Minimum-wage campaign for $15/h could speed arrival of robot-powered restaurants and reduced number
205 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48494154]I offer a list of suggestions and if the response is "people don't want to implement them", then I'd say the problem isn't with automation, but with the politicians who adopt shitty policies and the people who endorse them.[/QUOTE]
I get that. I'm not saying the problem is with automation. This is why I'm pissed you called me a luddite without reason. I'm not mad at automation.
I'm mad because if we implement it without thinking about safety nets for the people, we WILL have a problem.
[QUOTE]Despite the hyperbole, I really don't think this transition will be anywhere near what happened in the industrial revolution when people regularly died from cholera and children were sent to work down mines, especially in developed western countries where relatively extensive social safety nets exist for people.[/QUOTE]
You may be right in that sense, people won't be getting disease left right and centre, and kids won't be working in mines. But I don't believe our society will accept having a 100,000 unemployeed people. I don't believe we'll want to support them or see that as a good thing because the american mindset is so gung ho about "You don't wanna work? You don't deserve a life".
Safety nets will be stretched to their absolute extremes, and people will be struggling to pay for food without jobs because I severely doubt our politicians abilities to set up a system that will look after those people in time.
[QUOTE]What do you mean they aren't viable options? They are all valid options in a modern industrialized economy. I mean sure not having work sucks, but it's a good idea to make sure that the vulnerable people in society are looked after with enough support that they don't starve or freeze or find themselves unable to go to college or take on an apprenticeship.[/QUOTE]
Welfare is going to be extremely expensive, and who's going to be paying for it? You do realize in the States it's almost impossible to get companies to pay their fare share of taxes, who's going to be paying for welfare that supports a large percentage of the country? Who's going to fight against that? The same people you're suggesting would have to pay for it. I don't see that working due to politics, but that's still a problem we face.
How are job programs going to work when industries are automating left and right? What do you even mean by a job program in that context? Maybe i'm not smart enough to see what you mean and see that being effective.
Education is not viable though. Period. You're NOT going to be able to get that much of a percentage of the nation to go to school without massive issues. You're talking about all different age groups, all different skill sets, and all different experiences, just having to all go back to school in a very similar time period. And this will be free? I doubt that very strongly. So, you're asking impoverished people to go into debt to go to school in an economy that might not even need them afterwards. It's not really a wide scale viable option. It's a small scale option. And it's one that like all the other issues, needs politicians to have devised a system before the trouble happens, I'm not idealistic enough to assume we have politicians who can meet those goals.
I welcome the arrival of automated cashiers cause most restaurants have crappy service. However, shouldn't it mean the price of food should go down since the restaurants will have less expenses?
Or is it really more economical to use machines? Machines probably cost a lot of money, they consume electricity, require maitenance, and get outdated as better machines come along. Heck, wouldn't the three or four salaries of you save by laying off employees just go to some robotics technician? I mean his job is pretty valuable since your entire business model hinges on him being able to maintain the mechanization.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48494201]I'm mad because if we implement it without thinking about safety nets for the people, we WILL have a problem.
But I don't believe our society will accept having a 100,000 unemployeed people. I don't believe we'll want to support them or see that as a good thing because the american mindset is so gung ho about "You don't wanna work? You don't deserve a life".
Safety nets will be stretched to their absolute extremes, and people will be struggling to pay for food without jobs because I severely doubt our politicians abilities to set up a system that will look after those people in time.[/quote]
Sounds like it's more of a problem that's the fault of politicians and governments rather than automation.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48494201]
Welfare is going to be extremely expensive, and who's going to be paying for it? You do realize in the States it's almost impossible to get companies to pay their fare share of taxes, who's going to be paying for welfare that supports a large percentage of the country? Who's going to fight against that? The same people you're suggesting would have to pay for it. I don't see that working due to politics, but that's still a problem we face. [/quote]
Right now we are paying for welfare programs for a large percentage of the country because they live off of public assistance as a result of the weakening of the middle class. We need welfare reform, we are too productive to have such a high level of people on public assistance.
[quote]Education is not viable though. Period. You're NOT going to be able to get that much of a percentage of the nation to go to school without massive issues. You're talking about all different age groups, all different skill sets, and all different experiences, just having to all go back to school in a very similar time period. And this will be free? I doubt that very strongly. So, you're asking impoverished people to go into debt to go to school in an economy that might not even need them afterwards. It's not really a wide scale viable option. It's a small scale option. And it's one that like all the other issues, needs politicians to have devised a system before the trouble happens, I'm not idealistic enough to assume we have politicians who can meet those goals.[/quote]
Can I get a citation on this because it makes no sense. Education is free in many parts of the world and it is included in the platform of all democratic candidates for this election (at least 2 years free) and advocated by our current president. We need to give student's the opportunity to not only go to college but exit college without outrageous student debt.
Student debt is an oxymoron when we start talking about `100,00 to 300,000 or even 30,000. Education exists to increase human capital and is supposed to not only be a benefit to individuals but also a nation's economy. Burying student's in debt while simultaneously attempting to make them a productive member of society forces that human capital to go to waste. Graduates do not put money BACK into the economy despite being better educated and from an economic standpoint "worth more" to a nation. Statistically millennial grads do not participate in the housing market & spend far less proportionally on commodities than previous generations. These people should be investments.Profitting of of student debt defeats the point of investing in human capital; instead of attempting to educate a population so that they become more productive and in turn put MORE into the economy before, on a federal level we are making graduates more productive but less valuable, and for what? So the government can earn a few thousand extra dollars off of an individual? Education is free in many parts of the western world, and where it isn't free, it's pretty cheap. Education is no longer an investment when you end up taking the debt from your youth into late adulthood.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48494244]Sounds like it's more of a problem that's the fault of politicians and governments rather than automation.[/QUOTE]
Again, i'm not against automation so yes, you're right, my problem is one with the politicians, and the actual, real life, real world, pragmatic use of these technologies and HOW it will affect me and other people.
When you talk about automation in the real world and it's large scale replacement in a lot of industries, start thinking of worst case scenarios because those are going to be more likely than your best case scenarios. Why?
Because practicality, because reality. Because you're implementing these laws, services, safety nets, what have you, through politicians. And I don't know about you, but I don't really see them having the interests of the little guy at heart.
[QUOTE=catbarf;48494073]'There will be a transition period of instability but society will continue, just like it has when this happened before' is not at all remotely the same issue as 'Robots are going to make us all unemployed, the end is nigh' which is pretty much the theme of every one of these threads. Arguing that in the long run automation will not destroy the economy and put everyone out of work is not arguing that everything will be just fine for everyone and nobody will have to worry about losing their job. As far as I can tell Sobotnik hasn't said that nobody will be harmed so you're railing against a straw man and I'd much rather see what argument you have against the idea that this will be a period of instability, not a permanent trend, just like previous examples of mass automation.
Or you can keep flaming and putting words in his mouth because reading what he actually wrote is too hard. You do this a lot.[/QUOTE]
Uck, the irony in that post. :sick:
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48494058]Except we have mechanisms for dealing with the problem (welfare, job programs, better education, etc). If they fail, then obviously they have to be overhauled and the benefits given to vunerable people are increased.[/QUOTE]
You don't know what are you talking about,
Welfare:
Applying and being accepted for welfare isn't an automatic, or easy process, my mother who is disabled had to fight a ridiculous battle for 8 years to even become eligible for the program, and then another 3 just to get everything running smoothly, if somebody loses their job and within the next year expects to be safe and secure on welfare they are in for a rude awakening.
Job Programs:
Why are you even mentioning this, what jobs will there be to have programs for when the available jobs literally shrink. It's like you had a severe mental disconnect when you typed this in here.
Better Education:
Higher education is incredibly expensive in America, and the costs are still increasing, not to mention the increase in cost of livings, transportation, and everything else with a still virtually pathetic living minimum wage. if this idea even passed it would only bring the standards to the accepted levels for a person to live off of. Let alone seek out and earn an education without sending yourself into 5 or 6 figure debt.
The reality is that these programs already need to be overhauled, but have not been, with no foreseeable future when they will be, especially with a potential republican candidate coming up into the executive branch.
[QUOTE=Rofl my Waff;48494258]
Student debt is an oxymoron when we start talking about `100,00 to 300,000 or even 30,000. Education exists to increase human capital and is supposed to not only be a benefit to individuals but also a nation's economy. Burying student's in debt while simultaneously attempting to make them a productive member of society forces that human capital to go to waste. Graduates do not put money BACK into the economy despite being better educated and from an economic standpoint "worth more" to a nation. Statistically millennial grads do not participate in the housing market & spend far less proportionally on commodities than previous generations. These people should be investments.Profitting of of student debt defeats the point of investing in human capital; instead of attempting to educate a population so that they become more productive and in turn put MORE into the economy before, on a federal level we are making graduates more productive but less valuable, and for what? So the government can earn a few thousand extra dollars off of an individual? Education is free in many parts of the western world, and where it isn't free, it's pretty cheap. Education is no longer an investment when you end up taking the debt from your youth into late adulthood.[/QUOTE]
Your post here seems to be radically disconnected from the reality of american education.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48494282]Your post here seems to be radically disconnected from the reality of american education.[/QUOTE]
Alright, tell me, a person who is currently 55k in debt how disconnected I am.
[QUOTE=Rofl my Waff;48494288]Alright, tell me, a person who is currently 65k in debt how disconnected I am.[/QUOTE]
I'm saying that in the US, to embark on higher education currently is to accrue a crazy amount of debt.
I'm saying, that if you want to say "Education is a viable way out of the problems of automation", then the american system of schools where you accrue a crazy amount of debt will not work and will not be viable methods to help the country.
I'm saying that unless you radically, and completely change how schooling in the US is paid for and accounted for, that it is not a viable option.
I phrased my initial post wrong. What you said in your post is correct, but the implications that these things could be changed just because they need to be, I think that's radically off base as I doubt you'll ever see cheap or free education in the states.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48494294]I'm saying that in the US, to embark on higher education currently is to accrue a crazy amount of debt.
I'm saying, that if you want to say "Education is a viable way out of the problems of automation", then the american system of schools where you accrue a crazy amount of debt will not work and will not be viable methods to help the country.
I'm saying that unless you radically, and completely change how schooling in the US is paid for and accounted for, that it is not a viable option.[/QUOTE]
That is exactly what needs to happen. The costs of tuition at state level schools are unacceptably high. If we could guarantee even 2 years free community college you would see a MASSIVE decrease in both 4 year education tuition at state schools and overall decreases in tuition at private schools.
If we are going to see a disappearance of the service industry we have to be ready to educate our workers.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48494104]I am not saying the end is nigh.
But hey, you can always say "Stop putting words in his mouth" while you've got your hand ready to shove words into my mouth.
Edited:
I guess it's easier to not read what I said and pretend I'm saying "the end is nigh" eh catbarf? [/QUOTE]
I said 'the end is nigh' is the theme of the thread, I did not claim it is something you have said verbatim. Let's have a look at a couple of examples of the sort of 'end is nigh' mindset I'm referring to.
[QUOTE=Fr3ddi3;48493300]The only counter argument is that if you automate all jobs then no one earns money to spend on these services which means everyone losses ... those at the bottom in the immediate future but eventually even those at the top. But weather or not you'll be alive to witness that is another matter.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=itisjuly;48493330]It's like when people claim factory automation will merely shift job market. As if it will. One factory that replaces 200 workers with 200 machines only needs ~10 people to maintain these machines.[/QUOTE]
So pretty much people are arguing that automation will mean permanent damage to society, that it won't shift the job market like it historically has. And that's what Sobotnik is arguing against. And it's what I'm arguing against. And then you swoop in on your high horse with this belligerent nonsense:
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48493961]But no Sobotonik, transitory periods of extreme uncertainty never hurt anyone![/QUOTE]
As if anyone, at any point, actually said that transitory periods of extreme uncertainty never hurt anyone. As if that's actually relevant in any way to the conversation.
Yeah, it's going to hurt some people. It's going to help some people. It's going to be a big ball of problems, but the argument is that [I]eventually[/I] it will get sorted out, and history shows that that transition period might be rough but it probably won't be a cataclysm of unemployment. And that's contrary to what people are saying every time they post that 'Humans Need Not Apply' video, that automation will destroy the market. That's exactly what the 'Luddite' label is about, by the way, it's not a catch-all pejorative thrown at anyone who dares oppose the march of progress, it's a label for people who believe the end is nigh because they believe society can't adapt and evolve to match what technology provides as it historically has.
And if you want to talk about that we can talk about it, and we can talk about how socially we can try to minimize the impact of that transition period. In which case make your argument and kindly drop the holier-than-thou personal accusations.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48493890]I know we're not all that compassionate about these kinds of things[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48493980]Now, you see Sobotonik, there's a problem for some people and I know you don't care about them, but I do.[/QUOTE]
Don't give a shit if robots take over.
Give me the damn 15 hour minimum wage dammit.
[QUOTE=WarriorWounds;48494276]You don't know what are you talking about,
Welfare:
Applying and being accepted for welfare isn't an automatic, or easy process, my mother who is disabled had to fight a ridiculous battle for 8 years to even become eligible for the program, and then another 3 just to get everything running smoothly, if somebody loses their job and within the next year expects to be safe and secure on welfare they are in for a rude awakening.
Job Programs:
Why are you even mentioning this, what jobs will there be to have programs for when the available jobs literally shrink. It's like you had a severe mental disconnect when you typed this in here.
Better Education:
Higher education is incredibly expensive in America, and the costs are still increasing, not to mention the increase in cost of livings, transportation, and everything else with a still virtually pathetic living minimum wage. if this idea even passed it would only bring the standards to the accepted levels for a person to live off of. Let alone seek out and earn an education without sending yourself into 5 or 6 figure debt.
The reality is that these programs already need to be overhauled, but have not been, with no foreseeable future when they will be, especially with a potential republican candidate coming up into the executive branch.[/QUOTE]
Then work towards reform and demand your politicians overhaul them instead of the nebulous view in which you say that your problems are due to the constantly ongoing process of automation?
[QUOTE=catbarf;48494307]I said 'the end is nigh' is the theme of the thread, I did not claim it is something you have said verbatim. Let's have a look at a couple of examples of the sort of 'end is nigh' mindset I'm referring to.
So pretty much people are arguing that automation will mean permanent damage to society, that it won't shift the job market like it historically has. And that's what Sobotnik is arguing against. And it's what I'm arguing against. And then you swoop in on your high horse with this belligerent nonsense:
As if anyone, at any point, actually said that transitory periods of extreme uncertainty never hurt anyone. As if that's actually relevant in any way to the conversation.
Yeah, it's going to hurt some people. It's going to help some people. It's going to be a big ball of problems, but the argument is that [I]eventually[/I] it will get sorted out, and history shows that that transition period might be rough but it probably won't be a cataclysm of unemployment. And that's contrary to what people are saying every time they post that 'Humans Need Not Apply' video, that automation will destroy the market. That's exactly what the 'Luddite' label is about, by the way, it's not a catch-all pejorative thrown at anyone who dares oppose the march of progress, it's a label for people who believe the end is nigh because they believe society can't adapt and evolve to match what technology provides as it historically has.
And if you want to talk about that we can talk about it, and we can talk about how socially we can try to minimize the impact of that transition period. In which case make your argument and kindly drop the holier-than-thou personal accusations.[/QUOTE]
So, only one of those quotes mentioned the end is nigh, that doesn't make it the theme of the thread, you also seemed to not even comprehend the arguments represented in the threads at all.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48494325]Then work towards reform and demand your politicians overhaul them instead of the nebulous view in which you say that your problems are due to the constantly ongoing process of automation?[/QUOTE]
So, you are basically assuming I'm not already trying to do what little I can to help those things move on? What gave you that idea? What was the point of that response? I am not personally responsible or capable of directly changing the policy decisions that affect the laws of living within my country, I can only vote, write my congressmam and hope for the best, I can also have internet debates with total strangers and try to change public opinion in a small way in hopes that perhaps that might make things easier in the long run, telling me to change the laws of my country as if I'm personally responsible for it just sounds retarded.
I think were heading toward an uncomfortable era where everyone working won't be necessary. We need to realize a system where unemployment is acceptable yet no one is left behind.
[QUOTE=WarriorWounds;48494331]So, only one of those quotes mentioned the end is nigh, that doesn't make it the theme of the thread, you also seemed to not even comprehend the arguments represented in the threads at all.[/QUOTE]
It was hardly an exhaustive list. Here are two more grabbed off the first page.
[QUOTE=SebiWarrior;48493365]This is why technology can be very dangerous. Once we'll be completely replaced, shit will go down.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Mattk50;48493402]I dont believe that we can create new jobs fast enough to replace automation. The result will either be subsidized labor or some kind of basic universal income system. Or we just do nothing and our society will devolve as unemployment skyrockets and people riot en masse. The wealthy will end up owning the automation so without some kind of intervention people who had been living hand to mouth on min wage wont be able to find jobs anymore and their only recourse will be crime.[/QUOTE]
It's a pretty common argument in these threads that automation is going to destroy the economy, irrespective of how these same objections have played out in the past. If you have an argument for why this time is different then I'm all ears, but boilerplate 'now the factory only needs a few people, therefore unemployment' is straight Luddism. Like, that's literally the argument they used. It's not very convincing.
[QUOTE=catbarf;48494307]I said 'the end is nigh' is the theme of the thread, I did not claim it is something you have said verbatim. Let's have a look at a couple of examples of the sort of 'end is nigh' mindset I'm referring to.
So pretty much people are arguing that automation will mean permanent damage to society, that it won't shift the job market like it historically has. And that's what Sobotnik is arguing against. And it's what I'm arguing against. And then you swoop in on your high horse with this belligerent nonsense:
As if anyone, at any point, actually said that transitory periods of extreme uncertainty never hurt anyone. As if that's actually relevant in any way to the conversation.
Yeah, it's going to hurt some people. It's going to help some people. It's going to be a big ball of problems, but the argument is that [I]eventually[/I] it will get sorted out, and history shows that that transition period might be rough but it probably won't be a cataclysm of unemployment. And that's contrary to what people are saying every time they post that 'Humans Need Not Apply' video, that automation will destroy the market. That's exactly what the 'Luddite' label is about, by the way, it's not a catch-all pejorative thrown at anyone who dares oppose the march of progress, it's a label for people who believe the end is nigh because they believe society can't adapt and evolve to match what technology provides as it historically has.
And if you want to talk about that we can talk about it, and we can talk about how socially we can try to minimize the impact of that transition period. In which case make your argument and kindly drop the holier-than-thou personal accusations.[/QUOTE]
Have I ever read a post of yours where you seem concerned with the people who might get lost in the transition? No. Neither of you ever seem to care when this topic comes up. You hand wave away any arguments that anyone has anything to fear from it.
Now, when you're talking about those other people, you need to realize, I'm not them, and when you argue their points like they're my points, then you're wasting your time, aren't you? Because again, I'm not them, and I don't share all of their arguments.
People who post that video are not saying "This will destroy the market". But hey, you're not afraid to put words in peoples mouths so we'll just "accept" that that's what everyone and anyone who posts that video meant.
Or you could just, you know, understand that people are afraid and want to understand where they might stand in that world and don't see it going super well for themselves, not that the "end is nigh" just "Shit what am I gonna do".
I'm not holding up any holier than thou bullshit. I come at this problem from a different place than you. I don't think i'm better than you, I'm just worried about the human element of it, and the practical implications of trying to implement this with real world politicians.
[QUOTE=WarriorWounds;48494331]So, you are basically assuming I'm not already trying to do what little I can to help those things move on? What gave you that idea? What was the point of that response? I am not personally responsible or capable of directly changing the policy decisions that affect the laws of living within my country, I can only vote, write my congressmam and hope for the best, I can also have internet debates with total strangers and try to change public opinion in a small way in hopes that perhaps that might make things easier in the long run, telling me to change the laws of my country as if I'm personally responsible for it just sounds retarded.[/QUOTE]
The point is that blaming automation is a red herring. Automation has been happening continually for centuries, it hasn't really sped up or slowed down since the mid 18th century. Automation isn't the cause, but when institutions fail to adapt, that is where the failure lies.
And it's not impossible, a lot of countries have managed it. If your country isn't able to, then I wouldn't say it's automation, but just shitty politicians and shitty voters.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48494386]The point is that blaming automation is a red herring. Automation has been happening continually for centuries, it hasn't really sped up or slowed down since the mid 18th century. Automation isn't the cause, but when institutions fail to adapt, that is where the failure lies.
And it's not impossible, a lot of countries have managed it. If your country isn't able to, then I wouldn't say it's automation, but just [B]shitty politicians and shitty voters[/B].[/QUOTE]
I'm sure this will keep many people warm, fed, and happy in dark times.
[editline]19th August 2015[/editline]
I think the problem of politicians is one of the most prominent ones we face. Having people who can make the right decisions and having a population that can make the right vote is going to be pretty essential to actually making it through that transition without a huge issue.
I just don't see how that's so easily glazed over when so much of the world is struggling from improper representation and we're not even really dealing with that super well now as it is.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48494386]The point is that blaming automation is a red herring. Automation has been happening continually for centuries, it hasn't really sped up or slowed down since the mid 18th century. Automation isn't the cause, but when institutions fail to adapt, that is where the failure lies.
And it's not impossible, a lot of countries have managed it. If your country isn't able to, then I wouldn't say it's automation, but just shitty politicians and shitty voters.[/QUOTE]
Automation has been happening for centuries, no doubt about it, has the rate of it increased lately? Absolutely, has job growth decreased lately? Absolutely, should that look like a problem to you? Absolutely.
Automation is one of many processes that are directly parts of a cause that lead to increased poverty for Americans, illegal immigration, positive population growth, a growing yet slowing down economy, all of these contribute to the already existing problems we have.
No, you're right it isn't impossible to fix our problems, but opinions like yours where you assume everything is going to be fine (especially in the heads of politicians) are part of the problem that stands in the way of fixing said problems.
[QUOTE=WarriorWounds;48494432]No, you're right it isn't impossible to fix our problems, but opinions like yours where you assume everything is going to be fine (especially in the heads of politicians) are part of the problem that stands in the way of fixing said problems.[/QUOTE]
And somehow erroneously claiming that automation is happening too quickly and is a major cause of many social problems today is going to help keep the impoverished fed and clothed?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48494499]And somehow erroneously claiming that automation is happening too quickly and is a major cause of many social problems today is going to help keep the impoverished fed and clothed?[/QUOTE]
What I'm guessing your thought process is like:
" I have an opinion, let me state it as fact. That will show him. "
The straw man that I provided a solution to the problem is also wrong, I was hoping we could think up one together :o).
To be honest, in the future eventually it'll become more cost effective to make a donut-making machine than have me make donuts. At the same time though, $15/month would make my life so much easier. I could actually move out! I could actually start making bigger payments on my car! Hell, I could actually probably save up the money to invest in the stock market finally (as crazy of an idea as that is).
I'm not incredibly worried about the impact of automation. It's going to be one hell of a transition though.
Luckily, businesses rely on people buying their products. So unemployment=no one to buy products. So it's in their best interests to ensure people can buy their products, or they'll be victims to the instability as well.
solution: Tax businesses a fixed amount, say 15/hr the robots work, and make it uncovered by any deductions at all, unless they have the same amount of employees.
I don't like the idea of robots taking jobs away from people that need them.
All it'll do is make people lazy
[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;48495069]solution: Tax businesses a fixed amount, say 15/hr the robots work, and make it uncovered by any deductions at all, unless they have the same amount of employees.[/QUOTE]
That is a very heavy handed approach that will do far, far more harm than good. Instead, maybe we should join in the direction the other nations that provide free secondary education? And do away with bs job qualifications such as "3+ years of experience" for an entry-level job. Seriously, that's fucked me over so much that now I'm flipping donuts while having an associates in Computer Networking Systems.
...actually that's kind of ironic. I'm pushing free education for all while I have a degree and stuck in a rather low end job.
[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;48495069]solution: Tax businesses a fixed amount, say 15/hr the robots work, and make it uncovered by any deductions at all, unless they have the same amount of employees.[/QUOTE]
The idea of an automation tax isn't without merit, but really it's too early to implement anything like that, robots or work automation is very hard to define, is a conveyor belt that takes frozen fries dips them and then packages them a robot because it replaced human jobs or is it just another piece of equipment in a kitchen? There will come a time I think when an automation tax might be nesscisary and indeed viable, when we need to float a minimum income it might be a more concrete concept and a legal definition of a robot could be found. As for right now though, automation doesn't statistically destroy jobs, its the economist who decides to automate by building a new factory in another state or country instead of improving the existing ones that costs jobs. Automation, technology, its not inherently good or bad its how we use it, we could eliminate truck drivers but then we suddenly have roads full of hazardous cargo under no supervision which is insane, instead a balance between automated driving and the driver will be in order. The railroads are a great example of this balance, highly automated but very old infastructure, they still employ plenty of people to run the trains and run the switching equipment to keep man in the loop to help catch faults with the automation before they turn to catastrophy
Full automation is going to happen within the next hundred years whether people like it or not, and it's not going to be this huge problem like you all seem to think it's going to be. and if you're all so worried about robots taking over your jobs i'd be more worried about self driving cars anyway
[QUOTE=June;48495295]Full automation is going to happen within the next hundred years whether people like it or not, and it's not going to be this huge problem like you all seem to think it's going to be. and if you're all so worried about robots taking over your jobs i'd be more worried about self driving cars anyway[/QUOTE]
I'm going to be honest, I don't understand what you're getting at all
Why you think it'll be a flawless transition is beyond me
Why you think self driving cars is a bigger problem is also beyond me.
The solution is painfully simple; a universal basic income. Everyone over the age of say 18 gets 25 grand a year, problem solved. Robots can't do things like design or program or conduct research so if you're not happy with your 25 grand you can go to school (which should be free) and you can get a job being a scientist or an artist or a teacher or whatever.
[editline]19th August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48495301]I'm going to be honest, I don't understand what you're getting at all
Why you think it'll be a flawless transition is beyond me
Why you think self driving cars is a bigger problem is also beyond me.[/QUOTE]
because the transportation industry is massive??? it's like one of the biggest industries in the us
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.