Bringing Affordable Robotics To Big Agriculture 196
kkleiner writes "Boston-based Harvest Automation has made good on its mission to bring robots into the world of agriculture by introducing Harvey, a bot tasked with the rather modest job of moving plants around in nurseries and greenhouses because people aren't keen on doing the laborious work. At a price point of $30k each, two bots would cost the same as three unskilled human laborers who earn about $20k annually not to mention medical bills due to injury. Harvey's job may not be flashy, but considering the potted plant industry is valued at $50 billion, the bot's little impact could translate into significant money."
Impressive. (Score:5, Interesting)
Living in the middle of Illinois there's a lot of farming news and farm shows around here, and you see an awful ot of impressive tech, and even science. They have self-driving combines and harvesters that use GPS, cell phone apps very useful to them (some control machinery), chemical testing of the spoil and plants available... you have to know a lot to farm these days.
I know someone's going to complain "BUT JOBS!!!" but the jobs the tech in TFA are jobs are jobs only the most desperate want. Agriculture has been constantly replacing jobs with technology for centuries. It takes fewer and fewr to feed more and more.
Someone's going to bring up GM, GM isn't used much around here, most seed is hybrid -- but the biochemists and agronomists have DNA study of the plants they breed.
There's a TV show that comes on here on Sunday morning at 5:30 AM and it's the only OTA show that's not an infomercial, and It's pretty interesting. Here's their website. [agphd.com] I'm not a farmer but it is pretty interesting.
I wouldn't consider potted plants "Big Agriculture." That's soybeans, corn, and wheat.
Re: (Score:2)
Typo: Soil testing, not spoil testing. Fat fingers and I had a few beers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As "spoil" is a word te correction was warranted. It's ok, you fixed it with your grocer's apostrophe.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
We should be ready to support those on the bottom end. If you really want unstoppable efficiency then the govt has to subsidize labour to allow labour to survive. Not everyone needs a job, and it is about time we recognize that, but at the same time there's no sense making people's lives hell because they can't get one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I worked in a field (pun intended) tangential (also pun intended) to the ag indudustry, and I have heard about the self-driving farm equipment. What I gathered (hearsay) was that the discussed tractors still had to be manned for safety reasons. For some reason government regulatory agencies aren't too keen on the idea of heavy deadly machines roaming about unattended. Neither are the property holders/insurers of said million-dollar equipment too happy on having it unattended lest the software bug fairy decides to pay a visit in a financially inopportune way.
I doubt if any of this is true. Why would someone buy unmanned machines that have to be manned? That would be pointless. Government agencies have little power to regulate what private individuals do on their own land, and even less when it involves agriculture. Farms are specifically exempted from many OSHA regulations, and even federal wage laws don't apply to agricultural workers.
Re: (Score:2)
Its more like autopilot (Score:3)
Why would someone buy unmanned machines that have to be manned?
Think commercial aviation. Commercial aircraft fly around on autopilot a lot, they can even land themselves. Similarly the combines/tractors/etc are on autopilot. Precisely navigating the fields, precisely dispensing varied levels of fertilizer or pesticide as testing indicated. Such automation increases yields/profits.
Government agencies have little power to regulate what private individuals do on their own land, and even less when it involves agriculture.
That is so untrue. Do not confuse a lack of power with a decision to give a group with lobbyists a break.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
We should be ready to support those on the bottom end.
The poor spend a disproportionate amount of their income on food, so they benefit the most from lower prices due to automation.
Re: (Score:2)
We should be ready to support those on the bottom end.
The poor spend a disproportionate amount of their income on food, so they benefit the most from lower prices due to automation.
Really? And these same poor who spend a disproportionate amount of money on food, how do they pay for better housing, education, safer streets? The use of automation requires a greater knowledge base to maintain those systems, which means higher prices for the poor. Thereby forcing the poor to become a perpetual debt slave to the banksters that created this mess to begin with in 1913, signed into law by Woodrow Wilson who should be (have been) tried for treason.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet the price of food seems to be increasing faster then most anything else.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet the price of food seems to be increasing faster then most anything else.
That's the power of government intervention via farm subsidies.
we also need to stop the big over time mindset (Score:3)
we also need to stop the big over time mindset that can drive 60-80+ work weeks. Why should some people being pulling them when others are not working.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Most idiotic comments contain the word "probably." Glad to see that you didn't buck the trend.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know someone's going to complain "BUT JOBS!!!" but the jobs the tech in TFA are jobs are jobs only the most desperate want.
Well, yes, but if the jobs go away, then the most desperate won't get to work and die in the gutters. Not that I don't think such jobs should be replaced by technology. I absolutely think they should be. There needs to be a safety net for the people who end up structurally unemployed as a result, however.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> World hunger would for a large part go away if 30 billion a year could be donated.
If only it was that simple. When you feed people, who (if a significant portion) only know how to produce food, you leave them with nothing much to do but have sex. Food is free, so they cannot afford to even try to produce food themselves. Then you have more people to feed (and keep warm/cold/whatever.) So if you pay $30 billion to feed the 862 million for free, then in 3 years you need to feed 1.5 Billion and need
Re: (Score:3)
Lets focus on your other notion," Food is free, so they cannot afford to even try to produce food themselves. " You're both right and wrong here. You're right that food dumping destroys economies making the people worse off than when you're st
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Wow. No.
History has shown for centuries that the wealthier a society becomes the smaller the family size gets. The more money people have, the less kids.
By your logic the richest societies would be the most populous. Take a look at the growth rates of the top 20 economies in the world and you'll see that many of them are not only low but NEGATIVE. Plot it over time and you can see the correlation to economic growth is inverse to population growth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There needs to be a safety net for the people who end up structurally unemployed as a result, however.
Agreed completely.
Re: (Score:2)
I know someone's going to complain "BUT JOBS!!!"
It's only "But Jobs" when your job disappears.
But all snark aside, we are intering such a disruptive time, that we will either come out the other side as humans spending all day in hammocks with unbrella drinks, or 99 percent of humanity will become redundant.
Will we simply settle for enough food to fend off starvation, or will civilization rise to new heights as mundane labor become unnecessary?
Or will we breed to the point of collapse? Or will idle humanity try to destroy itself?
Personally, I fea
Re:Impressive. (Score:4, Interesting)
Interesting points, and I agree with most of your perspective. What I take issue with in TFA is this statement. because people aren't keen on doing the laborious work. It reeks as badly as "These are jobs American's won't do" that require us to overlook illegal immigrants.
Your explanation, I accept that certain things can be automated like soil testing. To claim "people don't want to work" I say is an appeal to emotion argument that nobody should fall for (yet sadly many do). People do want to work assuming that they get paid fairly for the work being done.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
To claim "people don't want to work" I say is an appeal to emotion argument that nobody should fall for (yet sadly many do). People do want to work assuming that they get paid fairly for the work being done.
Try getting the playstaion generation to go outdoors and move plant pots around all day. You'll soon be browsing robot catalogs...
Re: (Score:2)
Many of these menial jobs were how my generation learned to "work" and be responsible. The same could be said with fast food jobs, and picking veggies at the farm during the summer. Many of these kids now turning 16 want money, but don't have the opportunity to work. If you are 15, labor laws will prevent you from working. At 16 it's employment is not simply hindered by labor laws, but those jobs are filled with adults that should be working higher payed jobs that no longer exist.
You are following a prop
Re: (Score:2)
Try getting the playstaion generation to go outdoors and move plant pots around all day.
Offer them something other than a swift kick in the ass when you no longer have a use for them and maybe they'll be interested. You can't expect people to be happy to do menial labor for minimum wage with no hope of it leading anywhere.
Moving pots (or flats) is an ideal job for a robot. We should let the robots do it. We should be figuring out what people are going to do in the mysterious future, not slinging insults.
Re: (Score:2)
and the pay.
don't forget the pay.
$20,000 a year. Ouch.
That will help you pay for that degree...
also Degree need to change to a badges system (Score:2)
that counts industry experience and hands on learning. Computer Science is not system administrator work and at some schools it's not even programmer work.
Re: (Score:2)
jobs only the most desperate want
Some of us believe that "the most desperate" are people too.
Re: (Score:2)
How about training those people to do worthwhile jobs that will lift them from poverty? I think it's terrible that there are completely illiterate people in the US; I've known a couple of them.
Re:Impressive. (Score:5, Interesting)
I and my brothers farm a "big agriculture" farm of about 3000 acres. We're smack dab in the middle of harvest, with about 1000 acres to go. And we have no employees other than ourselves. Just the four of us (family farm). We're heavily mechanized. three of us run the harvest usually. Two on the combines, one on the trucks. We can knock down a 130 acre field in about 8 or 9 hours.
And all this barely is enough income to fund the farm (capital costs can be huge!), and pay for 4 families.
Other farms that grow other more labor-intensive (and more lucrative) crops do hire a lot of unskilled labor, but we're running into an interesting problem. Modern farm machinery requires interaction with a computer screen right there in the machine. As well a good working knowledge of math is required as ratios and calculations are needed all the time when setting machines, figuring out how much product is needed, etc. But many of the unskilled laborers that can be hired lack basic reading and writing skills.
Anyway, I'd love a swarm of little robots to craw along the soil between the rows of plants and pick weeds. Eliminating herbicide use would be huge! And if we could somehow mechanically zap harmful insects but leave the beneficial ones alone, that'd also be wonderful. That'd still leave me with having to fight fungal infections, but it'd be a great start.
Re: (Score:2)
If you had a swarm of little robots eating bugs and so on, you also wouldn't have to plant monocultures. And lightweight robots don't create hardpan like machines do, so you could reasonably go without tilth simply by planting crops which produce deep tap roots in your guilds.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. It would open up a lot of possibilities, for sure if it were efficient to plant and harvest mixed crops that way.
As for tillage, in my area many farmers don't till much at all anymore, though that increases reliance on herbicide, which has its own set of problems (resistance, mainly).
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent comment. To my fellow slashdotters, it's obvious that caseih is a farmer from his user name. CaseIH makes tractors. It used to be two companies; Case and International Harvester. We used Case tractors on the flightline when I was in the USAF; they don't (or didn't) only make farm equipment then.
I see their ads all the time on TV.
And if anyone is wondering what a farmer is doing at slashdot, farming isn't for dumb people any more; farmers have to know chemistry, biology, and tech. Today's farmers a
Re: (Score:2)
So?
Are you saying that just because they are desparate for work the loss of their potential jobs shouldn't be considered?
At the end of the day, that wage would have been paid back into the community while a capital investment in a robot won't be, or at least not as efficiently.
Re: (Score:2)
People have been losing jobs to robots for decades, and to technology for centuries. If you're worried about lost jobs, look at "hedge fund managers" (corporate pirates) who buy a business, drain its capital, fire its workers and shut it down.
Re: (Score:3)
I've shoveled manure, mucked out barns, dug ditches and footings, all by hand, and pumped septic tanks and cleaned sewers with low-end power tools and a pump truck. Not my all-time favorite work but it's honest and at the time paid just about enough to survive on (rent, food, utilities, maybe some books and brewskis.) When you're young and healthy it's OK. Later, no. This was all thirty to fifty years ago; I've no idea the spread of pay these days.
Re: (Score:2)
How an unskilled labor job works. (Score:5, Informative)
...two bots would cost the same as three unskilled human laborers who earn about $20k annually not to mention medical bills due to injury.
That depends on the "unskilled" labor you're talking about.
People legally able to work will get $7.25 per hour (minimum wage) only when they are scheduled to work. In other words, they will work when needed and it'll be seasonal. So, said worker will be really lucky to make $7,000 for the year at that job. AND the hours will be sporadic - he won't know what days he's working or even he's going to work that week. And some of these jobs, you show up at 5AM to get in line and wait until 7AM to see if you work that day - ALL UNPAID.
I know because I had to do it to pay bills. And no, if HURTS your resume if you are a white collar worker. All those employers who say that they want you doing "something - anything" when looking for a "real" job are full of shit. If you work as a laborer, they think that you aren't good enough to work in your profession.
It's better to be unemployed than "taking anything to work."
Now illegal workers, that's a whole different ball of wax.
Re: (Score:2)
...two bots would cost the same as three unskilled human laborers who earn about $20k annually not to mention medical bills due to injury.
That depends on the "unskilled" labor you're talking about.
It also depends on the ability to distinguish a one time cost like the purchase price of a robot, from a recurring cost such as an annual salary.
Re: (Score:2)
What? A robot is a one time cost? Nope, not even close. Cheaper maintenance? Nope, that is not close either. It takes higher skills to maintain, reprogram, and repair robots. Then you have fuels required to power them.
Look at farm equipment for example. Machinery that was supposed to be cheaper has become community or rental property because it's much more expensive than paying labor. Many places still use manual labor to harvest because it's cheaper to do than machine harvest.
Re: (Score:3)
It is a moral perversion not find jobs for the unskilled who are being displaced . More and more skilled people are also being displaced by technology as well. It has to be expected as public policy has changed and the results are not so good. For example by having women in the workforce we cut in half the value of human effort. Then we allow all minds of immigration which also deeply slashes at the value of human labor. Top that with technology that eliminates ever more jobs and we are half w
Re: (Score:2)
You start out fine (first paragraph), but then go out to left field. The "Left" in the US is doing, and has done, the same exact things as the "Right". People claim Obama is a minority so does stupid things. Bush was just an idiot, so did stupid things. Clinton was just horny, so did stupid things. The other Bush was an asshole, and did stupid things. Reagan was an actor, and did stupid things. How many of these people are really stupid? How many times do you have to see both parties do the same exa
Re: (Score:2)
Fruit harvesters on the other hand, yeah, they don't work year round. In the winter they switch to pruning or oranges. There's basically farm work to do like that all year round, if you're willing to travel.
Re: (Score:2)
1) don't put the blue collar gig on your jacket if you think it is going to hurt you, but take it anyway
2) be creative - if you are a paralegal (example) and there is a tech startup in your area maybe they could use some free legal assistance (research, patent search help, ect) - this goes on your resume
Re: (Score:2)
been talk of greenhouses in NYC (Score:2)
there has been talk of urban farming. putting greenhouses onto roofs of buildings to grow veggies. since you can't survive on $20k in NYC, these would be perfect for the job
Re: (Score:2)
no, it says that 2 of these would be perfect for the job.
the job is keeping 3 poor people out of your building.
Case for universal income (Score:5, Insightful)
This is another move toward producing what humanity needs without human working. How many persons we need to feed the USA today?
At some point we will have to admit that there must be an universal income regardless of work done, Otherwise the end of the story will be robots producing goods that nobody can afford except the robot owners.
Re:Case for universal income (Score:5, Funny)
This is another move toward producing what humanity needs without human working. How many persons we need to feed the USA today?
Doesn't this number depend on the efficiency of the transformation of the said persons in soylent green?
(dark mood grin)
Re:Case for culling the human population (Score:2)
Socialism is of the devil. What makes you or anyone else honestly believe that the wealthy are going to play along with your idea? Wouldn't they just float the notion that it's better to reduce population than provide handouts?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have something against democracy? If the vast majority wants some profits to be shared so that people can live, the rich minority has to comply, or to install a dictatorship.
Beside, redistributing wealth is not socialism. I did not talked about seizing machines and move them to public ownership.
Voting themselves money (Score:2)
If the vast majority wants some profits to be shared so that people can live, the rich minority has to comply.
"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." -Benjamin Franklin
Besides, the rich minority doesn't have to comply. They can leave the country. They have the resources to do that. Try voting your hand into their pocket, and Atlas will shrug so fast it'll make your head spin.
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, the rich minority doesn't have to comply. They can leave the country. They have the resources to do that.
They can leave, but they can't take the land with them, and all wealth is derived from the land. We all wish they would get the fuck out.
Okay, affordable robots in big agriculture (Score:2)
Now I'm waiting for big robots in affordable agriculture, I'm trying to work out what that means or looks like but it sure sounds cool and promising.
Blueberry robot (Score:5, Interesting)
It is my firm belief that robotic agriculture will change the entirety of how we produce food. A few simple examples of changes that few people discuss would be the terrain that is used for harvesting. Two of the key advantages of flat land for grains is that the crop will develop consistently across large areas and thus when harvested be of a predictable quality when turned into bread and whatnot. The other is that it is far easier to build the massive harvesting machines if they don't have to contend with any variations in the terrain. The goal of the massive machines is to vastly increase the ability of a single human to do a huge amount of work.
But with robotic planting, tending, and harvesting you don't need to "multiply" the work of a single human. Thus the robots can be fairly small. Also the robots can adjust the feeding of the plants so to grow a fairly consistent crop in inconsistent terrain. Then in the end when it comes time to harvest. The robot can methodically harvest at the perfect moment for any given plant (repeatedly bypassing those not ready) plus it can methodically sort even down the single grain.
Another advantage is where the cost of the entire cycle of agriculture can be so low that you could robotically convert marginal land into low producing land and still produce food at a very low cost. The return on quality land would be higher but by being able to cheaply bring marginal land into production it will form a scenario of relentless competition thus holding down prices. Plus once again due to the nature of robot economics once marginal land was in production the cost of continued production would be very low. This could also be carefully factored into the logistics calculations where a less efficient production is competitive where it might reduce some other cost such as shipping.
This last factor might result in it being cheaper to produce greenhouses and then produce goods year-round much closer to the point of consumption rather than shipping them half way around the world.
Also robotics can be used inefficient ways such as massively processing marginal land making it quite productive. Normally this is a time eating process that is not worth it. But if you can leave some robots cooking away in a forest for a few years and come back to find nutrient rich terra pretta then again the economics change.
What I can't foresee is which direction agriculture will take. I have a feeling it will be mega massive monster farming companies with very few employees that depopulate the rural farm communities. But at the same time the low barriers to entry might mean that many people will jump in the moment a competitive opportunity is perceived. Personally where food is such a fundamental part of living (right there after clean water) that I don't believe that any small group of companies should be allowed to concentrate ownership of any nation's food production. If they get it wrong, or play evil games, massive numbers of people could suffer.
One prediction that I will solidly make is that there will be very very very very few people employed in agriculture in 20-50 years.
Re: (Score:2)
What I can't foresee is which direction agriculture will take. I have a feeling it will be mega massive monster farming companies with very few employees that depopulate the rural farm communities
Our current soil use practices and disregard for atmospheric pollution, have only one logical end, which is hydroponic gardening in greenhouses. This is an ideal environment for robots, but it won't permit the use of varied terrain.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it just me, or were we all hoping... (Score:2)
Is it just me, or were we all hoping to see Huey, Dewey, and Loie from the movie "Silent Running". That what I think of when I think of agricultural robots.
Re: (Score:2)
When I saw the video of them scurrying about with their front facing pot pincers, all I could think of was a Pixar-like voice saying "Bare-E".
They don't need half those robots in the video (Score:2)
They could get rid of half those robots in the video if that guy walking around with his hands in his pockets was doing some actual work.
Yeahbut... (Score:2)
Those 3 laborers can also dead-head, apply fertilizer, identify disease, fix the sprinkler system, and harvest without damaging the product.
Among other things.
How much would a robot, that does all those things, cost now?
--
BMO
Re: (Score:3)
A business owner doesn't look at a person who does five tasks and say "I will replace your entire 40-hour-per-week job with one robot that does all five of your tasks." They look at the tasks they need done, the labor expense spent on each of those tasks, and say "I will automate the tasks that I can, and cut payroll hours accordingly."
If you needed four full-time employees to work your greenhouse yesterday, and it took a total of 20 hours per week to move pots, you now only need three full-time employees,
Put Down That Petunia! (Score:2)
What is the advance? (Score:2)
I don't understand why this is news. Automation has been used in agriculture for a long time in applications much more advanced than this. Why should we get excited about a simplistic robot which moves pots around according to explicit user instructions and pre-placed guidance tape? Show me a robot that, based on the type of plant, moves it to a suitable area where it will receive just the right amount of sun, or perhaps a robot that will ensure each plant gets exactly the right amount of water/nutrients
Which is it? (Score:4, Insightful)
> because people aren't keen on doing the laborious work.
Or...
> two bots would cost the same as three unskilled human laborers who earn about $20k annually not to mention medical bills due to injury.
My money is on door #2.
Great. Fewer jobs for teenagers. (Score:3)
Seen robots moving plants in the uk around 1996 (Score:4, Interesting)
I was shown a pretty impressive set up in a huge greenhouse set up in south lincolnshire which produced pots of herbs.
The sowing of pots was largely automated and there were rails running down the length of the greenhouse with metal trays across the rails.
Essentially the rails were loaded at one end and robots would lift the trays and move them along the rails as the herbs grew. watering was automated so it was long production lines the length of the green house and the robots took care of the plants and the far end of the line the pots were taken off and shipped to supermarkets using minimal manual labour.
Margins must be huge (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Those displaced workers could work on assembly lines building potted plant moving robotics. At least until those assembly lines are replaced with robots. Then those workers could work on assembly lines building robots that build potted plant building robotics. Until...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This is the road we are going down.It's easy to imagine a time when the only things of value are land and energy (and the land and energy required to make something). A breakthrough in those areas (space colonization, cheap fusion power) and nothing will be of value. My desktop 3-D printer/assembler can make be a garage sized 3-D printer/assemblerr, which in turn can assemble me a new Ferrari. It can also disassemble my old Ferrari for raw materials then disassemble itself to save space. Will we get there?
Re: (Score:2)
This is the road we are going down.It's easy to imagine a time when the only things of value are land and energy (and the land and energy required to make something).
And things the value of which lies precisely in the human touch and human relationships. Live entertainment. Restaurants. Tours. Landscape design. Coaching and mentoring. Hairdressing. Fashion design, arts and crafts -- anything creative. Counselling, palliative care and some other health services. Business-to-business sales. Reception and hospitality. Boutique sales. Bribery, government and arms sales. OK, maybe not so much arms sales.
Hmmm, which gender is traditionally better at the 'human touch' stuff
Re: (Score:2)
"This is the road we are going down.It's easy to imagine a time when the only things of value are land and energy"
and drinkable water. i would eat my tinfoil hat if you seriously think fresh water can be done at a low enough cost to not assign it monetary value. we pay $130 every month for water.
"(and the land and energy required to make something). A breakthrough in those areas (space colonization, cheap fusion power) and nothing will be of value. "
space colonization is science fiction. we don't even have
Re: (Score:2)
replicators do not exist. they are not real. robotics have done a lot for a lot of people. 3d printers don't do what you say they do. they make plastic that can hold up to firing 3-5 nails from a handgun or a rifle.
Stop, just stop there. Put down the conversation and walk away. You just have no idea what you're talking about, not even a little bit. You know nothing about 3d printing. I know almost nothing myself and even I know that you're just completely lost.
Re: (Score:2)
We did reap the benefits, though -- people now have 40 (USA) or 35-ish (Europe) hour work weeks, in general, with time off. This is a whole lot better than a century ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What are the two unskilled laborers to do then? At the very least you need to add their wages to the real cost. If they turn to crime, this would even be much more expensive.
The increased productivity results in a higher absolute level of taxes being collected. Higher money means the govt can afford to spend more on prisons (or convert them in soldiers).
Isn't this how it supposed to work?
(grin)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The largest in the US paid anywhere between 25% and 50% of their revenue, but keep spouting that nonsense that anything less than 100% is not their fare share.
Re: Hidden cost (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ous&q=fortune+500+average+tax+paid [duckduckgo.com]
Overall the top 500 paid an average of half the 35% rate. The GAO report is a good place to start if you really want to know, or one of the news story summaries. Roughly half the entries on a screen and a half of search results were for articles on companies paying zero or less federal tax.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The lack of jobs for unskilled laborers will discourage illegal immigration. Americans don't want those jobs, or we wouldn't have vast numbers of openings for illegals!
Dry up the jobs, remove the attraction to immigrate.
Re:Hidden cost (Score:4, Insightful)
But some societies will know that they are all about their people. One guess is that concepts like Minimum Basic Wages (different from minimum wage) and high income taxes will shift the focus from production and capitalism (which is easy with robotics and thus shouldn't be greatly rewarded) to consumption and fairness.
I am not talking about communism for if you look at the defective planned economy of the Soviet Union where they focused on production and things still sucked. The idea is that you focus on simple things that encourage consumption and equality and then let people figure the rest out themselves. But most societies focus on the magic term GDP and with robots that number can be very very high even with extreme unemployment. Thus it is a terrible standard to measure a happy economic situation.
But the stupidest societies of all will ban or fight robotic production.
Re: (Score:2)
What are the two unskilled laborers to do then?
They can talk to the at-risk kids that think they're "too cool for school", and show them the consequences of their lousy attitude...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Articles discussing the "rise of the economic machines" come up very frequently, and every time I think "this is a good thing". Nobody wants to do these shitty jobs. These people will be available/forced to work on something that a human is better at performing. From a business point of view, robotic automation of labor lowers the cost of production. This in turn should result in lower prices for the consumer. Obviously this is very simplistic, but I believe there is a lot of truth to it. Technological adva
Re: (Score:2)
Care for the machine.
Re: (Score:2)
I frequently have that experience here.
Re: (Score:3)
"the demand for the goods will drop and so will prices" Do you realize that you just quoted basic market theory while seeming to rail against the market?
And when the prices drop, then the displaced worker will be able to purchase the same amount for less. When this is taken to the ridiculous end, all those who are demanding that we adopt the utopia of people only doing what they want and still having everything they want might become a reality. However, most things break down before they get that far.
Re: (Score:2)
And as long as we in the States maintain at least some attempt to enforce our borders (just like every other country/economic union in the world), those billions won't be competing with my local burger flipper. Some jobs just are not outsourceable.
Re:Pay attention burger flippers striking on min w (Score:4, Informative)
Wrong. Jobs still go overseas or go away, just that you don't see them leave.
Look at the plumbing industry. Drilling holes in a wall and sticking copper tubing through them seems like something that has to remain solidly on shore, right? Let's say it's 120 hours of work to plumb an average house. So you show up to work some day and your boss says "we're switching to PEX." Because you don't have elbows or joints, there is no soldering, and because those holes don't have to line up perfectly, plumbing a house with PEX now takes only about 40 hours. Where did the extra labor go? Some went overseas to the PEX factory, but the rest got laid off.
At the burger place? Where do you think those patties were manufactured? Do you see a McButcher shop in the back of the store? No, the animals were likely raised and slaughtered and packed in rural Brasil, or some other country with cheaper labor and farmland.
It's a global economy now. Parts and materials come from everywhere. Protectionism means little at the borders when it's only keeping out the $7.25/hour illegal immigrants. The total cost to the US economy of illegal immigrants is less than $30 billion. (Compare that to the Wall Street bailout of $750 billion, or to the Iraq / Afghanistan wars with their costs of over $2 trillion.) The real losses to the U.S. job market have come from increased efficiencies, more automation, and overseas manufacturing and labor, where $trillions of dollars have left our payrolls. But hey, let's get Fox banging the illegal immigrant drum and blame them for taking our jobs, because Mexicans are visible and the TV cop shows prove they're all criminals and drug lords. It takes our easily distracted minds off the facts of where the real losses are coming from.
Re: (Score:2)
>> No, the animals were likely raised and slaughtered and packed in rural Brasil
I doubt that burger is actually meat, but I see your point.
Re: (Score:2)