• Automation to Kill 5 mio Jobs By 2020
    75 replies, posted
[QUOTE=download;51682295]Yawn. Another "money isn't real" argument. How original.[/QUOTE] I've always found both sides of this argument to be equally naive and ignorant to a larger picture.
fully automated luxury communism imminent
[QUOTE=The bird Man;51683669]I've always found both sides of this argument to be equally naive and ignorant to a larger picture.[/QUOTE] Resources and production are finite. Money is not (in governments like the USA and the UK anyway.) Don't see what's so naive and ignorant about that
[QUOTE=Goberfish;51683699]Resources and production are finite. Money is not (in governments like the USA and the UK anyway.) Don't see what's so naive and ignorant about that[/QUOTE] Don't see what that has to do with anything I just said.
[QUOTE=Goberfish;51683699]Resources and production are finite. Money is not (in governments like the USA and the UK anyway.) Don't see what's so naive and ignorant about that[/QUOTE] Money is very finite actually, because if it were to be infinite, or close to it anyway, [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimbabwe]it would be worth nothing[/url]. It has an arbitrary value since the material itself isn't actually worth as much as the numbers on it, but that doesn't make it infinite, far from it. Saying that money is not finite (especially in governments like the USA and the UK, as you put it) is naive as fuck because it ignores practical applications of the concept that blatantly failed.
-snip-
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;51683754]Money is very finite actually, because if it were to be infinite, or close to it anyway, [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimbabwe"]it would be worth nothing[/URL]. It has an arbitrary value since the material itself isn't actually worth as much as the numbers on it, but that doesn't make it infinite, far from it. Saying that money is not finite (especially in governments like the USA and the UK, as you put it) is naive as fuck because it ignores practical applications of the concept that blatantly failed.[/QUOTE] That's like saying points are finite because football would be dumb if everything got you eleventy billion points. Just because it would be dumb to make infinite money doesn't mean that money is finite. (Or maybe I'm just misusing the word finite.) You are arguing against a point that is literally countered by my first sentence. Resources and production are finite. If you recognise that you are not going to get Zimbabwe. I don't get what you're arguing against when you're saying that practical applications of the concept blatantly failed. What concept and what applications?
[QUOTE=BandClassHAH;51681258]Universal basic income sounds more and more appealing by the job :v:[/QUOTE] And very, very, very severe technological advancement might the the only way to maybe make something like that work. Certainly not for the next ~25 years though, and even then in small countries at best
[QUOTE=SirJon;51683808]And very, very, very severe technological advancement might the the only way to maybe make something like that work. Certainly not for the next ~25 years though, and even then in small countries at best[/QUOTE] this is why I am one of those singularity-worshiping oddities who believes we should accelerate the automation of all human physical and mental labor because I'm a lazy bastard
[QUOTE=download;51682295]Yawn. Another "money isn't real" argument. How original.[/QUOTE] Another non argument, how original. Also money is essentially a tool that allows people to easily trade their labor for goods. No labor(job) = no goods. As for your asinine argument that automation doesnt take jobs I must ask you what the point of automation would be if we still needed the same number of humans to do the job. Even if we are to assume that automation will allow more factories to be built and thus more jobs doing maintenance it still won't be enough to employ our continually growing population.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;51684222]Another non argument, how original. Also money is essentially a tool that allows people to easily trade their labor for goods. No labor(job) = no goods. As for your asinine argument that automation doesnt take jobs I must ask you what the point of automation would be if we still needed the same number of humans to do the job. Even if we are to assume that automation will allow more factories to be built and thus more jobs doing maintenance it still won't be enough to employ our continually growing population.[/QUOTE] "continually growing" being the key problem
[QUOTE=Radical_ed;51683244]What's your profession currently?[/QUOTE] I bet it's probably something related to STEM.
[QUOTE=Hamsteronfire;51683685]fully automated luxury communism imminent[/QUOTE] fully automated luxury [B]gay space[/B] communism imminent* Reactionaries smh
[QUOTE=da space core;51682958] competition doesnt solve everything. look at ISPs for example.[/QUOTE] ISPs are a fantastic example of why competition is a functioning system. ISPs weren't able to establish monopolies because they competed themselves out of the market, they were able to establish monopolies because the government made it happen. [editline]17th January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=download;51681923][B]Universal income is just a con so people too lazy to get jobs can leach off everyone else.[/B] Time and time again people have made dire claims that the march of technology will kill jobs and time and time again they've been wrong. You people claiming increased automation will kill the working class are no better than those Luddite lunatics hundreds of years ago who claimed the same thing. Instead our quality of life go even better as the percentage of the working class has gotten smaller.[/QUOTE] Automated cars are a thing NOW. One out of every 15 people is employed in the truck driving business Within the next five years, one out of every 15 people will be out of a job. Minimum. Not including mining cars, warehouse forklift drivers, and every single other job that includes driving a vehicle. Gone. What then? Do you expect our job market, which already cannot supply enough jobs, to suddenly be able to employ 10% more? Or are you okay with that 10% going homeless?
[QUOTE=bunguer;51683774]I work as a software engineer in the AI/Machine Learning field, the current automation wave is very different from past events. While we are quite far from developing an actual generic intelligent system, we are getting very good at making specialized AI or automated services (e.g. self-driving cars, translation services, self-checkout etc). I have no doubts that most jobs will be replaced by automated systems in the near future (few decades). What people need to understand is that these systems won't replace [B]all[/B] the jobs in that field, it will merely replace the majority with a few humans to supervise their behavior and fix minor issues - this is already happening in many fields.[/QUOTE] what this guy said download's views are based on a complete lack of knowledge on current trends in automation - anyone who believes that it will add as many jobs as it will take is completely misguided and needs to educate themselves on current technology and what is expected from future tech
[QUOTE=download;51682973]It does actually. The amount of internet for you buck increases every year. If one company inflates the price of a good, then customers just change supplier. ISPs are no different, if you charge to much then your customers move.[/QUOTE] Wishful thinking. There are countless places in America where you have only a couple ISP's, some poor bastards only have one. In my area we have two ISP's, they're both extremely expensive for decent speeds, and lackluster service. We need to restart the modem almost daily because it starts glitching out, meanwhile my friend on the competitor complains that his service stopped working the other day. ISP's in the US are an oligarchy, there's no reason for them to improve because they hold all the power, and they're not competing with each other because there's nowhere else for customers to go. They don't upgrade their networks because there's no need for them to. You as a consumer either deal with it, or go without internet. They intentionally hold back while keeping prices high. Proof of this is when Google Fiber comes to a city, and [I]suddenly[/I] all the ISP's offer competing speeds several times faster than their previous plans. Another example is ISP's suing Google to try and get Fiber banned so they don't have to compete at all.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.