• May day, Anti-Capitalist protest clash with police force in Montreal. Canada
    143 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Deng;47651215]Except this isn't happening. China is transitioning into a service economy right now, wages are still growing, job safety is becoming more important, environmental regulations are slowly coming in, and the economy is still expanding.[/QUOTE] Alright, ill see what happen in the near future. However. I can not deny that you have a lot of good points. it is true that China is changing. but I think the rate of the change isn't fast enough to save the hundred of millions that are in poverty and uneducated. These people are the one that have to be saved. they are almost domed to stay poor. It's just like if they just woke up and realize that the strong pollution they were doing was bad for them and the environment.
[QUOTE=pac0master;47651237]it is true that China is changing. but I think the rate of the change isn't fast enough to save the hundred of millions that are in poverty and uneducated. These people are the one that have to be saved. they are almost domed to stay poor.[/QUOTE] The poverty rate in China in 1979 was 85% (earning less than $1.25 a day). In 2008, it was 33.1%. Gallup (with a different measure), estimated the $1.25 poverty rate to be 26% in 2007, and having dropped to 7% by 2012. Considering that about half a billion people were lifted out of poverty as a direct result of the Chinese economic reform, I would say they are doing pretty well. [quote]It's just like if they just woke up and realize that the strong pollution they were doing was bad for them and the environment.[/quote] Their latest 5 year plan actually covers a lot of environmental issues. It also covers the construction of cheap housing for the poor, reducing inequality, decreasing restrictions on where you can live, and investing into "underdeveloped" regions and improving efforts to tackle corruption and shift towards a service economy.
[QUOTE=Deng;47651274] Their latest 5 year plan actually covers a lot of environmental issues. It also covers the construction of cheap housing for the poor, reducing inequality, decreasing restrictions on where you can live, and investing into "underdeveloped" regions and improving efforts to tackle corruption and shift towards a service economy.[/QUOTE] True. I've seen some very interesting inovation in the construction industry. they have made cheap premade building such as hotels and stuff very quickly. I think I saw a video where they built a 20 stories hotel in about a month. That was very quick and it was suposed to be Enviromentally green. As I said. They just waked up. That problem existed for decades. They waked up because they lose money. ( and they might get pushed by the UN or something ) [QUOTE=Deng;47651274]The poverty rate in China in 1979 was 85% (earning less than $1.25 a day). In 2008, it was 33.1%. Gallup (with a different measure), estimated the $1.25 poverty rate to be 26% in 2007, and having dropped to 7% by 2012. Considering that about half a billion people were lifted out of poverty as a direct result of the Chinese economic reform, I would say they are doing pretty well. Their latest 5 year plan actually covers a lot of environmental issues. It also covers the construction of cheap housing for the poor, reducing inequality, decreasing restrictions on where you can live, and investing into "underdeveloped" regions and improving efforts to tackle corruption and shift towards a service economy.[/QUOTE] I think we are going a bit off topics. I know what you mean though. But also. i don't just look at stats I look at their stadart of living. You can't just tell that the poor earning must be 1.25$ a day. That's kind of a biassed result. What if the rest get 2. or 3. or 5$ a day. they won't be included in the stats yet they might struggle to live. That said. I think we should stay in the topic of the thread. Montreal in Quebec. Canada. get a raise of popularity of socialism and Communism in general.
[QUOTE=pac0master;47651300]I think we are going a bit off topics. I know what you mean though. But also. i don't just look at stats I look at their stadart of living. You can't just tell that the poor earning must be 1.25$ a day. That's kind of a biassed result. What if the rest get 2. or 3. or 5$ a day. they won't be included in the stats yet they might struggle to live.[/quote] Wage growth in those areas has been similar. The point about the $1.25 figure is that whereas most Chinese used to work in subsistence agriculture, they now work in some kind of job that pays out money. Getting integrated into the market economy is the first step on the ladder to making serious reductions in poverty. [quote]That said. I think we should stay in the topic of the thread. Montreal in Quebec. Canada. get a raise of popularity of socialism and Communism in general.[/QUOTE] I bloody well hope not. Communism has gotten the rightful death it deserves, and it should not hold the major role in politics it once used to have.
[QUOTE=Deng;47651337] I bloody well hope not. Communism has gotten the rightful death it deserves, and it should not hold the major role in politics it once used to have.[/QUOTE] I am more in favour for a very restricted capitalism mixed with the socialistic ideology where Everyone can have a job and try reaching the american dream but without exploitation. Honestly. I don't think rich people should have much more than a billion dollars. There is no point in having that much money. It should be redistributed to the population to help everyone. It's estimated that you can live very well for about 20-30 years with one million dollars. Let's be generous and let the rich keeping one Billion. That's more than enough money for them and their future generation for a very long time. Where the hundred of billions left goes? helping population. Free Healthcare. roads maintenance, school. etc.
Communism or at least full socialism will come back, it's no where near dead. As the global job market stagnates because of automation, we're going to run out of jobs. The only way to then have any sort of economic equality in society is by having basic income.
[QUOTE=OogalaBoogal;47651412]Communism or at least full socialism will come back, it's no where near dead. As the global job market stagnates because of automation, we're going to run out of jobs. The only way to then have any sort of economic equality in society is by having basic income.[/QUOTE] It's true. Capitalism can not exist without workers or customers. If too many people lose their job due to automation or simply that the industry moved away. The fundementals of capitalism will collapse and raise to some sort of mixed economy based of socialism
[QUOTE=OogalaBoogal;47651412]As the global job market stagnates because of automation, we're going to run out of jobs. The only way to then have any sort of economic equality in society is by having basic income.[/QUOTE] Automation doesn't get rid of jobs. People keep saying this, but the evidence is to the contrary. All it does is moves jobs elsewhere. A prime example is a factory nearby my house, which, having automated much of its equipment, simply built additional facilities to soak up the excess labour, because production had expanded. If a factory automates, then people switch to jobs elsewhere created as a result. You need programmers, machine builders, mechanics, architects, market coordinators, etc. That's a more clean example, but the point is that automation creates just as many jobs as it destroys. [editline]3rd May 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=pac0master;47651461]It's true. Capitalism can not exist without workers or customers. If too many people lose their job due to automation or simply that the industry moved away. The fundementals of capitalism will collapse and raise to some sort of mixed economy based of socialism[/QUOTE] Except this hasn't happened before. Why should it happen now? What's really different? What has fundamentally changed in the world that automation has reached the point that for some reason it gets rid of jobs, instead of just shifting them from labour-intensive to less labour-intensive industries?
[QUOTE=Deng;47651489]Automation doesn't get rid of jobs. People keep saying this, but the evidence is to the contrary. All it does is moves jobs elsewhere. A prime example is a factory nearby my house, which, having automated much of its equipment, simply built additional facilities to soak up the excess labour, because production had expanded. That's a more clean example, but the point is that automation creates just as many jobs as it destroys.[/QUOTE] How can an factory used to employ thousand of workers don't get rid of them with automation? We had a small economical crisis in the 70's due to the large amount of companies that turned into automation. the amount of jobless people increased incredibly. The government had to make a social welfare system to help the families. It also reduced the tax payers which the government started being in debt for the first time. Sure there will always be jobs in automated factories, but its a more technical job that require expertise like technicians and engineers that repair the machines etc. The person who were replaced by the machine weren't ready for that and most of them don't have a degree which end up making the search for job even more difficult.
[QUOTE=pac0master;47651528]How can an factory used to employ thousand of workers don't get rid of them with automation?[/quote] Because jobs are freed elsewhere due to changed economic circumstances. Let's imagine that a factory makes a whole bunch of people unemployed due to automation. Because automation saves money, the company is going to cut the price of the gadget they sell in order to remain competitive. The cheaper gadget will be bought by more people (so production will expand). Because individually, people are spending less money on the gadget than they did before, then each person will have a little extra money they will spend on something else. This money will go into other industries to buy goods and services. Because of this extra money being spent elsewhere, those industries are going to need to hire more people. You need people to work in shops, to build new shops or plants, etc. While unskilled labour is slowly becoming less valuable, this has always been the case in recorded history. The good news though is that people are also gaining the skills needed to work in new industries too, because education tends to advance as well. (Migration is also a thing, so skilled and unskilled workers can move to where they are needed). There are slowdowns, unemployment will rise and fall, you have temporary problems yes. The point is that longer term there is nothing to suggest the system itself will break down, because it keeps moving back towards an equilibrium.
[QUOTE=pac0master;47651528]How can an factory used to employ thousand of workers don't get rid of them with automation? We had a small economical crisis in the 70's due to the large amount of companies that turned into automation. the amount of jobless people increased incredibly. The government had to make a social welfare system to help the families. It also reduced the tax payers which the government started being in debt for the first time. Sure there will always be jobs in automated factories, but its a more technical job that require expertise like technicians and engineers that repair the machines etc. The person who was replaced by the machine wasn't ready for that and most of them don't have a degree which end up making the search for job even more difficult.[/QUOTE] There are plenty of jobs that simply can't be automated but do not require a university degree (plumbers, welders, steel beam connectors, crane operators, etc.). Sure you can expect higher unemployment in the short term when certain industries are automated further, but along with automation comes more complex infrastructure and more demand for tradesmen. It's cheaper to make use of some structural steel connectors to construct your automated factory than it is to design a robot that can scale steel beams on site and put them together.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47651589]There are plenty of jobs that simply can't be automated but do not require a university degree (plumbers, welders, steel beam connectors, crane operators, etc.). Sure you can expect higher unemployment in the short term when certain industries are automated further, but along with automation comes more complex infrastructure and more more demand for tradesmen. It's cheaper to make use of some structural steel connectors to construct your automated factory than it is to design a robot that can scale steel beams on site and put them together.[/QUOTE] Can't yet be automated
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;47651605]Can't yet be automated[/QUOTE] Almost definitely will never be.
[QUOTE=Deng;47651570] Let's imagine that a factory makes a whole bunch of people unemployed due to automation. Because automation saves money, the company is going to cut the price of the gadget they sell in order to remain competitive.[/QUOTE] I only see a reduction of price in the technology sector (even then it is roughly the same than the last years..) Food industry price raise so is some other domain. Yet they are those where automation has improved the most of their production. [quote]Because jobs are freed elsewhere due to changed economic circumstances.[/quote] That's very bad for an economy. You want YOUR people to work. Getting the job offshore is a reason of some crisis and the lost of jobs. [QUOTE] The cheaper gadget will be bought by more people (so production will expand). Because individually, people are spending less money on the gadget than they did before, then each person will have a little extra money they will spend on something else. This money will go into other industries to buy goods and services.[/QUOTE] It only works if people are able to find a job. Their job was taken away and most of them don't have the education required to work in the technical jobs that replaced their. Now, a companies need 50 peoples to do what 1200 people did in the past. [QUOTE] Because of this extra money being spent elsewhere, those industries are going to need to hire more people. You need people to work in shops, to build new shops or plants, etc.[/QUOTE] Many companies rather invest in cheap labour like china to save money instead of prioritizing a stable economy in their own countries. That lead to the companies moving entirely offshore and cut a lot of jobs [QUOTE] While unskilled labour is slowly becoming less valuable, this has always been the case in recorded history. The good news though is that people are also gaining the skills needed to work in new industries too, because education tends to advance as well.[/QUOTE] Sure. It is always a good news for the more educated folks. That's why the government here PAYS people to finish high school. ( I am one of the few lucky one ) Else I wouldn't be able to find a Job. Even then. It's hard to get anything as there is a lot of competition due to a massive amount of unemployed people. Plus. since there quite a lot of people who are unemployed, these people pay less taxes as they would be if they had money to buy goods. The result makes the government having to cut in different social care and raise taxes which make a chain reaction. [editline]3rd May 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47651589]There are plenty of jobs that simply can't be automated but do not require a university degree (plumbers, welders, steel beam connectors, crane operators, etc.). Sure you can expect higher unemployment in the short term when certain industries are automated further, but along with automation comes more complex infrastructure and more demand for tradesmen. It's cheaper to make use of some structural steel connectors to construct your automated factory than it is to design a robot that can scale steel beams on site and put them together.[/QUOTE] It's true but the government is starting to enforce technical degree. mechanics. welding etc. all of these require a Technics degree from Techs schools It ain't university but it approach College. Many people who were working for the last decades aren't educated enough to move in that industry. Most of them have families to take care and end up on the social welfare. My father is an example of that worker class. He's 55 years old and haven't finished high school. He works with forklift in a small local companies and it's not very well paid. But he have to do it else he might search for job for months or year before getting something and he would fall in debts. I am studying to get in the video game industry. Pretty sure that is here to stay.
[QUOTE=pac0master;47651630]I only see a reduction of price in the technology sector (even then it is roughly the same than the last years..) Food industry price raise so is some other domain. Yet they are those where automation has improved the most of their production.[/quote] People generally spend less on food these days. Food prices shift about all the time, but in general people are spending much less on food now than they did 50 years ago. [quote]That's very bad for an economy. You want YOUR people to work. Getting the job offshore is a reason of some crisis and the lost of jobs.[/quote] [quote]Many companies rather invest in cheap labour like china to save money instead of prioritizing a stable economy in their own countries. That lead to the companies moving entirely offshore and cut a lot of jobs[/quote] The world economy is integrating together. I think it's fair that we should help the poorer nations to industrialize first while the rich nations do the internal rebalancing. Rich countries should not remain wedded to maintaining industries that are clearly past their prime (like coal mining in Britain). [quote]Plus. since there quite a lot of people who are unemployed, these people pay less taxes as they would be if they had money to buy goods. The result makes the government having to cut in different social care and raise taxes which make a chain reaction.[/QUOTE] They also get more taxes from the expansion of the new industries and services. When people become unemployed due to automation, remember that new industries are popping up all the time because of this automation. Not all of them need unskilled labour, but there will always be some demand for a bit of unskilled labour.
[QUOTE=Deng;47651722]People generally spend less on food these days. Food prices shift about all the time, but in general people are spending much less on food now than they did 50 years ago.[/QUOTE] I am pretty sure that food consumption haven't changed much. We need to eat to survive so there is that. We don't buy as much due to the rise of price and the fact that there is less people with stable jobs. [QUOTE] The world economy is integrating together. I think it's fair that we should help the poorer nations to industrialize first while the rich nations do the internal rebalancing. Rich countries should not remain wedded to maintaining industries that are clearly past their prime (like coal mining in Britain).[/QUOTE] I am ready to bet that most companies that use Cheap labour aren't there for helping the economics of the countries. They are there for the cheap labour and want to raise their profits as much as possible. Milking the worker class until there is nothing to take from them. That's why there are a lot of regulation in the western countries. These people has gone too far in the past and they are still trying what they can to milk us. [QUOTE] They also get more taxes from the expansion of the new industries and services. [/QUOTE] They also seek for countries that offer less taxes or works with tax shelters to make as much profit as they can get. That's something I don't understand. [QUOTE] When people become unemployed due to automation, remember that new industries are popping up all the time because of this automation. Not all of them need unskilled labour, but there will always be some demand for a bit of unskilled labour.[/QUOTE] Yes but the demand is lower than the amount of people becoming unemployed so it create a lot of competition. Plus, the demand is getting lower over time. It prevent a lot of people from finding jobs. There are a lot of job for unskilled workers. The problem is that those job are often temporary or works of seasons. That only move the problem temporary.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47651626]Almost definitely will never be.[/QUOTE] The second reliable, learning machine intelligence/s are invented all statements like this will be totally up in the air. We are at the very beginning of development of artificial intelligence, any sweeping statement of limitations are almost definitely going to be proven to be incorrect in the future.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47651626]Almost definitely will never be.[/QUOTE] Ill be cautious with that statement. The only thing we need to invent is a machine capable to do the job and make less mistakes than a Human. The horse were replaced a long time ago. It's possible that we will replace drivers in the near future by an automated vehicle. Remember. We just need a robot capable to to your job better than you do and makes less mistakes. That's what the insurance companies dreams of. Someone who pay their fees and don't have any accidents. Just look at 3d Printing. If you can make a reliable 3d printer that print Metal. Bricks and other stuff. you will cut the need for workers even more. Hell. Some architect associations are talking about printing entire buildings. Even the army is becoming more automated than before. they have drones and stuff. I liked this video: [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU[/url] I really think that Capitalism will die with the extreme new age of smart automation. Something based of socialism might come as a result
[QUOTE=Deng;47651722]People generally spend less on food these days. Food prices shift about all the time, but in general people are spending much less on food now than they did 50 years ago. [/QUOTE] [t]http://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/assets/4715062/food_expenditures_and_malnutrition.png[/t]
[QUOTE=Wizards Court;47649874]i guess you're another one of those guys that never picked a damn history book, capitalism without regulation has ALWAYS fucked everyone but the rich, how someone can be so uneducated i'll never know, fuck, the reason communism became so popular in the first place is because of how much the worker kept getting fucked, repeatedly. i said it before, when this whole neo-liberalism/free trade/no rules starts to affect the european and american middle-class REALLY badly, you guys are gonna change your mind pretty quickly. also wtf does this even mean, how does anti-trust laws force people into debt, you want to have megacorporations that can't be challenged? and again, like i said it before, facepunchers are mostly sheltered middle-class people who don't know how the world works, only way you can defend something like this.[/QUOTE] Ain't amphibology a bitch?
I swear, if you're going to support communism, why the hell would you support the soviet union/early PRC styled communism? It's pretty clear what the result of those were.
Communism should be renamed sharing. Gulags renamed to the naughty step. Anyone who doesn't share gets sent to the naughty step.
[QUOTE=KnightSolaire;47652312] Anyone who doesn't share gets sent to the naughty step.[/QUOTE] Misreading this sounds like the annoying Facebook post :v:
[QUOTE=pac0master;47651788]I am pretty sure that food consumption haven't changed much. We need to eat to survive so there is that. We don't buy as much due to the rise of price and the fact that there is less people with stable jobs.[/quote] Generally people in the west spend much less on food now, because food is cheaper. [quote]I am ready to bet that most companies that use Cheap labour aren't there for helping the economics of the countries. They are there for the cheap labour and want to raise their profits as much as possible. Milking the worker class until there is nothing to take from them. That's why there are a lot of regulation in the western countries. These people has gone too far in the past and they are still trying what they can to milk us.[/quote] Except going to these countries benefits the workers too. Sweatshops seem bad and all, but without them these people would be starving peasants on farms. Economic development starts with things such as sweatshops, and yes you should regulate them in the future and all, but it's literally how every country began to industrialize, starting with Britain in the 18th century. [quote]Yes but the demand is lower than the amount of people becoming unemployed so it create a lot of competition. Plus, the demand is getting lower over time. It prevent a lot of people from finding jobs. There are a lot of job for unskilled workers. The problem is that those job are often temporary or works of seasons. That only move the problem temporary.[/QUOTE] If demand is getting lower, why is the economy growing? Why are more things being produced?
[QUOTE=pac0master;47651826]Ill be cautious with that statement. The only thing we need to invent is a machine capable to do the job and make less mistakes than a Human. The horse were replaced a long time ago. It's possible that we will replace drivers in the near future by an automated vehicle. Remember. We just need a robot capable to to your job better than you do and makes less mistakes. That's what the insurance companies dreams of. Someone who pay their fees and don't have any accidents. Just look at 3d Printing. If you can make a reliable 3d printer that print Metal. Bricks and other stuff. you will cut the need for workers even more. Hell. Some architect associations are talking about printing entire buildings. Even the army is becoming more automated than before. they have drones and stuff. I liked this video: [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU[/url] I really think that Capitalism will die with the extreme new age of smart automation. Something based of socialism might come as a result[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=hypno-toad;47651799]The second reliable, learning machine intelligence/s are invented all statements like this will be totally up in the air. We are at the very beginning of development of artificial intelligence, any sweeping statement of limitations are almost definitely going to be proven to be incorrect in the future.[/QUOTE] Artificial intelligence is useless for practical problems without robotic components that it can manipulate. Creating the physical mechanisms alone would be extremely expensive ignoring the price of developing an AI so versatile that it could climb up steel beams to connect them, locate a plumbing blockage and remove the necessary segments of piping, or determine where to hold a cooling unit being installed on a roof. In the end you will always need a way to move parts of the environment from point A to point B and outside of the factory that is an extremely tricky task.
[QUOTE=pac0master;47648129] These people just want the government to act against pure captialism. Taxing the rich banks and companies instead of milking the poors[/QUOTE] I'm making around $11k a year and my tax return was $1,200 yet I only paid $120 in income tax. When the rich get taxed at almost %50 does it make sense to you that I don't have to pay for any public services yet the rich carry everyones burden?
[QUOTE=ultra_bright;47653151]I'm making around $11k a year and my tax return was $1,200 yet I only paid $120 in income tax. When the rich get taxed at almost %50 does it make sense to you that I don't have to pay for any public services yet the rich carry everyones burden?[/QUOTE] If a small group of people is going to possess much of the country's wealth, then they better be willing to put it to proper use. The rich don't need all that disposable income. If they got taxed plenty more, they'd still be able to live comfortably and with excess money to spend.
[QUOTE=Deng;47652464] If demand is getting lower, why is the economy growing? Why are more things being produced?[/QUOTE] The demand of unskilled worker is getting lower because their job is replaced by automation So you end up with a problem of educating millions of people. And now we are at the beggining of the robotic revolution where many jobs will be replaced by an AI. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47652978]Artificial intelligence is useless for practical problems without robotic components that it can manipulate. Creating the physical mechanisms alone would be extremely expensive ignoring the price of developing an AI so versatile that it could climb up steel beams to connect them, locate a plumbing blockage and remove the necessary segments of piping, or determine where to hold a cooling unit being installed on a roof. In the end you will always need a way to move parts of the environment from point A to point B and outside of the factory that is an extremely tricky task.[/QUOTE] The automation of industry don't need to be perfect. They just need to make fewers mistakes than Humans. the automated cars can't drive dunk, tired, or stupidly and they will respect the laws at any time. The transportation industry is one of the biggest industry to date If you were to replace all of them you would end up with millions of people without a job. Watch the video I just posted. [editline]3rd May 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=ultra_bright;47653151]I'm making around $11k a year and my tax return was $1,200 yet I only paid $120 in income tax. When the rich get taxed at almost %50 does it make sense to you that I don't have to pay for any public services yet the rich carry everyones burden?[/QUOTE] What's the point of having billions dollars anyway? Is there something you can do with one billions that you can't with 10-100 millions? It's estimated that you can live comfortably for about 20 years with one million dollars. Just having 100 millions would be more than enough for several generation to come. That money is rotting in their bank account. It should be used somewhere. Plus. It might greatly reduce Inflation I myself was stuck with 11,000$ to live last year. That's what the government paid me to continue school. (490$ per two weeks) I am grateful to the system because it allowed me to live in this world while going back at school. That's the kind of system everyone should have the right to.
[QUOTE=pac0master;47653312]The automation of industry don't need to be perfect. They just need to make fewers mistakes than Humans. the automated cars can't drive dunk, tired, or stupidly and they will respect the laws at any time. The transportation industry is one of the biggest industry to date If you were to replace all of them you would end up with millions of people without a job. Watch the video I just posted.[/QUOTE] I've seen the video and frankly it either takes advantage of very specific situations or just breezes over things that are far more complex. Transportation services function within an extremely controlled environment, so it goes without saying that they could be easily automated. There are strict rules governing where a vehicle is not to be, how far it is to be from other vehicles, how fast it must go and so on. It's akin to having a person carry out specific repetitive tasks in a factory. Operating a crane for construction workers to install a piece of machinery, scaling steel beams with an impact wrench to get to a series of bolts that need tightening or removing wall panels in order to access a piping system that is blocked are all tasks that are not in a controlled environment, they are entirely different depending on the situation and involve intricate manipulation of the environment to-boot. It would be insanely expensive to develop robots that could deal with these situations and even more insanely expensive to develop centralized systems that would enable the constructed environment to do these things. While I hate to make assumptions, it really seems to me that anyone who proposes that most of the skilled trades could be replaced by robotic labour simply hasn't had much experience in blue collar work or just how challenging it is.
[QUOTE=ultra_bright;47653151]I'm making around $11k a year and my tax return was $1,200 yet I only paid $120 in income tax. When the rich get taxed at almost %50 does it make sense to you that I don't have to pay for any public services yet the rich carry everyones burden?[/QUOTE] They don't get taxed anywhere near that rate though. The tax bracket for rich people is fucked. They can hide money away in tax exempt shelters with little difficulty and can use assets as their money. They haven't paid that rate for decades. [editline]3rd May 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47653481]I've seen the video and frankly it either takes advantage of very specific situations or just breezes over things that are far more complex. Transportation services function within an extremely controlled environment, so it goes without saying that they could be easily automated. There are strict rules governing where a vehicle is not to be, how far it is to be from other vehicles, how fast it must go and so on. It's akin to having a person carry out specific repetitive tasks in a factory. Operating a crane for construction workers to install a piece of machinery, scaling steel beams with an impact wrench to get to a series of bolts that need tightening or removing wall panels in order to access a piping system that is blocked are all tasks that are not in a controlled environment, they are entirely different depending on the situation and involve intricate manipulation of the environment to-boot. It would be insanely expensive to develop robots that could deal with these situations and even more insanely expensive to develop centralized systems that would enable the constructed environment to do these things. While I hate to make assumptions, it really seems to me that anyone who proposes that most of the skilled trades could be replaced by robotic labour simply hasn't had much experience in blue collar work or just how challenging it is.[/QUOTE] A crane is already just a robot controlled by a person. Creating an AI that could work in that situation would only require one to create sensors that would allow it to understand it's world around it. It really wouldn't be a big deal. At all.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.