Rise of the Robots: Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Rise of the Robots: Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future



The 'Jobless Future' Is A Myth

Ford is currently giving appreciative interviews left and right, as his message of “the jobless future” sweeps the media. Others such as Bill Gates, Elon Musk, and Steve Wozniak have expressed similar concerns. Many mainstream social scientists have accepted the findings. The conclusions, writes the Wall Street Journal, are “all but inevitable.”

Inevitable but wrong.

The Flaws In The Reasoning

  • There are a number of flaws in the reasoning in Ford’s book.
  • One flaw is the underlying assumption that whatever is feasible will occur. In science fiction, this may be true, but not in real life.


The fact that a Concorde can fly faster than a Boeing 767 doesn’t mean that Concordes replace 767s. The outcome depends on the costs and benefits of developing and operating the two types of aircraft. Airlines and airline passengers have not embraced Concordes because it’s not economical to do so.

Similarly, the fact that a computer can do something better than a human being doesn’t mean that the computer will replace the human being. The market will determine whether it is economical to do so, given the costs and perceived benefits.

A second flaw in the reasoning is the implicit assumption that computers with miraculous performance capabilities can be developed, built, marketed, sold, operated and replicated at practically zero cost and that they will have zero secondary employment effects. In reality, huge teams of people are often necessary to perform these tasks at considerable cost. So it’s not obvious either, on the one hand, that the necessary investments will be made or, on the other hand, that the secondary effects of the innovation on employment will be irrelevant or negative..




I will say this : 15 / 25 dollar an hour min wage will bring about automation in fast food industry's
... also IMHO that would be the end of tipping waitresses and bar tenders
[except perhaps in upscale places]




this was interesting :

But surely computers are already replacing humans, doomsayers like Ford cry. We can see it every day! Machines are cheaper and better and more reliable! ATMs are replacing bank tellers! PCs are replacing secretaries!


A friend of mine is in fact A Bank Teller [in Michigan] she will soon lose her Sat shift because the Credit Union she works for is replacing the ATM with an ITM or

Interactive Teller Machine

All of the branches are getting these machines.
From now on, someone in a 'Central Office' will handle the Interactive part remotely.
She could pick up a Sat Shift working in the remote site, but has no interest in driving the 45 min to the main branch.
 
Last edited:

Kyle

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!
PREMO Member
I wonder how long before they replace the progbots with real bots.

that could save Soros a lot of money.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
I wonder how long before they replace the progbots with real bots.

that could save Soros a lot of money.


there have been experiments with 'AI' computers responding to 'on line' chat ....
 

tommyjo

New Member
I will say this : 15 / 25 dollar an hour min wage will bring about automation in fast food industry's
... also IMHO that would be the end of tipping waitresses and bar tenders
[except perhaps in upscale places]

Why would a $15 an hour minimum wage ONLY impact fast food? A rise in the minimum wage puts upward pressure on most hourly jobs. Of course the fallacy of your position, is that $15 would happen immediately after passage. Min wage doesn't work that way. Gilligan has been consistently wrong in his projections about Seattle...and likely so are you...but for different reasons.


A second flaw in the reasoning is the implicit assumption that computers with miraculous performance capabilities can be developed, built, marketed, sold, operated and replicated at practically zero cost and that they will have zero secondary employment effects. In reality, huge teams of people are often necessary to perform these tasks at considerable cost. So it’s not obvious either, on the one hand, that the necessary investments will be made or, on the other hand, that the secondary effects of the innovation on employment will be irrelevant or negative..

No one expects computers to have zero cost. That's a really dumb comment. A computer/robot can have the exact same cost as a human, in fact it can cost MORE and still be a wise business investment because it can do the same job more efficiently with higher output thereby increasing profit. (Not really a hard concept to understand.)

The reality of the techno revolution is not a "jobless future". The reality is that jobs will be different. They will require a different skill set. The redundant, repetitive jobs will be taken over more and more by machines. We will be complimentary to machines vs today's reality where machines compliment human work. The impact on individuals will be that those will no trade craft, no higher educational attainment or no business acumen will be doomed to the lowest rungs of the economic ladder.

Bank tellers are slowly becoming a thing of the past. Go into a bank branch on payday and look around...think what that was like 20-30 years ago.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Poor article.

The fact that a Concorde can fly faster than a Boeing 767 doesn’t mean that Concordes replace 767s. The outcome depends on the costs and benefits of developing and operating the two types of aircraft. Airlines and airline passengers have not embraced Concordes because it’s not economical to do so.

Similarly, the fact that a computer can do something better than a human being doesn’t mean that the computer will replace the human being. The market will determine whether it is economical to do so, given the costs and perceived benefits.

By definition, no one, NO ONE is going to utilize a robot if it costs more. His argument about the Concorde is nonsensical. For it to mean anything, it would have to be 'people chose to drive rather than fly because the Concorde is too expensive.' Well, other JET aircraft are chosen as the acceptable, economical solution. Not driving. Not walking. Same goes for his comment about computers. If he's too young to have even a basic grasp of how many jobs computers have eliminated, maybe he should finish middle school before going into journalism full time.

He should have titled the piece; "Examples of non sequiturs"
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
The reality of the techno revolution is not a "jobless future". The reality is that jobs will be different. They will require a different skill set. The redundant, repetitive jobs will be taken over more and more by machines. We will be complimentary to machines vs today's reality where machines compliment human work. The impact on individuals will be that those will no trade craft, no higher educational attainment or no business acumen will be doomed to the lowest rungs of the economic ladder.

Bank tellers are slowly becoming a thing of the past. Go into a bank branch on payday and look around...think what that was like 20-30 years ago.

The reality IS that we WILL need less and less jobs, period. It's already happening. Global demographics are way out in front of labor needs. WAY out in front. We need to get a lot of really uneducated people's to stop ####ing. And soon.
 

glhs837

Power with Control
The reality IS that we WILL need less and less jobs, period. It's already happening. Global demographics are way out in front of labor needs. WAY out in front. We need to get a lot of really uneducated people's to stop ####ing. And soon.


This. Well, it's not that they stop #$%^(&*, so much as they need to stop making babies when they do that.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
This. Well, it's not that they stop #$%^(&*, so much as they need to stop making babies when they do that.

There's always at least one needing clarification. :lol:

This is why we will lose to Islam over time in Western Europe and, absent Mexicans, the US. They're simply going to out baby the West and Western values.
 

glhs837

Power with Control
There's always at least one needing clarification. :lol:

This is why we will lose to Islam over time in Western Europe and, absent Mexicans, the US. They're simply going to out baby the West and Western values.


But an important clarification, given that @$%#$%# is the one free and morally allowed entertainment for both Muslims (conditionally, of course) and the billions in China and India. One science fiction book I read had the combined first world powers forcibly modernizing the third world. Both the migitgate the health/overpopulation risk, and to add more consumers/markets. Fresh water, good electrical power, pefab housing, oh, and infertility treatments.
 

glhs837

Power with Control
Consumers. We don't need workers. We need consumers. When we come to grips with what that means, we'll be fine.

I think we all know what that means....

screen-shot-2015-04-18-at-3-48-11-pm.jpg

wall e.jpg
 

glhs837

Power with Control
What's the alternative?

For the next 50-75 years? Nothing, just hang in there and try to avoid a pandemic or a nuclear decimation. After that, birth restrictions on the planet, everywhere. Your country doesnt want to place restrictions, it's sanction city, baby, until you starve back to a sustainable population. Lifeboat rules. The whole damn planet is a lifeboat. You want to breed beyond a single child, head on out to the colonies. Go to Mars or the belt, or the moon. Not even a double child limit per couple, that's replacement and we need to not keep trying to keep more than six billion people alive. Draw down over time. Brutal? Sure, but lets face it, at some point, we all need to realize that it's really a species survival thing.
 
Top