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

[Engineer]

Its being accomplished by that same person that is being helped. It just makes that person's job safer and/or easier.

Did you even read the article before you posted it? Its quite clear that its talking about augmenting a human worker and not replacing them.

Do you honestly think that the spokesman for BMW is going to come out and say 'hey, look, were replacing workers with more advanced robots'? Really?

You can believe what you want and I'm tired of 'fooling' with you. I've sat on both sides of integration and have saw the justification of automation and robots in actual head count reduction as well as the downsizing of plant personnel as the automation was added (yes, people were let go). You can live in your own fantasy land if you wish. Companies don't put this stuff in just for shits and giggles.

 

[BoberFett]

Its being accomplished by that same person that is being helped. It just makes that person's job safer and/or easier.

Did you even read the article before you posted it? Its quite clear that its talking about augmenting a human worker and not replacing them.

/facepalm

Of course the robot didn't replace the worker who is still there. It replaced the worker that would have been there if the robot hadn't been.

 

[BoberFett]

Do you honestly think that the spokesman for BMW is going to come out and say 'hey, look, were replacing workers with more advanced robots'? Really?

You can believe what you want and I'm tired of 'fooling' with you. I've sat on both sides of integration and have saw the justification of automation and robots in actual head count reduction as well as the downsizing of plant personnel as the automation was added. You can live in your own fantasy land if you wish.

Clearly what Biff is trying to say is that movable type, the printing press, and word processors did nothing to eliminate scribes or later secretary typing pools. Inside every computer is a tiny secretary just waiting for you to write a letter, she then types up several copies and carries through the network cable over to the the tiny person living inside your printer who feeds them out onto the tray.

See? No jobs were lost. People are simply getting smaller.

 

[xBiffx]

/facepalm

Of course the robot didn't replace the worker who is still there. It replaced the worker that would have been there if the robot hadn't been.

There wasn't one. That's the point. Those people had to do those unsafe and difficult things as part of their job. Now they don't which enhances safety as well as improves production because those people can focus on other tasks without wearing themselves down with difficult tasks.

For example:

While many fear that this trend could put people out of work (see “How Technology Is Destroying Jobs&#8221, proponents argue it will instead make employees more productive, relieving them of the most unpleasant and burdensome jobs.

And:

According to Bartscher, final assembly robots will not replace human workers; they will extend their careers. “Our workers are getting older,” Bartscher says. “The retirement age in Germany just rose from 65 to 67, and I’m pretty sure when I retire it’ll be 72 or something. We actually need something to compensate and keep our workforce healthy, and keep them in labor for a long time. We want to get the robots to support the humans.”

And:

The robots are working with a door sealant that keeps sound and water out of the car, and is applied before the door casing is attached. “It’s pretty heavy work because you have to roll this glue line to the door,” says Stefan Bartscher, head of innovation at BMW. “If you do that several times a day, it’s like playing a Wimbledon match.”

No where in that article is a robot shown as replacing someone. Its the opposite.

The real /facepalm is you bringing an article that self-owns your position.

 

[xBiffx]

Clearly what Biff is trying to say is that movable type, the printing press, and word processors did nothing to eliminate scribes or later secretary typing pools. Inside every computer is a tiny secretary just waiting for you to write a letter, she then types up several copies and carries through the network cable over to the the tiny person living inside your printer who feeds them out onto the tray.

See? No jobs were lost. People are simply getting smaller.

Clearly you can't admit that you are wrong and have to resort to a straw man. Augmenting a person to be able to do their job better isn't the same as replacing them. Your examples are exactly that. Movable type didn't replace the scribe, it changed their job from writing words into books to feeding a machine that printed them.

Eventually technology changes things so much that the job itself is no longer needed but that takes many many years. Like the computer eliminating the scribe. Now we don't even need to print the book. Its not like this happens immediately. I mentioned this change and also acknowledged it takes years to happen several pages back but you are stuck on stupid try to argue against a position/statement I never made.

There is a huge difference between acutely replacing a worker directly and the job phasing out after many years due to changes in technology. I also said this many pages ago.

And yet again, neither the OP nor your point with the article (which has already fallen flat) are talking about many many years of change, they are talking about an immediate replacement of jobs.

 

[Zaap]

...word processors did nothing to eliminate scribes or later secretary typing pools.

I'm usually in agreement with you, but that's actually about the worst example you could possibly cite.

More people are getting paid to write more words today than ever before precisely because computers and the internet have put that capability into just about everyone's hands.

 

[BoberFett]

I'm usually in agreement with you, but that's actually about the worst example you could possibly cite.

More people are getting paid to write more words today than ever before precisely because computers and the internet have put that capability into just about everyone's hands.

It doesn't change the fact that the actual distribution of printed materials requires almost no manpower compared to hundreds of years ago.

 

[Doppel]

I remeber fellow classmates and teachers throughout the 80's and 90's both lamenting and celebrating the idea that we'd have flying cars and would live in cities in the sky by the year 2000.

No need worrying about something that hasn't happened yet.

Anyone in the 90's who thought we'd have that by 2000 is a moron. Also, your statement is one of a consumer; not an inventor. Technology is not stumbled upon by people with a view as yours but rather created and discovered by people who question "what if?".


I genuinely cannot understand xbiff how you have this view of robots. You seem to embrace the idea that a automotive line bringing in robots is not having those robots replace work a human could do.

Simply let us return to my earlier excavator example. I run a work crew and we dig ditches. I have 15 employees. I buy an excavator. Now I don need 15 employees I need one. Say goodbye to 14 jobs.

 

[Zaap]

It doesn't change the fact that the actual distribution of printed materials requires almost no manpower compared to hundreds of years ago.

How so? Did they have IT departments, data centers, online bookstores, etc. etc. 100's of years ago?

Simply let us return to my earlier excavator example. I run a work crew and we dig ditches. I have 15 employees. I buy an excavator. Now I don need 15 employees I need one. Say goodbye to 14 jobs.

And say hello to how many new jobs designing/building/maintaining excavators? The more demand for excavators, the more jobs surrounding them. And gee, I wonder which is the better job? Ditch digger, or excavator mechanic/builder/designer?

 

[chucky2]

Robots may steal our jobs eventually but the far larger problem is one of population management. The simple fact is that women want to pump out babies - in the plural. Until we can get women to somehow stop pumping out babies and instead pump out baby or have nothing, we're going to have ever growing impacts and ever harder mitigations to those impacts.

When people don't have to go to work all day, does anyone seriously think the population, already way higher than it needs to be, is going to be less? What are people going to do in all that spare time?

Chuck

 

[xBiffx]

I genuinely cannot understand xbiff how you have this view of robots. You seem to embrace the idea that a automotive line bringing in robots is not having those robots replace work a human could do.

From my first post in this thread it should be obvious. This hasn't been my experience. My experience is that automation is implemented to improve a worker's job, not take it away.

It also not like a couple of articles posted within the thread haven't backed that up either. Yeah, I guess it could be confusing to understand my position.

 

[shira]

From my first post in this thread it should be obvious. This hasn't been my experience. My experience is that automation is implemented to improve a worker's job, not take it away.

It also not like a couple of articles posted within the thread haven't backed that up either. Yeah, I guess it could be confusing to understand my position.

Why on Earth wouldn't companies want to do the same amount of work (or even more work) with fewer employees? The only reason I can think of that "your experience" hasn't seen the elimination of jobs is that - so far - the companies you deal with aren't yet able to eliminate jobs. But it's insane to believe that companies don't want to reduce payroll while maintaining or increasing production.

 

[xBiffx]

Why on Earth wouldn't companies want to do the same amount of work (or even more work) with fewer employees? The only reason I can think of that "your experience" hasn't seen the elimination of jobs is that - so far - the companies you deal with aren't yet able to eliminate jobs. But it's insane to believe that companies don't want to reduce payroll while maintaining or increasing production.

In the end, the employee is just a means to an end, so is the automation. They are both tools. The end result is to produce as much as possible with the least costs. That second part is the sticking point with automation.

There are many processes that don't lend themselves to being fully, and in some cases, even partially automated due to technology or costs. There are very few jobs right now that can be completely displaced simply by installing automation. Much more common is to offset certain, usually extremely simple but cumbersome, parts of a job with automation. But to completely replace a person can be too costly and would be a net loss. That will certainly change in the future, but its not the case today, for the most part.

So, to get back to your point, no the goal is not to reduce payroll. The goal is to increase output and at the same time either maintaining or reducing costs. If installing automation reduces payroll but increase your overall costs (due to capital, depreciation, operating, etc.) then a company doesn't normally do it.

 

[BoberFett]

How so? Did they have IT departments, data centers, online bookstores, etc. etc. 100's of years ago?


And say hello to how many new jobs designing/building/maintaining excavators? The more demand for excavators, the more jobs surrounding them. And gee, I wonder which is the better job? Ditch digger, or excavator mechanic/builder/designer?

Thanks for making my point for me. We now have data centers that are maintained by a handful of people that do work which would require millions of people to do by hand. Think of how many telephone operators would be employed if not for modern network switching to process calls and Google to find the phone number.

So far we have been relatively successful at "re-purposing" workers who used to do those things. Eventually though, you run out of work that can be done by unskilled workers. We're starting to see that now. Technology is making the lower tiers of workers obsolete. Eventually it will start moving up the chain and making higher and higher classes of workers obsolete as well.

 

[Doppel]

And say hello to how many new jobs designing/building/maintaining excavators? The more demand for excavators, the more jobs surrounding them. And gee, I wonder which is the better job? Ditch digger, or excavator mechanic/builder/designer?

In which world do you live that a now-out-of-work ditch digger who's primary skill is shoveling dirt now finds himself as an engineer or a mechanic? Surely such a clever fellow wouldn't have continued to shovel dirt if he was able to work in those capacities already.

There are very few jobs right now that can be completely displaced simply by installing automation. Much more common is to offset certain, usually extremely simple but cumbersome, parts of a job with automation. But to completely replace a person can be too costly and would be a net loss. That will certainly change in the future, but its not the case today, for the most part.

xbiff, it seems your last statement agrees with the assertions many of us are making. Robots are not yet murdering (they are only starting to beat up) employment, but they will increasingly do so.

So, to get back to your point, no the goal is not to reduce payroll. The goal is to increase output and at the same time either maintaining or reducing costs. If installing automation reduces payroll but increase your overall costs (due to capital, depreciation, operating, etc.) then a company doesn't normally do it.

And if it reduces overall costs they do it, ergo purchase of excavator. One of automation's goals is the same as outsourcing: cost reduction.

So far we have been relatively successful at "re-purposing" workers who used to do those things. Eventually though, you run out of work that can be done by unskilled workers. We're starting to see that now. Technology is making the lower tiers of workers obsolete. Eventually it will start moving up the chain and making higher and higher classes of workers obsolete as well.

This is the essence of the argument.Technology has already MURDERED jobs, from farming to construction to IT, manufacturing. Those who have lost those jobs and/or those who haven't been hired because technology is doing what they otherwise would have done, are okayISH because they are finding new jobs. But, as mentioned, this only works as long as there is a constant supply of new low-skilled jobs invented.

 

[xBiffx]

This is the essence of the argument.Technology has already MURDERED jobs, from farming to construction to IT, manufacturing. Those who have lost those jobs and/or those who haven't been hired because technology is doing what they otherwise would have done, are okayISH because they are finding new jobs. But, as mentioned, this only works as long as there is a constant supply of new low-skilled jobs invented.

That's not the argument of the article/video of the OP and so far it doesn't look like its much of an argument here (i.e. no one is arguing the contrary).

This whole thread started with a chicken little sensationalist segment from 60 minutes designed to frighten people and assign some of the blame for current unemployment levels. None of this has anything to do with current events or the immediate future, just like it has taken time to "murder" (even more sensationalizing for impact, love it) those jobs its going to take time for it to continue to happen. Society will cope and there doesn't appear to be much to get alarmed over, like 60 minutes wants.

 

[BoberFett]

This whole thread started with a chicken little sensationalist segment from 60 minutes designed to frighten people and assign some of the blame for current unemployment levels. None of this has anything to do with current events or the immediate future, just like it has taken time to "murder" (even more sensationalizing for impact, love it) those jobs its going to take time for it to continue to happen. Society will cope and there doesn't appear to be much to get alarmed over, like 60 minutes wants.

You're right, all those burger flipping and shelf stocking jobs that are making up our economic "recovery" are vastly superior to the ditch digging job that came before it. Until burgers are made and shelves are stocked by robots. And that WILL happen.

I'm not proposing a solution, but to ignore that it's a problem in the making is just willful ignorance.

 

[Zaap]

Thanks for making my point for me. We now have data centers that are maintained by a handful of people that do work which would require millions of people to do by hand.

No. We have data centers handling data and people employed running/designing/building/selling every box in them that are all professions that simply didn't exist before, handling an increased demand that wasn't there before.

Think of how many telephone operators would be employed if not for modern network switching to process calls and Google to find the phone number.

I just don't understand this line of thinking. So it'd be better to run an economy on the inefficiency of employing lots of people to switch millions of calls by hand, than it would to reap the benefits of all the opportunities, technologies and yes, new jobs that all the increases in faster/better/cheaper communications provides?

The thing I find impossible about your argument is anyone can travel the world and go to places that have very little technology and automation. In just about any of them, there's no guarantee everyone has a job, in fact, jobs are probably scarce. Most of them are probably utter shitholes. Most are at best more agrarian where the average job is more about eeking out mere survival than it is being a redundant telephone operator.

Eventually though, you run out of work that can be done by unskilled workers. We're starting to see that now.

People made this same argument though 100 years ago... holy cow, inventing the train will replace the job of delivering everything via covered wagon- but those arguing such things weren't taking into account that greater level of economic activity that linking the country via fast transportation brought- to name but one example. Instead of the closed idea of protecting one rickety business model of 10-15 people plodding along delivering things via a slow and outdated method, entire industries employing thousands sprang up merely because goods and services moved that much faster.

Automation speeding up an assembly line- even it it displaces a few autoworkers, it makes the car cheaper. What was once just a rich person's playtoy becomes a taxi/delivery driver's occupation, feeds the parts supplier and mechanic industries, and the masses are able to drive out to where they can buy goods that employ a hell of a lot more people.

I just don't understand this fear of automation and advance of technology. People opposed to it always cite the example of a singular industry that in worst case sheds some workers, (Oh noes, the poor ditch diggers and telephone operators!) but they never account for all the potential increased economic activity that results as you've made something cheaper/easier to produce, or acknowledge all the side industries that get created to make/service the tools of automation that someone else uses.

I'd bet most of us here owe our current jobs to advances in technology that happened in the past few decades. I know I sure as hell do.

I simply wouldn't have my job if computers were still huge mainframes that exist only for the absolute top tier of corporations to possess. Gee, I guess many people aren't still employed to put vacuum tubes into mainframes as whatever automated processes helps pump out so many computers that the things are practically giveaways- but the increase in economic activity by putting a computer into the hand of just about everyone has more than outweighed some backward thinking desire to protect the jobs of a few vacuum tube installers.

Also, I don't personally believe an economy should be driven by its least-skilled workers, so that whole line of reasoning seems flawed to me. It's up to individuals to keep up with technology and develop skills that match the times they live in.

 

[Darwin333]

That has a whole lot more to do with China than robots and I think you know that.

The graph is output versus employees required for said output. If it was just total employees then you might have a point.

 

[Zaap]

In which world do you live that a now-out-of-work ditch digger who's primary skill is shoveling dirt now finds himself as an engineer or a mechanic?

In which world do you live where no one can ever better themselves, and thinks counting on a lifetime of being qualified to do nothing but dig ditches is a smart outlook?

In your mythical ditch-digging business/social club/ticket to prosperity for the low-skilled, the employer it isn't actually keeping 55 year olds with broken backs around to dig ditches. Eventually the professional ditch digger is let go anyway, replaced by a 20-something who can still actually- you know, dig ditches. This is not a lifetime employment gig except in debate-fantasyland.

So yes, once more, no matter how you slice it, eventually individuals have to better themselves and keep up with the technology of the times they live in. What happens to ditch diggers when they can no longer dig a ditch or someone gets a machine that can do what they did? I dunno- maybe the drive the machine, or work in the back office lining up where the next ditch will be dug, or they supervise someone else using the machine, you know, probably after learning to use some terrible advance in technology. Otherwise, I guess they just fade away.

 

[BoberFett]

No. We have data centers handling data and people employed running/designing/building/selling every box in them that are all professions that simply didn't exist before, handling an increased demand that wasn't there before.

Really? You think the same person who previously did a menial task is qualified to step in designing datacenters?

I just don't understand this line of thinking. So it'd be better to run an economy on the inefficiency of employing lots of people to switch millions of calls by hand, than it would to reap the benefits of all the opportunities, technologies and yes, new jobs that all the increases in faster/better/cheaper communications provides?

I'm not advocating that at all. But it's folly to ignore the result of technological improvements in the workplace and how it affects low skill workers. Some people are only qualified to flip burgers. When a burger flipping robot eliminates their job, they're not going to retrain to repair the robot. They're going to be unemployed. And even if someone is able to be retrained to repair robots, not every robot will require a dedicate service person. Reality will be more like one much more capable person will be responsible for 50 of those robots. And if each of those robots replaces 10 burger flippers, you now have 500 people being replaced by 50 robots and 1 human being.

The thing I find impossible about your argument is anyone can travel the world and go to places that have very little technology and automation. In just about any of them, there's no guarantee everyone has a job, in fact, jobs are probably scarce. Most of them are probably utter shitholes. Most are at best more agrarian where the average job is more about eeking out mere survival than it is being a redundant telephone operator.

But yet everyone has a job. Their job is survival. It's a shitty job, but it's what they do. When people in the US are unemployed due to massive improvements in robotics, will they be expected to become agrarian and spend their days surviving? Will they get welfare? That's the discussion being had here.

People made this same argument though 100 years ago... holy cow, inventing the train will replace the job of delivering everything via covered wagon- but those arguing such things weren't taking into account that greater level of economic activity that linking the country via fast transportation brought- to name but one example. Instead of the closed idea of protecting one rickety business model of 10-15 people plodding along delivering things via a slow and outdated method, entire industries employing thousands sprang up merely because goods and services moved that much faster.

Then to follow this to it's logical end, when we invent teleporters and anything in the world can be transported anywhere immediately and for free, what will all those displaced UPS and FedEx workers be doing? Technology eliminates jobs, it's as simple as that. And it's good that it does, as it frees of humans to do other things. Unfortunately we're to the point where it's freeing humans up to do... nothing. Especially when those displaced employees now can't even take part in the economy.

Automation speeding up an assembly line- even it it displaces a few autoworkers, it makes the car cheaper. What was once just a rich person's playtoy becomes a taxi/delivery driver's occupation, feeds the parts supplier and mechanic industries, and the masses are able to drive out to where they can buy goods that employ a hell of a lot more people.

And when cars are driverless we will now need no more drivers, meaning millions of taxi and truck drivers will become... poets? Artists? Musicians?

I just don't understand this fear of automation and advance of technology. People opposed to it always cite the example of a singular industry that in worst case sheds some workers, (Oh noes, the poor ditch diggers and telephone operators!) but they never account for all the potential increased economic activity that results as you've made something cheaper/easier to produce, or acknowledge all the side industries that get created to make/service the tools of automation that someone else uses.

Who said anything about fearing technology? It's simply dealing with the reality that technology and automation allow fewer people to do more work. Those people will always be the cream of the crop, the smartest, most productive people. Anybody who does not meet the cutoff for intelligence or ability will be unemployable, because the value they create is lower than the cost to employ them. Unless we have a makework job for those people, they will be unemployed.

I'd bet most of us here owe our current jobs to advances in technology that happened in the past few decades. I know I sure as hell do.

I simply wouldn't have my job if computers were still huge mainframes that exist only for the absolute top tier of corporations to possess. Gee, I guess many people aren't still employed to put vacuum tubes into mainframes as whatever automated processes helps pump out so many computers that the things are practically giveaways- but the increase in economic activity by putting a computer into the hand of just about everyone has more than outweighed some backward thinking desire to protect the jobs of a few vacuum tube installers.

Good for you. So you're suggesting the burger flippers should all get into the technology field? Imagine what that would do to the demand for your skillset, if suddenly there were millions of people qualified to do your job. Be careful what you wish for...

Also, I don't personally believe an economy should be driven by its least-skilled workers, so that whole line of reasoning seems flawed to me. It's up to individuals to keep up with technology and develop skills that match the times they live in.

Talk about ignorant and elitist...

 

[Zaap]

Really? You think the same person who previously did a menial task is qualified to step in designing datacenters?

Man, I know you're swifter than this.

It's not the same person, but today, are you better off learning what a data center is and how to do a job that orbits around them existing- or are you better off learning how to operate a phone switchboard from 1940? Come on.

I'm not advocating that at all. But it's folly to ignore the result of technological improvements in the workplace and how it affects low skill workers. Some people are only qualified to flip burgers. When a burger flipping robot eliminates their job, they're not going to retrain to repair the robot. They're going to be unemployed.

This is just a moot argument for anything. You simply can't survive in this world only knowing how to flip burgers, anymore than it was smart to try and survive in 1913 only knowing how to fix buggy whips. It's just that simple.

The reality is, the rest of the world isn't going to stand still to accommodate the unskilled forever. This has never been true, so I don't understand why people think it will suddenly become true.

But yet everyone has a job. Their job is survival. It's a shitty job, but it's what they do.

That's simply not true. There are PLENTY of places with no automation, low adoption of tech advances and rampant high unemployment. I can't believe people are actually trying to mount an argument that makes the third world out to be the ideal of society.

Then to follow this to it's logical end, when we invent teleporters and anything in the world can be transported anywhere immediately and for free, what will all those displaced UPS and FedEx workers be doing?

Geeze man, really? So if I can instantly transport physical goods, you honestly think that won't spark more economic activity than trying to save the jobs of a relative handful of FedEx workers? I'm sorry, but I just can't even fathom an outlook as backward-thinking as yours is on this subject.

First off, you'd still need plenty of people to deliver things until literally everything was possible to be teleported. In the interim, everyone doing a delivery job would have time to read the writing on the wall and get into something else- and only idiots would try to start fresh into the workforce as delivery drivers. (Refer to: starting a career as a buggy-whip maker in say, 1908).

Technology eliminates jobs, it's as simple as that.

It's not as simple as that- it makes new jobs that previously were impossible or never even thought of before possible. How many people in 1913 would have thought that later in the same century you could be employed in space exploration, or as a computer engineer? But it happened.

Unfortunately we're to the point where it's freeing humans up to do... nothing.

Bullshit. The thought you've put into this is what amounts to nothing. You simply can't imagine that there are jobs and careers based on future technolgies that don't exist yet, the same as there have always been. You suffer from the delusion that everything needs to stay the way it is, in order to preserve an outdated vision of what you think should be the pinacle of technology. If a more efficient way of doing something comes along, you desire to stifle it so that you can preserve a few jobs that are based on a more inefficient method. What can I say, it's just shortsightedness on your part.

Imagine taking your backward outlook to medicine (which, given that we're handing it over in part to bureaucrats is what we're going to see more and more). So right now, today, there are tons of people making a living treating cancer and all sorts of diseases. A part of the economy is driven by that fact. So in your view, if someone comes along and cures cancer, they innovation should be stifled, because *boo hoo sniffle sniffle* what will somebody do who's job is doing chemo? So cancer sufferers can just die, stifle the innovation, just keep those jobs treating cancer around.

And when cars are driverless we will now need no more drivers, meaning millions of taxi and truck drivers will become... poets? Artists? Musicians?

The day cars are really driverless everyone will be employed doing accident cleanup, and morgues will be jumping. Don't kid yourself.

Who said anything about fearing technology? It's simply dealing with the reality that technology and automation allow fewer people to do more work.

And again, you only focus on one end of it, while completely dismissing the more important side. In your world, you're still lamenting the demise of the buggy whip maker. So WHY the hell are you pretending to give a shit about taxi drivers or whoever else in your driverless car fantasy. According to your mindset, the car should never have even existed or been made on a mass assembly line faster/cheaper so that millions could afford one. You don't even seem to acknowledge that that brought more economic activity than preserving your damn buggy whip job ever would have.

Good for you. So you're suggesting the burger flippers should all get into the technology field?

I'm suggesting they live in the 201x's and beyond, not expecting the world to stay 2013 forever. It won't. If someone eventually makes a robot to do their job- then it's time to move on. It's just that simple. Not my fault, that's how the world works. Meanwhile, it's not actually all that likely to happen.

We've long since had farming (for one example) possible to be much more automated than it is, but currently we're stuck in a loop of it being cheaper to bring in tons of unskilled labor to do it rather than make it more efficient. So actually, what tens of thousands of Americans don't actually realize, is they've traded some decent job somewhere in the chain of designing/building/servicing automated farm equipment, with doing some other shitty job because someone else sold them a bill of goods that the only way to afford food is having an army of slaves here to harvest it.

Imagine what that would do to the demand for your skillset, if suddenly there were millions of people qualified to do your job.

NEWSFLASH: Literally MILLIONS of people DO do my job! Because it's nqw been made possible, thanks to technology, and now there's an insane demand for it that never existed before.

That's where your faulty imagination is failing you. The world your afraid of is ALREADY HERE. It's been here for some time.

 

[BoberFett]

Pull your head out of your ass for just a moment and stop trying to make out like I'm some sort of Luddite, you buffoon.

I'm not lamenting the buggy whip maker, only point out that eventually technology will pass many people by. It's great of you to say that everyone should just become geniuses and teach themselves nanorobotics or quantum physics because that's the job of the future. But it's not reality.

Eventually there will be underclass of people who will simply vote away your money. Stick your head in the sand if you want, just don't complain about "socialism" when reality doesn't match your ignorant view of the world.

 

[simpletron]

I don't understand why automation and technology MUST be a destroyer of jobs. Take virtually any industry: it was born from some technology improvement; that industry's employment grew as it become more economically viable with more automation and technology improvements; then eventually the industry reaches market saturation and further improvements start reducing the industry's employment. So the real question is technology creating more jobs than it is destroying? I haven't heard a convincing argument for technology is destroying more than creating for an entire economy.

It's great of you to say that everyone should just become geniuses and teach themselves nanorobotics or quantum physics because that's the job of the future. But it's not reality.

Refer back to post #3 and 7, about a robot that is easy(just about anyone) to program. So why would everyone need an advance knowledge base on nanobots, quantum physics, etc. to have a job which involves its use in the future? Nanobot programmer, drivers, loaders, etc.

 

[Zaap]

pure gloom and doom idiocy

Wow. Where did I get the idea from that you were actually one of the intelligent people around here?

You're as dumb as the most ignorant 'progressive' with a world view that's just as short-sighted and self centered. Congrats.

"Believe as I do or everyone will vote away your money! Wahh! Wahh!"

Geeze. All that's missing is your belief in some government boondoggle that costs 500trillion dollars to 'fix' all your bullshit.