Foxconn To Replace Humans Labor with 1.2 Million Robots - Polidicks

i like how less jobs is a bad thing in this world. fuck this world

All we need is a proper communistic society. People are damaging society by stopping the robots from working, we make people stay at home, we give them money to survive and live and shit. Win-win.

We need to industrialise. Until essentially all employment is done by machinery we will remain stuck in the past. [QUOTE=Robber;31582840]I'll just leave this here: [url]http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm[/url][/QUOTE] If you change the words slightly, it fits the early industrial revolution. Absolutely perfectly.

I think it's cool and all, but if it's going to take jobs away from millions of people, maybe we need to wait.

[QUOTE=s0beit;31582919]No? Robots don't steal jobs, neither do low skilled workers. They just shift around labor. How many jobs were lost during the Industrial Revolution? Automated car factories? How many jobs were lost to the invention of the wheel, those poor, poor people lugging around stones with their bare hands won't have anything to do anymore. A shame, that.[/QUOTE] Yes, the jobs will be shifted into the design and maintenance of robots, but that is a much more skilled job than the factory work the robots are replacing. Hell, the entire IDEA of it is to eliminate jobs so the money that would have been paid to a worker goes instead to the guy who owns the company. There is no question that replacing low-skill jobs with machines will create a higher skill base for the average job and make it harder for people without a college education to work. And I don't see how saying low-skilled workers don't steal jobs is relevant, that's obvious. It's just people whining that THEY didn't get the job.

[video=youtube;brj2UkUPjCI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brj2UkUPjCI[/video]

[QUOTE=Robber;31582840]I'll just leave this here: [url]http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm[/url][/QUOTE] Finished reading it. Boiled down this story is just Capitalism with robots and Communism with robots.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;31586580]Yes, the jobs will be shifted into the design and maintenance of robots, but that is a much more skilled job than the factory work the robots are replacing. Hell, the entire IDEA of it is to eliminate jobs so the money that would have been paid to a worker goes instead to the guy who owns the company. There is no question that replacing low-skill jobs with machines will create a higher skill base for the average job and make it harder for people without a college education to work. And I don't see how saying low-skilled workers don't steal jobs is relevant, that's obvious. It's just people whining that THEY didn't get the job.[/QUOTE] You aren't at all understanding this and the major issue with this line of thinking is that you only look at one sector and make your conclusion from that. The only way this line of thinking could work is if you assume that new jobs can't come into existence, that there is some pie of some unchanging size and that robots are taking a slice of it. This is the major fault when it comes to illegal immigration debates because people assume that since illegals who are working jobs for below minimum wage are taking jobs away from them, but that isn't at all true because those jobs only exist at that pay. The job the illegal worked was created and is adding to the pie, it's not anybody's loss. Below I'm quoting myself from the last page because it is pretty applicable to what you're saying. [QUOTE=Pepin;31576532]You don't quite understand, the number of jobs aren't offset in the same field, yet in another field and many times a decrease of jobs in one sector enables jobs in others. It is much easier to see job roles being lost than job roles being created which you have to keep in mind. I can go as far to say that the achievements in farming technology allowed for the field of computers to come to where it its today. This is an easy argument to make because without the improvements in farming, more people would need to work on the farm, and overall less resources would be dedicated to research, meaning that computer research would have come out later and progressed far slower. Without all of the modern gains in technology everyone would be more focused on other tasks. Without the industrial revolutions, technology today would have progressed very slow. Oddly enough, the invention of the laundry machine played a huge role in liberating women. You shouldn't accept that what is happening now is going to have the same impact as the industrial revolution, yet it is good to realize that though in the short term jobs are lost, in the long term jobs that have more purpose are created.[/QUOTE] The reason why the example is huge is to clearly show the concept, and the concept proves to be true again and again. Like most concepts, it is hard to show on a smaller scale, but the small scale also reflects it. I can go on with examples, but if you expect me to come up with a small scale example I'm not going to be able to. Also, if you're so concerned about jobs, you should be in favor of eliminating that minimum wage, or at least allowing people to work below it. Make it profitable for a business to not automate.

[QUOTE=Pepin;31588488]You aren't at all understanding this and the major issue with this line of thinking is that you only look at one sector and make your conclusion from that. The only way this line of thinking could work is if you assume that new jobs can't come into existence, that there is some pie of some unchanging size and that robots are taking a slice of it. This is the major fault when it comes to illegal immigration debates because people assume that since illegals who are working jobs for below minimum wage are taking jobs away from them, but that isn't at all true because those jobs only exist at that pay. The job the illegal worked was created and is adding to the pie, it's not anybody's loss. Below I'm quoting myself from the last page because it is pretty applicable to what you're saying.[/QUOTE] I have no idea how you got that I was assuming anything you just said I was from what I said.

At least robots can't commit suicide!

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;31588577]I have no idea how you got any of those assumptions from that.[/QUOTE] Because you are only looking at it from a stance of "the workers will lose their jobs at this factory, and yes there will be skilled people to maintain the robots". Instead, it'll affect some completely unrelated field, and it doesn't at all mean workers will need a higher skill base, all it means is that workers will be concentrated in a area that doesn't require the same skills. So instead of working on an assembly line, the new area may be a busser. May not be a good example, but I a lot of low skilled jobs come out of automation, such as people pumping your gas and cleaning your windows, or having someone carry your bags at the airport. It also contributes to higher skilled jobs as well as that was a big point in my quote, but it does so just as much with lower skilled jobs as well. There's a good chance I'm misunderstanding you and assuming too much. I am rather caffeinated and in a mood to argue, so sorry if that is so.

[QUOTE=Pepin;31588788]Because you are only looking at it from a stance of "the workers will lose their jobs at this factory, and yes there will be skilled people to maintain the robots". Instead, it'll affect some completely unrelated field, and it doesn't at all mean workers will need a higher skill base, all it means is that workers will be concentrated in a area that doesn't require the same skills. So instead of working on an assembly line, the new area may be a busser. May not be a good example, but I a lot of low skilled jobs come out of automation, such as people pumping your gas and cleaning your windows, or having someone carry your bags at the airport. It also contributes to higher skilled jobs as well as that was a big point in my quote, but it does so just as much with lower skilled jobs as well. There's a good chance I'm misunderstanding you and assuming too much. I am rather caffeinated and in a mood to argue, so sorry if that is so.[/QUOTE] That's not terribly easy to predict and so it's also not easy to say to a certainty that it will happen.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;31588925]That's not terribly easy to predict and so it's also not easy to say to a certainty that it will happen.[/QUOTE] Sure it is. The only evidence that can support it is inductive, and all evidence points to the fact that technological improvements are always beneficial. If you're not going to accept such long term inductive reasoning, then you should dismiss all of science because it is based entirely on inductive reasoning. You might disagree with that, but there is a large debate about science being purely inductive or being constrained by higher concepts such as mathematics, but it still doesn't discount that all scientific results come from induction. I don't see how you could doubt the predictability of this event unless you can doubt inductive reasoning in general. It's good to have some doubt, yet the probability of the concept proving to be false this time is very low and there is no reason to think this time is different if that is the premise every time this argument is made. You may point me to the early 1900's, though that time is very misconceived because it was the one of the best economic times in history. There was some backlash against it, but the backlash did not at all reflect the actuality because the standard of living increased for everyone, the average worker pay increased, so many jobs and institutions came into existence, and so on. A big part of the story is that farmers were being put out of business and being forced to sell their land due to low crop prices, yet in actually there was such a high demand for farm land due to its profitability that farmers were selling their land for huge amounts of money and walking away happy.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;31585449]We need to industrialise. Until essentially all employment is done by machinery we will remain stuck in the past.[/QUOTE] Even if all current labor is done by machines, people still won't be unemployed. People working in the sciences to fill in areas of information, people designing new machinery and people building machinery would be the single largest employer(s) in all of history. There is at no level I'm aware of currently, where we will end up in the second renaissance from the animatrix, lol. [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;31586580]Yes, the jobs will be shifted into the design and maintenance of robots, but that is a much more skilled job than the factory work the robots are replacing. Hell, the entire IDEA of it is to eliminate jobs so the money that would have been paid to a worker goes instead to the guy who owns the company. There is no question that replacing low-skill jobs with machines will create a higher skill base for the average job and make it harder for people without a college education to work. And I don't see how saying low-skilled workers don't steal jobs is relevant, that's obvious. It's just people whining that THEY didn't get the job.[/QUOTE] Low skill labor will still be in demand, was my point. It doesn't require a college education to work in an automotive plant, it doesn't require a college education to assemble computer parts, it doesn't require a college education to work in a call center. It may very well be true that to design vehicles, computers and telephones a college education will probably be a prerequisite, but as you can see from my examples, automation of "hard" labor jobs actually produces jobs in other sectors, most of the time requiring less "hard' labor than the jobs they've replaced. Such as farm machinery, vehicle production, airplanes, etc. There is no invention of automation that I'm aware of that hasn't spawned a new industry able to utilize the new resources at it's disposal by the invention that facilitated it.

[QUOTE=s0beit;31590414]Even if all current labor is done by machines, people still won't be unemployed. People working in the sciences to fill in areas of information, people designing new machinery and people building machinery would be the single largest employer(s) in all of history.[/QUOTE] I mainly meant labour by that.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;31591061]I mainly meant labour by that.[/QUOTE] Even so, it really wouldn't stop until we have the entire universe at our disposal, even then there will still be things humans can do for one another. Machines could do everything on earth and we'd have people delivering packages with interstellar space ships futurama style, and "hard" labor would be defined as making planets inhabitable. There will always be room for everyone to participate as technology advances.

[QUOTE=s0beit;31582919]No? Robots don't steal jobs, neither do low skilled workers. They just shift around labor. How many jobs were lost during the Industrial Revolution? Automated car factories? How many jobs were lost to the invention of the wheel, those poor, poor people lugging around stones with their bare hands won't have anything to do anymore. A shame, that.[/QUOTE] There is a difference. More jobs opened up during the industrial revolution because they needed more men to do the work and when the factory line was invented they still used men. This is different. Jobs are being taken over and they aren't really opening up more jobs. Please explain jobs that can't be automated and at the same time will be able to replace the entire workforce thats going to be taken over and don't say making robots or maintain because robots are going to be (and have started) able to build them selves and even be able to maintain themselves. The small amount of people who still are needed to maintain the robots that can't do it themselves can't replace the size of the huge workforce that was lost.

Well less suicide I guess.

[QUOTE=MachiniOs;31592138]Well less suicide I guess.[/QUOTE] I believe not having a job is worse or else they would have quit it.

[QUOTE=Pepin;31589412]Sure it is. The only evidence that can support it is inductive, and all evidence points to the fact that technological improvements are always beneficial. If you're not going to accept such long term inductive reasoning, then you should dismiss all of science because it is based entirely on inductive reasoning. You might disagree with that, but there is a large debate about science being purely inductive or being constrained by higher concepts such as mathematics, but it still doesn't discount that all scientific results come from induction. I don't see how you could doubt the predictability of this event unless you can doubt inductive reasoning in general. It's good to have some doubt, yet the probability of the concept proving to be false this time is very low and there is no reason to think this time is different if that is the premise every time this argument is made. You may point me to the early 1900's, though that time is very misconceived because it was the one of the best economic times in history. There was some backlash against it, but the backlash did not at all reflect the actuality because the standard of living increased for everyone, the average worker pay increased, so many jobs and institutions came into existence, and so on. A big part of the story is that farmers were being put out of business and being forced to sell their land due to low crop prices, yet in actually there was such a high demand for farm land due to its profitability that farmers were selling their land for huge amounts of money and walking away happy.[/QUOTE] I never said it wouldn't be beneficial in the long term, I said the opposite and I fully support this. But in the short term it IS forcing a shit ton of people out of jobs. All I have said about it is that sucks. I'm pretty sure you're putting a hell of a lot of words in my mouth. [editline]7th August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=s0beit;31590414]Low skill labor will still be in demand, was my point. It doesn't require a college education to work in an automotive plant, it doesn't require a college education to assemble computer parts, it doesn't require a college education to work in a call center. It may very well be true that to design vehicles, computers and telephones a college education will probably be a prerequisite, but as you can see from my examples, automation of "hard" labor jobs actually produces jobs in other sectors, most of the time requiring less "hard' labor than the jobs they've replaced. Such as farm machinery, vehicle production, airplanes, etc. There is no invention of automation that I'm aware of that hasn't spawned a new industry able to utilize the new resources at it's disposal by the invention that facilitated it.[/QUOTE] Lol automotive plant might not be the best example because of all industries that is probably the most heavily roboticized.

[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;31592115]There is a difference. More jobs opened up during the industrial revolution because they needed more men to do the work and when the factory line was invented they still used men. This is different. Jobs are being taken over and they aren't really opening up more jobs. Please explain jobs that can't be automated and at the same time will be able to replace the entire workforce thats going to be taken over and don't say making robots or maintain because robots are going to be (and have started) able to build them selves and even be able to maintain themselves. The small amount of people who still are needed to maintain the robots that can't do it themselves can't replace the size of the huge workforce that was lost.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here, but my best guess is you're wondering how replacing an entire workforce with machines is beneficial. True, those people who worked in that specific job will have to find new jobs, but, because things being produced are cheaper people have money to spend on other things in other sectors. Every time a job is automated it drops the price of that good being produced dramatically, more and more as more of the process is mechanized. This leaves people more money to spend on other things. It lets the business who has automated the process invest in other things, it leaves the consumers who buy the product more money to buy other things with. You're focusing on the short-term "plight" of the workers in this specific situation, but what you're not seeing is what isn't visible and in fact what many people overlook while analyzing the situation. To accept that this is bad is to accept that mechanizing any industry is bad, when in fact history has proven the opposite to be true. I used the automotive industry as a prime example because it is most visible, but it works in smaller amounts for smaller sectors as well. [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;31593098]Lol automotive plant might not be the best example because of all industries that is probably the most heavily roboticized.[/QUOTE] It is the perfect example, I think you'd best re-read what I said. I said "automation of "hard" labor jobs actually produces jobs in other sectors". People have more access to automobiles as a whole, businesses, common people. It spawns an unfathomable amount of jobs not related to the automotive sector specifically.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;31593098]I never said it wouldn't be beneficial in the long term, I said the opposite and I fully support this. But in the short term it IS forcing a shit ton of people out of jobs. All I have said about it is that sucks. I'm pretty sure you're putting a hell of a lot of words in my mouth.[/QUOTE] A good part of why I seem to write so much in response is because I try to cover all possible ground and rebuttals. If you make the claim that it isn't predictable, then I show that it is, I can figure you or someone else is going to bring up the early 1900's. Though I'm probably going way out of my way to prove my point. My style of argumentation seems to go to the all possible routes approach.

[QUOTE=Pepin;31593409]A good part of why I seem to write so much in response is because I try to cover all possible ground and rebuttals. If you make the claim that it isn't predictable, then I show that it is, I can figure you or someone else is going to bring up the early 1900's. Though I'm probably going way out of my way to prove my point. My style of argumentation seems to go to the all possible routes approach.[/QUOTE] You were wrong about the early 1900's though. Well, half-wrong. Sure, everyone's standard of living slowly went up but the wealth distribution was awful. Capitalism's dirty little secret is it works, but slowly and people get fucked in the process. [editline]7th August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=s0beit;31593297]It is the perfect example, I think you'd best re-read what I said. I said "automation of "hard" labor jobs actually produces jobs in other sectors". People have more access to automobiles as a whole, businesses, common people. It spawns an unfathomable amount of jobs not related to the automotive sector specifically.[/QUOTE] That's assuming it actually improves output, but it doesn't need to for business owners to turn a profit from automation.

[QUOTE=s0beit;31593297]I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here, but my best guess is you're wondering how replacing an entire workforce with machines is beneficial.[/QUOTE] No I was explaining that when machines start taking jobs you can't just relocate everyone to new ones.

We could outlaw giving robots jobs.

[QUOTE=geogzm;31593672]We could outlaw giving robots jobs.[/QUOTE] That sounds like an awful idea.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;31593515]You were wrong about the early 1900's though. Well, half-wrong. Sure, everyone's standard of living slowly went up but the wealth distribution was awful. Capitalism's dirty little secret is it works, but slowly and people get fucked in the process.[/QUOTE] The standard of living increased for everyone at a rate faster than it ever in American history. If we forced the distribution of wealth to be more equal at the time, the rate of the standard of living would have likely decreased or remained stagnate. I assume this because the driving force of capitalism is greed, and when how much you can earn is diminished, there is less incentive. So this is to say that the bad distribution of wealth was likely necessary for those gains, so I don't really see it as a negative.

[QUOTE=Pepin;31594010]The standard of living increased for everyone at a rate faster than it ever in American history. If we forced the distribution of wealth to be more equal at the time, the rate of the standard of living would have likely decreased or remained stagnate. I assume this because the driving force of capitalism is greed, and when how much you can earn is diminished, there is less incentive. So this is to say that the bad distribution of wealth was likely necessary for those gains, so I don't really see it as a negative.[/QUOTE] You don't see a negative as a negative? [editline]7th August 2011[/editline] This is the whole point of my argument: This has shitty effects. I am by no means saying this is going to make things worse in the future and in fact I think it will make things better in the future, but don't overlook that's it's not all sunshine and rainbows.

[QUOTE=Pepin;31594010]I assume this because the driving force of capitalism is greed, and when how much you can earn is diminished, there is less incentive. So this is to say that the bad distribution of wealth was likely necessary for those gains, so I don't really see it as a negative.[/QUOTE] So you are saying that if the rich were taxed for some strange reason they wouldn't want to build businesses? Either way this will allow them to make the maximum amount of money and you can't say they will just not want to make money because they will make less.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;31595248]You don't see a negative as a negative? [editline]7th August 2011[/editline] This is the whole point of my argument: This has shitty effects. I am by no means saying this is going to make things worse in the future and in fact I think it will make things better in the future, but don't overlook that's it's not all sunshine and rainbows.[/QUOTE] It's possible to see a negative in junction with a positive as an overall positive outcome. That's pretty much the whole discussion here, the positives of switching to machines will in time outweigh the negatives. In regard to what I said, if a substantial increase in the standard of living also happened to have what would be considered a negative effect on the distribution of wealth, the overall situation is positive. This is assuming a standard of living increase would be better. Personally I don't at all an issue with a very unequal distributions of wealth especially considering that someone's gain isn't your loss, so to clarify I was making that statement from the perspective of someone who did care and I'd assume they'd prefer an increase in living standards for everyone as opposed to stagnation. And yes, it does have short term negative effects, and worse effects in an economic downturn. [QUOTE=imasillypiggy;31595277]So you are saying that if the rich were taxed for some strange reason they wouldn't want to build businesses? Either way this will allow them to make the maximum amount of money and you can't say they will just not want to make money because they will make less.[/QUOTE] Assume two scenarios. In one the tax rate is 0%. In the other the tax rate is 50%. Is it right to assume that more people would start a business in scenario 2? Is it right to assume that there wouldn't be more people starting up business in scenario 1? If you have to give 50% of your money away at the end of every year (not how taxes work I know), are you going to start to doubt whether you'll be successful? Doesn't someone who is paying no tax have more incentive to take risks? Or I could flip that around, in scenario 2, don't business owners have to put a lot more thought into their investments to figure if they'd work out? Wouldn't a business in scenario 1 get rich, expand, and get richer faster than scenario 2? Also, you have a grammatical mistake because I'm not talking about a rich person starting a business, but the average person.