, that's how a good transition works. If that never happens (combined with manufacturing / maintenance, then it's a net loss overall. That's why I see the number of new fields we can envision as important, since while we can't predict them all, the more we can clearly see, the better our chances are at a smoother transition.

As far as your "rates" go, how many new income opportunities have been provided by the internet alone? How many by Amazon, Ebay, Etsy, Pinterest? How many by Craigslist and other services like it? All of these provide some form of "kiosk" where someone can go see someone's wares, click on them, contact that person, or purchase directly. That is a lot of jobs created out of almost nothing. People's hobbies now become income. They can reach markets much farther away.

I didn't get into detail, but I'm not arguing that at all, I agree with you on the internet. In fact I said this:

In both the industrial revolution and the computer / internet transition, we of course couldn't envision all the jobs this was going to lead to, but we had at least some idea.

My whole point is this isn't the same situation as technology upheavals in the past. I find it ironic that you used horse and buggies as the example, because low skilled workers are literally the horses in your metaphor. Horses didn't recover to their pre-automotive levels.

I will say this again, the lack of jobs is more to do with Society than it is technology.

I agree completely, which is at the core of why I think we're fucked. If we managed things better, increased automation would nothing but a net positive.

 

[NoOther]

It's one FIELD. Yes, it can create millions of jobs, and it can make tens of millions irrelevant. If enough new fields with new jobs pop up to add up to the ones lost, that's how a good transition works. If that never happens (combined with manufacturing / maintenance, then it's a net loss overall. That's why I see the number of new fields we can envision as important, since while we can't predict them all, the more we can clearly see, the better our chances are at a smoother transition.

Not is is not. That is like saying "Electrical Engineering" is just one field.

I didn't get into detail, but I'm not arguing that at all, I agree with you on the internet. In fact I said this:

My whole point is this isn't the same situation as technology upheavals in the past. I find it ironic that you used horse and buggies as the example, because low skilled workers are literally the horses in your metaphor. Horses didn't recover to their pre-automotive levels.

Except you don't understand the link between Kiosk systems and the Internet. Kiosk systems are used on the internet, allowing people to do commerce where they would not have before. That is automation at work for them, creating new jobs.

I agree completely, which is at the core of why I think we're fucked. If we managed things better, increased automation would nothing but a net positive.

Wait...what? So we are fucked because automation could bring a net positive? So explain how things right now aren't being "managed better"? Already using kiosk systems all over the world, slowly working them into rotation over time... Changing business practices which create other opportunities even as some were taken away (as I described in my posts about McDonalds overseas) and making the change gradually. All of that is somehow not managing it well? The fact that automation has slowly been rolled in a number of places over the past few decades instead of doing it overnight? I guess I just don't understand the logic.

Again none of this is anything new It already has been done, tested, and is being implemented in various places slowly over time. So what is the big outcry? As it is going on increased opportunities are also being produced by the automation itself and other like technologies.

 

[tetris42]

Wait...what? So we are fucked because automation could bring a net positive? So explain how things right now aren't being "managed better"? Already using kiosk systems all over the world, slowly working them into rotation over time... Changing business practices which create other opportunities even as some were taken away (as I described in my posts about McDonalds overseas) and making the change gradually. All of that is somehow not managing it well? The fact that automation has slowly been rolled in a number of places over the past few decades instead of doing it overnight? I guess I just don't understand the logic.

No, I meant society at large. There's no end of how we're handling things poorly. Half the arguing in this thread is over minimum wage, which is stupid. Any country as rich as we are should have a guaranteed minimum for food and shelter, and basic life needs for its citizens, so a minimum wage isn't even necessary. Not luxury, but bare necessities. Leaving someone's survival to market forces when there's a better way is basically barbarism. If we were smarter in managing society no one would ever have to go homeless because of bad luck of losing a job or being in an accident, etc. but that happens all the time because that's how we've chosen to structure things.

Or hey, we have lead in our water supply worse than Flint in 3000 regions across America and are doing jack shit about it. It seems like if anything is worth spending money on, getting lead out of the water is, but that's not our priority. I call that shitty management. Or hey, 94% of new jobs created since the recession are either temp, contract work, or part time. But at least everyone's getting paid well, since almost half of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck and can't afford an emergency expense of $400. That sure as hell doesn't sound like a society of increasing opportunity and prosperity to me. The point is based on the decisions we make on the macro level, I see us heading towards a haves and have-nots nation. AI Automation isn't the problem or the cause, but I think it's a catalyst accelerating us in the direction we're already heading.

Again none of this is anything new It already has been done, tested, and is being implemented in various places slowly over time. So what is the big outcry? As it is going on increased opportunities are also being produced by the automation itself and other like technologies.

Self-driving cars aren't anything new? Software that can handle the bulk of a lawyer's work isn't new? Software that can diagnose the bulk of patients better than the average doctor isn't new? It's more than just kiosks.

 

[NoOther]

No, I meant society at large. There's no end of how we're handling things poorly. Half the arguing in this thread is over minimum wage, which is stupid. Any country as rich as we are should have a guaranteed minimum for food and shelter, and basic life needs for its citizens, so a minimum wage isn't even necessary. Not luxury, but bare necessities. Leaving someone's survival to market forces when there's a better way is basically barbarism. If we were smarter in managing society no one would ever have to go homeless because of bad luck of losing a job or being in an accident, etc. but that happens all the time because that's how we've chosen to structure things.

I can agree with the premise, but the minimum wage debate is not stupid because we should be paying more, it's stupid because of how it is structured or that people should be basing minimum wage off of some romantic notion of a living wage. But that goes more into the idea of doing things smarter. Unfortunately this country does things by the LCD, not by sophistication.

Self-driving cars aren't anything new? Software that can handle the bulk of a lawyer's work isn't new? Software that can diagnose the bulk of patients better than the average doctor isn't new? It's more than just kiosks.

Actually no, they aren't really that new. They have been worked on for decades. Putting them in place has been put off because of many of the concerns you voiced about displacing workforce. Also many of those things you just mentioned are already being used in various parts of the world. Some for quite some time. Remember the advent of technology provided for some of these jobs that might now be altered because of technology as well. Times change, technology changes, knowledge changes, things advance and we must adapt.

 

[TwistedAegis]

That is actually not very accurate. Society is more the cause of this than automation. We currently have a vast shortage of trade skill jobs. Why? Because starting in the late 50s it became popular to devalue trade jobs and tell everyone they needed to get an education and go to college. There has been a decline then in trade jobs as people see them as "beneath them". Automation and AI haven't really been around in any quantity since the 70s. That is really more of a new thing in the past decade especially.

However, I will posit that as we progress so does the need for knowledge either for skilled trades, knowledge based trades, jobs in science, computing, engineering, etc. That is part of progress. You are never going to solve the problem of employing everyone.

Automation hasn't been around since the 70's? Manufacturing's share of GDP has stayed roughly level since 1960 to 2012, but the share of manufacturing employees has declined steadily since around the '70s. That means the value of goods being produced has remained the same, or grown, while less people were required to do it - that's automation. (https://www.brookings.edu/wp-conten...-past-and-potential-future-baily-bosworth.pdf).

It is accelerating, with payrolls in manufacturing dropping by 5.7M from 2000-2010.

I would agree with you that some of that can be made up via trade skill jobs, but I don't think it will take care of all of it. That being said, companies also used to provide apprenticeships, training, etc, and upward mobility to people willing to learn. Now the expectation is for people to walk in the door with 5 years experience for an entry level job, and that a company has no obligation to train its own workforce - I disagree, particularly in a world that continues to diverge into more and more niche specialties.

 

[tetris42]

I can agree with the premise, but the minimum wage debate is not stupid because we should be paying more, it's stupid because of how it is structured or that people should be basing minimum wage off of some romantic notion of a living wage. But that goes more into the idea of doing things smarter. Unfortunately this country does things by the LCD, not by sophistication.

That's sort of my point. I look at it that ideally the end goal should be no citizen willing to work should ever have to go hungry or sleep on the street. That should be guaranteed. How we get there should be the debate. I don't see raising the wage as solving that problem, since that only applies to people who have found work in the first place and can screw with a lot of economic variables in unpredictable ways. I'm fine if somebody wants to work for 30 cents an hour if they want to, so long as them having basic food and shelter is never in jeopardy. In other words, how much money a person earns isn't that important, but having their basic needs taken care of is the most important thing in the world for them.

 

[TwistedAegis]

I can agree with the premise, but the minimum wage debate is not stupid because we should be paying more, it's stupid because of how it is structured or that people should be basing minimum wage off of some romantic notion of a living wage. But that goes more into the idea of doing things smarter. Unfortunately this country does things by the LCD, not by sophistication..

The minimum wage, as envisioned when first passed in '38, was absolutely supposed to be a living wage.

 

[Gorankar]

That's sort of my point. I look at it that ideally the end goal should be no citizen willing to work should ever have to go hungry or sleep on the street. That should be guaranteed. How we get there should be the debate. I don't see raising the wage as solving that problem, since that only applies to people who have found work in the first place and can screw with a lot of economic variables in unpredictable ways. I'm fine if somebody wants to work for 30 cents an hour if they want to, so long as them having basic food and shelter is never in jeopardy. In other words, how much money a person earns isn't that important, but having their basic needs taken care of is the most important thing in the world for them.

How do you want to accomplish that? Guaranteed minimum income? Some sort of army barracks with mess hall for everyone sort of thing? Good luck paying for that.

 

[Lishkaga]

A bit late but I thought I would give this quote a little credit. Gotta bust all kinds of minds.

Having ordering linked to an app on your smart phone will be next. Just pick your choice from the list on your phone and press buy. They can even limit ordering to people close by using GPS to avoid abuse. 10 second ordering, no more waiting in line to order. Now we just need to automate the food preparation and to provide a count down timer for when its ready.

Here in Oz, Macca's (McD) for the past several weeks has had an app out called MyMacca's in which you register an account and then link a credit card too. Within this app, it allows you to order for either drive through, tray pick up, table serve or take away. You are also given the ability to make some limited changes and add additional condiments. I've used it a few times because of the Chicken Big Mac and being able to add sliced tomato and bacon to said big mac since the Chicken Big Mac was released here. You can either pick the restaurant location you want or allow GPS to find nearest from for you to select, but you should be nearby when going through the order process so your order is not waiting around. I think the distance is about 1Km (0.62 miles) from chosen restaurant location when it comes to placing the order as the app shows you how far you are from that chosen restaurant location. The app has given me no issues and even remembers what is in the cart if you have been meandering through the app and decide to add items to cart but are unsure.


Attached are a couple of screenshots. One shows the main screen and the other shows some of the extra toppings you can add to a normal Big Mac for example. Nearly everything from the Macca's is in this app but only wanted to show a couple of screenies. I've gone from counter, the touch screen kiosks too now using the app when placing an order. Plus I've yet to notice much of a difference with over counter staffing. I was surprised that something like this app wasn't launched in the US though. Macca's (McD) here still have kiosks and over counter for those who choose., it gives you more choices in how you want to place your order, if you want to customize your order and how you want to pay.

 

[tetris42]

The bad situation in the trades ca

How do you want to accomplish that? Guaranteed minimum income? Some sort of army barracks with mess hall for everyone sort of thing? Good luck paying for that.

There's a multitude of ways of handling it. Both of what you mentioned aren't outside the scope of reality in theory. There's a lot of ways of paying for it, like auditing the Pentagon, considering how it loses track of trillions each year. or changing tax law to have less loopholes and capture some of the 32 trillion being stored in offshore tax havens. However, there's not much point in talking about the specifics in actually implementing it because the political will isn't there. Politically, we're not even onboard with getting lead out of our water, let alone ensuring minimum standards for everyone. Like you said, good luck paying for it, because that's not what government wants. We're in a state of regulatory capture, so it wants whatever the most influential donors wants.

 

[Todd Walter]

its not in place yet. it ramps up to $15 for 2019, its still $11.40.

Yes, but businesses in the real world have to budget for expenses in advance so the impact is now.

 

[pendragon1]

ok then

 

[NoOther]

Automation hasn't been around since the 70's? Manufacturing's share of GDP has stayed roughly level since 1960 to 2012, but the share of manufacturing employees has declined steadily since around the '70s. That means the value of goods being produced has remained the same, or grown, while less people were required to do it - that's automation. (https://www.brookings.edu/wp-conten...-past-and-potential-future-baily-bosworth.pdf).

It is accelerating, with payrolls in manufacturing dropping by 5.7M from 2000-2010.

I would agree with you that some of that can be made up via trade skill jobs, but I don't think it will take care of all of it. That being said, companies also used to provide apprenticeships, training, etc, and upward mobility to people willing to learn. Now the expectation is for people to walk in the door with 5 years experience for an entry level job, and that a company has no obligation to train its own workforce - I disagree, particularly in a world that continues to diverge into more and more niche specialties.

Automation in the forms being discussed, specifically in conjunction with AI, kiosks, human interaction systems.