Is a Robot Going to Steal Your Job? (60 Minutes segment)

[mshan]

60 Minutes video clip on Automation and Technological Innovation Replacing Workers --> http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50154583n

Jack Welch, former chairman of General Electric (September 2012)


"one great statistic is most of these businesses are operating at about 70% or 80% of the 2007 peak in revenue.

their profitability is back to 2007/2008 levels.

because they cut the heck out of jobs.

yes. 30% fewer people working in these jobs.

and automation. the old belly to belly salesman is replaced with an ipad and other information. we don't have to have all these people chasing inventories.

the stories of productivity are incredible in these plants. you're not going to get some of those old jobs back. unless you get big demand. because you've got to put more people in the street for that. but in general, the stories are the same.

oh, we're recovering. yeah, we're back to 75% of where we were in '07. but our profits are back to where they were. but we're 30% down in people. it's a common theme. business after business after business."


http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000117011&play=1 (specific comments start at 2:34 mark)

"What we have come to know as 'the jobless recovery' may be the new post-recession norm, as employers rebuild their workforces from scratch, take more time to vet candidates, and find ways to operate with fewer workers," said Chief Executive Officer John Challenger.

"To put that in perspective ... basically, every one of the 8,030,000 jobs created between August 2003 and January 2008* plus another 700,000 were wiped out," Challenger said.

Challenger, however, said jobs were being added to the economy at a faster pace than in the previous two recessions.

The problem is that the job losses were huge.

"It is just taking longer to rebuild due to the fact that we started in a much deeper hole," Challenger said.


http://www.upi.com/Business_News/20...are-history/UPI-36981371758288/#ixzz2eLl3VcAd

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/30/the-asymmetric-recovery/?_r=0


* (I believe January 2008 was the peak of bubble economy employment)

 

[piasabird]

How about a computer program?

 

[mshan]

Software "robots" were mentioned in that video clip, along with physical robots.

The creator of the iRoomba has another physical robot that can be easily trained to perform simple manual tasks. He said it costs $22,000, has a life span of 3 years or 6500 hours, and that converts to an hourly wage equivalent of $3.40 / hr (pretty close to what a Chinese worker makes now).

So he said these types of robots can bring back jobs from China and India, but that those jobs would go to robots, not humans.


Software robot mentioned is some program law firms use to scan and sort material for discovery, and said it is replacing what used to take a hundred people to do.


Another segment had automated warehouse where robots moved everything around, and small number of workers did actual packaging of materials brought to them (robots, if they had to be replaced, would require 1 1/2 human workers).


MIT professors interviewed said robots trend is accelerating and might last several generations.

 

[boomerang]

So we require that robots pay income and SS taxes. Companies, from that perspective treat them as employees and we all get to sit on our asses and do nothing but check our bank accounts for the .gov deposits.

When boredom takes over we riot for more stuff.

 

[Engineer]

http://www.rethinkrobotics.com/products/baxter/

Cheap, Made in the USA (shocking) robot named Baxter. Easy to teach and very safe. Sort of slow. Might be better in the next iteration or two.

 

[mshan]

"So we require that robots pay income and SS taxes."

LOL, never thought about it from that angle.

It might actually worse in that I think they get written off on taxes through depreciation (?). I think there might have also been tax incentives a few years ago to prod companies into spending and upgrading factory equipment.

 

[mshan]

That's the one the iRoomba designer was talking about in the 60 Mnutes video clip (equivalent hourly wage is $3.40 / hr)

IIRC, video clip said companies had increased investment in automation by 30% during The Great Recession.

Also we forget about job stealing "robots" like automated airline ticket machines and SIRI like voice recognition programs.

Also said that four companies, Apple, Amazon, Google, and Facebook, have stock market capitalization of $1 trillion dollars, but only need 150,000 workers, in total (1/2 of workforce of General Electric).

 

[88keys]

I just wanna know when I can buy my own Terminator and how much it will cost.

 

[Engineer]

That's the one the iRoomba designer was talking about in the 60 Mnutes video clip (equivalent hourly wage is $3.40 / hr)

IIRC, video clip said companies had increased investment in automation by 30% during The Great Recession.

Also we forget about job stealing "robots" like automated airline ticket machines and SIRI like voice recognition programs.

Also said that four companies, Apple, Amazon, Google, and Facebook, have stock market capitalization of $1 trillion dollars, but only need 150,000 workers, in total (1/2 of workforce of General Electric).

I've seen this robot in action and it might be OK for low volume, easy stuff but it's not a direct robot replacement that needs high speed or accuracy (or longevity - real robots last much longer). We might be able to bring stuff back with this robot but I'm not sure how much it will steal away from the public. However, it is made in the USA so at least it provides jobs even if it replaces jobs. It's the only robot (I use that term lightly in this case) that I know of made in the USA.

 

[Paul98]

I've seen this robot in action and it might be OK for low volume, easy stuff but it's not a direct robot replacement that needs high speed or accuracy (or longevity - real robots last much longer). We might be able to bring stuff back with this robot but I'm not sure how much it will steal away from the public. However, it is made in the USA so at least it provides jobs even if it replaces jobs. It's the only robot (I use that term lightly in this case) that I know of made in the USA.

That may be right now, but as with all technology like this it's only going to get better, cheaper, faster.

 

[Engineer]

That may be right now, but as with all technology like this it's only going to get better, cheaper, faster.

That's why I said....

Might be better in the next iteration or two.

 

[shira]

My company has for years been trying to implement software automation, but it's proven to be extremely difficult for all but the most repetitive software tasks (for example, regression testing of relatively static applications). I've no doubt that almost all human tasks can be replaced with AI-driven robots, but (fortunately for most of us) that's probably several decades away.

Still, what will the world look like 50 or 80 years from now when almost anything that a human can do an automaton will be able to do better and far more cheaply?

 

[Engineer]

My company has for years been trying to implement software automation, but it's proven to be extremely difficult for all but the most repetitive software tasks (for example, regression testing of relatively static applications). I've no doubt that almost all human tasks can be replaced with AI-driven robots, but (fortunately for most of us) that's probably several decades away.

Still, what will the world look like 50 or 80 years from now when almost anything that a human can do an automaton will be able to do better and far more cheaply?

 

[Triumph]

i've always thought that people need to have a discussion concerning the logical end product of increasing automation, i.e. all tasks that humans need or even want to do are replaced by software or hardware automation, and everything is provided for you. avoid discussion of how we end up there, just assume that the trend continues at the current rate and at some point in the future, technology will be so advanced that we don't even need people to maintain the technology. so no low tech jobs and no high tech high skilled jobs, either. this would be disastrous for our species, the majority of people aren't wired to simply spend all of this new found free time pursuing artistic endeavors or philosophizing on our existence or researching the depths of time and space or going on archeological digs, purely through their own altruistic motivations. the average person needs structure, routine, and employment for the simple fact that it keeps them out of trouble. "an idle mind is the devil's workshop" as the old adage goes.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Much like cars, someone has to repair all of those robots when they bust. When they need a refuel. When it needs a new battery. When it needs a firmware upgrade.

It then becomes a matter of: Do you have the skills to repair it and know how it functions?

Adapt or die. A statement not just for living in a jungle....

 

[Doppel]

I started thinking about this during the recession. I realized a lot of people are economically worthless, and one day I probably will be, too.

Automation means we don't need people with few skills. They are just not worth even their paltry hourly rate.

Over time I believe unemployment will rise because the lower rungs will just not be worth employing.

One is initially inclined to think this is bad, e.g. [above] "(fortunately for most of us) that's probably several decades away". And to have it happen to one now, it is bad. However, most of us work because we have to, not because we want to. Many of us could find something else more enjoyable to do in our lives if we didn't have to labor to provide sustenance.

Ultimately we will be kept people, with fewer working, and a greater bulk of us essentially living on the labor of machines. Is this really a bad thing?

Should we lament that nobody will pay us to drive a truck? That we can't find work digging holes? Serving up food? Most of the low-rung jobs are crap anyway and automation replaces them first.

this would be disastrous for our species, the majority of people aren't wired to simply spend all of this new found free time pursuing artistic endeavors or philosophizing on our existence or researching the depths of time and space or going on archeological digs, purely through their own altruistic motivations. the average person needs structure, routine, and employment for the simple fact that it keeps them out of trouble. "an idle mind is the devil's workshop" as the old adage goes.

You may very well be right. But we know what this future looks like, it looks like Wall E.

Adapt or die.

This only works to a point. A typical 100 IQ person just does not have, nor ever will have, the intellectual competency to deal with an advanced system of any kind. They are employed now because they can drive a car, build a house, etc. When they are replaced by a cheaper and more efficient machine there will be nothing for them to do. They no longer have economic value, and so will live off whatever they are given by the government.

 

[yllus]

There's been a vigorous debate in software development circles about a post that warns the rest of us that automation and obsolescence is coming to our industry one day, too.

It's controversial because it's hard to believe when it's your industry being talked about, I think - but the fact of the matter is that "automation" has taken away things I used to bill a couple grand for. (Creating a basic CMS, user authentication system, etc.) I now work on harder problems because the easy stuff has been done to death and is available either for free or for very cheap.

It'll all end one day when we have software that can write software itself, but far before that we'll have reversed this trend of can't-get-enough-developers into a Detroit-like trickle into nonexistence.

Autoworkers of Our Generation

...

At this particular moment in history, demand for developers outpaces supply. There’s not enough staff to go around, so companies fight for talent: huge salaries, cool offices, flexible hours, in-house chef.

To upset the labor market, one of two things needs to happen: an increase in supply, or a decrease in demand.

The latter happened in the auto industry through automation. Today, you can accomplish with $30/month on Shopify what took $500,000 in custom development ten years ago. WordPress does in fifteen minutes what once kept a freelancer busy for two months. Stripe dropped the cost of credit card integration by five-figures.

On the supply side, Dev Bootcamp’s pumping out a dozen junior dev candidates every nine weeks. Starter League. gSchool. Hacker School. Want to teach yourself? Treehouse. Code School. Codecademy.

Maybe you don’t think a total n00b can walk out of a nine-week training program and do your job. But there’s something between that and a four-year, $80,000 Computer Science degree that’s going to work. The friction of entering our labor force is diminishing. Even the social stigma of being a programmer that for so long protected our ranks is going away.

...

It’s an obscenely good time to be a developer. Enjoy it while it lasts.

 

[fleshconsumed]

I started thinking about this during the recession. I realized a lot of people are economically worthless, and one day I probably will be, too.

Automation means we don't need people with few skills. They are just not worth even their paltry hourly rate.

Over time I believe unemployment will rise because the lower rungs will just not be worth employing.

One is initially inclined to think this is bad, e.g. [above] "(fortunately for most of us) that's probably several decades away". And to have it happen to one now, it is bad. However, most of us work because we have to, not because we want to. Many of us could find something else more enjoyable to do in our lives if we didn't have to labor to provide sustenance.

What you're saying has been said before: people only need so much to survive so one day through automation and technical revolution we will increase our production so much that we will effortlessly provide all of the human needs to the whole population with a lot of machines and only a fraction of population employed to design/take care of said machines. The rest of the population won't have to do anything because there will be no need.

I've heard this line of thinking many times again and again, and I think it's just never going to happen for one simple reason - greedy human nature. The top one percent that essentially owns everything in the country practically ensures that most of the productivity gains to them leaving nothing for the rest of the country. And the rest of the country is squeezed between rock and a hard place, on one hand they are being robbed of any productivity gains, and on the other they want more money and more things, so they work longer and harder.

Bottom line what you're talking about is utopia. It will never happen. Even if those people drop out of work force to find something else more enjoyable to do in their lives, who's going to provide food and shelter for them? The rest of society? Fat chance.

 

[Paul98]

I started thinking about this during the recession. I realized a lot of people are economically worthless, and one day I probably will be, too.

Automation means we don't need people with few skills. They are just not worth even their paltry hourly rate.

Over time I believe unemployment will rise because the lower rungs will just not be worth employing.

One is initially inclined to think this is bad, e.g. [above] "(fortunately for most of us) that's probably several decades away". And to have it happen to one now, it is bad. However, most of us work because we have to, not because we want to. Many of us could find something else more enjoyable to do in our lives if we didn't have to labor to provide sustenance.

Ultimately we will be kept people, with fewer working, and a greater bulk of us essentially living on the labor of machines. Is this really a bad thing?

Should we lament that nobody will pay us to drive a truck? That we can't find work digging holes? Serving up food? Most of the low-rung jobs are crap anyway and automation replaces them first.You may very well be right. But we know what this future looks like, it looks like Wall E. This only works to a point. A typical 100 IQ person just does not have, nor ever will have, the intellectual competency to deal with an advanced system of any kind. They are employed now because they can drive a car, build a house, etc. When they are replaced by a cheaper and more efficient machine there will be nothing for them to do. They no longer have economic value, and so will live off whatever they are given by the government.

This will end up as a great thing IF we don't destroy ourselves in the transition. It's going to be a rough transition from what humans have known to do to survive since our beginning. People will no longer have to do many things, yet people will still want to do many more.

 

[TridenT]

We'll always have work...

 

[woolfe9998]

Still, what will the world look like 50 or 80 years from now when almost anything that a human can do an automaton will be able to do better and far more cheaply?

We'll have to shift our political and economic paradigm to one which fits a world where unemployment and part time work are much higher than now. The increased productivity will make goods cheaper but half the populace won't be able to buy anything without a robust social safety net in place.

 

[xBiffx]

Worked as an automation engineer for almost a decade. Most of which has been spent installing and implementing robotics for that automation.

Never have I seen a robot replace a human worker. The human worker's job merely changes but they are always still employed. Someone has to be there to watch and feed/load the automation with materials.

 

[woolfe9998]

Worked as an automation engineer for almost a decade. Most of which has been spent installing and implementing robotics for that automation.

Never have I seen a robot replace a human worker. The human worker's job merely changes but they are always still employed. Someone has to be there to watch and feed/load the automation with materials.

Doesn't make any sense. If you're going to use a robot for physical labor, and you need one human to oversee every robot, then it costs more that way. No reason to even use the robot.

 

[Engineer]

Worked as an automation engineer for almost a decade. Most of which has been spent installing and implementing robotics for that automation.

Never have I seen a robot replace a human worker. The human worker's job merely changes but they are always still employed. Someone has to be there to watch and feed/load the automation with materials.

You load it on one end and get final product out on the other. If you have too many people, it's not cost effective and you're doing it wrong. Of course, there are those plants that try to automate everything at any cost only to find out that it costs too much and doesn't work well with a robot or machine. Of course, the people designing the automation and writing the programs could have done a shitty job and then you have to park people watching the robots 24/7 just to keep them going.

<-- worked as an automation engineer for 20 years and still do.

On a side note, one of the 'big selling features' of Baxtor (above) is that it doesn't take a controls/automation engineer to set it up. You can 'teach' it by moving the arms around and hitting a teach button. Baxtor is also supposed to be extremely safe in that it can sense hitting other objects and stop. Of course, those are to eliminate people like me programming and setting them up and to eliminate the plants from having to erect fences and safety devices around robot cells. I'm not sure how well that will work (at least for now).

 

[BoberFett]

i've always thought that people need to have a discussion concerning the logical end product of increasing automation, i.e. all tasks that humans need or even want to do are replaced by software or hardware automation, and everything is provided for you. avoid discussion of how we end up there, just assume that the trend continues at the current rate and at some point in the future, technology will be so advanced that we don't even need people to maintain the technology. so no low tech jobs and no high tech high skilled jobs, either. this would be disastrous for our species, the majority of people aren't wired to simply spend all of this new found free time pursuing artistic endeavors or philosophizing on our existence or researching the depths of time and space or going on archeological digs, purely through their own altruistic motivations. the average person needs structure, routine, and employment for the simple fact that it keeps them out of trouble. "an idle mind is the devil's workshop" as the old adage goes.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=30165262