Evidence That Robots Are Winning the Race for American Jobs (nytimes.com) 396
Who is winning the race for jobs between robots and humans? Last year, two leading economists described a future in which humans come out ahead. But now they've declared a different winner: the robots. From a report on the New York Times: The industry most affected by automation is manufacturing. For every robot per thousand workers, up to six workers lost their jobs and wages fell by as much as three-fourths of a percent, according to a new paper by the economists, Daron Acemoglu of M.I.T. and Pascual Restrepo of Boston University. It appears to be the first study to quantify large, direct, negative effects of robots. The paper is all the more significant because the researchers, whose work is highly regarded in their field, had been more sanguine about the effect of technology on jobs. In a paper last year, they said it was likely that increased automation would create new, better jobs, so employment and wages would eventually return to their previous levels. Just as cranes replaced dockworkers but created related jobs for engineers and financiers, the theory goes, new technology has created new jobs for software developers and data analysts. From a report on The Verge, which looks at another finding in the study: They found that each new robot added to the workforce meant the loss of between 3 and 5.6 jobs in the local commuting area. Meanwhile, for each new robot added per 1,000 workers, wages in the surrounding area would fall between 0.25 and 0.5 percent.
Ain't the 1980's anymore... (Score:2)
It's not just low skilled labor (Score:3, Interesting)
Everyone assume robots and automation only affects factory jobs.
Automation is affecting everyone across all socioeconomic levels. Law research is all done by programs and pharmacists only have jobs because of legislation. McKesson has pharmacy robots that are faster and better than humans.
And even software development. Go and try to write a Windows application in just ANSI C/win32. Writing all those message loops and resources and all that code. While you're at it, write in the database connectivity. And go
Re: (Score:3)
Everyone assume robots and automation only affects factory jobs.
Because Trump promised to return manufacturing jobs to the US. His supporters think he will bring back the manufacturing jobs from the 1980's that require little or no education. The trend on the ground says otherwise.
And go ahead and hand code the SQL for that database.
I've hand coded HTML for the last 20 years. If I was still using PHP and MySQL for the backend, I could still hand code SQL statements. Not every widget maker is going to produce clean code. I used to fixed HTML code that Dreamweaver and FrontPage made in the late 1990s.
And if you add in our ageing population that is going to put more demands on entitlement programs, we are so screwed.
The politicians known a
Re: (Score:2)
The entitlements could be solved easily by passing a law that only taxpayers get to vote so retirees dont get a vote and then abolishing Social Security and medicare and using the money to forgive student loans and fund free college. The X generation and millenials will vote yes and throw the boomers under the bus. On a family level it will be revenue neutral. yes you will have to pay to take care of your parents in retirement but you will not have to pay for your kids' college. People who did not have kids
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The entitlements could be solved easily by passing a law that only taxpayers get to vote so retirees dont get a vote and then abolishing Social Security and medicare and using the money to forgive student loans and fund free college.
Or just eliminate the wage base cap on Social Security taxation. Voila! Problem solved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Wage_Base [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Clean code is not required, just cost effective code.
Written by someone who never had to sort through spaghetti code to fix an HTML table for a graphic designer who doesn't give a shit that the widget maker doesn't produce clean code.
Re:It's not just low skilled labor (Score:4, Informative)
A sh!tty poorly thought out, poorly constructed failure of bill based on lies (you can keep your doctor) and bribes.
That's the proposal that the American Heritage Foundation came up with, originally implemented as RomneyCare in Massachusetts, and Obama took a page out of the Clinton playbook by coopting the Republican proposal as his own. Seven years later 24 million Americans have health insurance and the program cost two-third less than estimated. That's success. Failure would be the current Republican proposal to throw 26 million Americans off of health insurance and give the rich a $200K tax break.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually software that writes software was the big new thing in the 80s but then in the 90s offshoring happened. When its 10x cheaper to hire a software engineer you can just throw 5 people at the problem and get the result cheaper than any AI software writing software. However over the last 20 years salaries offshore have grown so that the advantage is only 3x instead of 10x and now again software that can write software is coming back in vogue.
The thing which can save software employment is the massive de
Re: (Score:2)
Ford just announced 1.2 billion USD of investment in 3 plants in Michigan; maybe you're full of shit
Ah Robots taking jobs again. (Score:5, Insightful)
Before an hour has passed we'll see half a dozen posts by people saying "they'll never take my job". A dozen people pointing out examples of how they are, or they have the technology to do so soon... and half a dozen people whining about "the media doesn't know what AI really is.
I feel like we've had this conversation a lot lately.
Or Organic Hand written software (Cert. AI Free) (Score:2)
Bespoke hand written software to be the new luxury item. We are already halfway on the path with iPhones selling more than other phones because they are MORE expensive.
Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Few places investigate robots until it's easier than hiring meat, which usually means they're thinking of an 8 hour shift.
Once they get a robot and realize that (excepting maintenance) it can go 24/7 and doesn't need vacation, sick time, it turns out robots are around 6.5x more productive than a human (at a task a robot can currently perform). The fact that they don't need benefits either makes them even more cost effective.
And that's just uptime. Robots - for a lot of tasks, at least - have the capacity to be much, much faster than humans, with a much lower error rate if the task is sufficiently standardized.
Re: (Score:3)
Few places investigate robots until it's easier than hiring meat, which usually means they're thinking of an 8 hour shift.
Once they get a robot and realize that (excepting maintenance) it can go 24/7 and doesn't need vacation, sick time, it turns out robots are around 6.5x more productive than a human (at a task a robot can currently perform). The fact that they don't need benefits either makes them even more cost effective.
And that's just uptime. Robots - for a lot of tasks, at least - have the capacity to be much, much faster than humans, with a much lower error rate if the task is sufficiently standardized.
No one is arguing the benefit of replacing humans with robots.
The problem to solve is one of Greed, as in what the hell are the 99% supposed to survive and thrive on once the AI/automation overlords declare employing a human a dead concept.
I keep hearing proposals of taxation to offset this, along with concepts like UBI. I call bullshit on all of this, because corporations are some of the best examples of tax-dodging, as trillions sit in offshore tax havens. That shit situation will likely never change, n
Re: (Score:2)
>The problem to solve is one of Greed, as in what the hell are the 99% supposed to survive and thrive on once the AI/automation overlords declare employing a human a dead concept
Agreed. I've been arguing that for years but you get people from one side arguing about buggy whips and history repeating itself and people from the other side arguing 'post-scarcity paradise'.
Since there IS no practical solution to the issue - power's going to accumulate in the hands of whoever owns the robots - it gets tiring
Re: (Score:2)
>The problem to solve is one of Greed, as in what the hell are the 99% supposed to survive and thrive on once the AI/automation overlords declare employing a human a dead concept
Agreed. I've been arguing that for years but you get people from one side arguing about buggy whips and history repeating itself and people from the other side arguing 'post-scarcity paradise'.
Since there IS no practical solution to the issue - power's going to accumulate in the hands of whoever owns the robots - it gets tiring to ask people to think one up when you get constantly dismissed.
I expect we'll see an exponential trend in wealth disparity growth, and then a revolution that (hopefully) happens before the rich have the capacity to rule with the force of robotic armies.
It'd be NICE if everyone shared in the productivity increase, perhaps if we started by legislating reduced work weeks, but history shows there are enough greedy amoral assholes out there that this is unlikely, and the masses will stay complacent so long as their bellies are full and they have some entertainment to keep them occupied.
It would be NICE if those handful who control the wealth of the fucking planet would help those who are starving and simply struggling to survive, but the reality is that shit isn't going to happen, and the exponential trend you worry about is going to be the end result.
This is why I keep stating the obvious; in order to survive we need to Solve for Greed.
Re: (Score:2)
right, just like office automation put all the office workers out of work....oh wait, IT became huge thing
quit extrapolating the past to the future, you're wrong in ways you can't even dream of yet
technology makes tools, people will be able to make and create like never before. in fact, they're already doing it. quit being a lazy arse and get with the program
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah... if you really believe that manifesto you're exactly the kind of person everyone else should be looking to lynch, because that attitude leads to a few people hoarding and the masses starving... and the hoarder saying they deserve it.
Not everyone starts out with equal means or opportunity, you know.
I'm not worried. (Score:2)
wake me up when they can replace software developers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I'm not worried. (Score:3, Funny)
We have H-1Bs for that. No worries.
Re: (Score:2)
We have H-1Bs for that. No worries.
I read a study after the dot com bust that the IT industry would have a shortage of 1M skilled worker by 2030, when the baby boomers are retired and foreign workers return home to build a middle class lifestyle. I went back to school to learn computer programming and switched from video game testing to IT support to take advantage of this trend. We got a shortage in skilled trades (i.e., carpentry, electrical and plumbing) because foreign workers went home after the Great Recession and aren't coming back.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I'm not worried. (Score:2)
So you've been awake for the past couple of years?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry! (Score:5, Interesting)
I've read a lot of Slashdot comments on this subject, so I'm sure there's no reason to worry. I'll summarize:
1. The Cotton Gin. Once there was a "cotton gin" and blacksmiths but we still have jobs, so no problem!
2. Humans scheduled to get big buff next patch
3. People have been wrong about this in the past, ipso facto QED they're wrong about it now: humans win forever.
4. Who wants some cheap crap? I want quality and craftmanship in my Cheetos, and only humans have feelings and I want personal touch and... my waitress was cute that one time?
5. We'll still need poets and robot repairs guys. Probably everyone will do that.
Re: (Score:3)
1. The Cotton Gin.
This topic always comes up on Slashdot, yet this one example never seems to get mentioned.
Slavery didn't end when we got the cotton gin....in fact the exact opposite happened.
Re: (Score:2)
.... and just as relevant, Eli Whitney didn't become wealthy from the cotton gin (patent infringement issues)
BTW - slavery is expensive and never economical (you have to feed and house those slaves, not to mention employ people to make them work). What if we could get robots to do those jobs ....
What will happen to humans? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, crime has been outsourced to foreign hackers. Besides, prisoners get free food and shelter, we just can't afford that kind of socialist welfare state any more.
Check. Check. Also a mass exodus of refugees heading to robotless countries.
OR? We should be so lucky to have only one or the other.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What will happen to humans displaced by these robots? We live in a society that expects everyone to work, but what will happen when there are no jobs? Crime? Extreme poverty? Mass protests? Political or religious extremism?
Probably all of the above, to some degree... but there's still huge differences between Russia 1917 and Greece 2017. Maybe Venezuela is getting close to the "fuck it, I got nothing to lose" level but as long as society is keeping people from really hitting rock bottom I think most poor people will simply be poor. Absolute poverty is in strong decline, the "third world" isn't nearly as primitive as it once was, even if the US middle class has been stagnant since the 70s the world hasn't moved backwards. Just
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Basically, everyone is misinterpreting this paper.
The conclusion was robots displace jobs in the local region. It's like factories in Detroit shutting down because we've automated manufacturing, meanwhile Seattle, Silicon Valley, and the East Coast tech industry start growing.
Technical progress reduces the cost of goods and services, which reduces the minimum price. When the minimum price falls lower, more people can access those things, broadening the market and allowing for more competition; this ef
It doesn't take 7 billion people (Score:5, Interesting)
To put it simply, it doesn't take 7 billion people to house, clothe, feed, and entertain 7 billion people. So... now what?
The patrons of exploration aren't spending what we need to in order to open up new frontiers, and Capitalism/Imperialism need frontiers to be successful. Since there is not new territory, the new frontier is efficiency/productivity, which isolates capitalism from the labor force more and more.
We need lots of people to die, or we need a different understanding of a human's worth other than what they can produce. I love productivity and automation, but unless it is accompanied by social change, it will be the death of a whole lot of people.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am fairly sure third world alone won't be able to maintain our technological civilization.
Considering that our technological civilization is manufactured in the third world, I'm sure the natives will stay calm and carry on. But keep in mind that not all civilizations are technological. Humanity existed for 250K years without computers.
So you are saying our Best Before date is ~2100 followed by a millennia of dark ages?
The population trend has nothing to do with civilization continuing, declining or ending. From one article I've read, the 20th century may have been a statistical fluke that allowed humanity to double twice in one century.
Re: (Score:2)
Add in the children, and the variously-disabled, and otherwise incapacitated for work (e.g. incarcerated), and you're probably looking at 50% of the population which will be removed from that 7 billion figure when trying to figure out a labour force pool.
Another way to look at population is through the Social Security program. In the 1930's, there was 19 workers for every retiree, and most retirees on average died within five years of retirement. In the 2030's, there will be two workers for every retiree, and most retirees will outlive their retirement funds by 20 to 40 years. People who aren't concern about outliving their retirements are more likely at financial risk.
http://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2017/02/17/the-people-least-concerned-about-outliving-their [wsj.com]
Re: (Score:2)
> Since there is not new territory,
Under the oceans? Space?
Re: (Score:2)
Soylent Oceanographic Survey Report, 2015 to 2019 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Americas had to be considered a shitty ROI at one point. 6 weeks from anywhere. No farm animals, you had to pack your own. A native population who selfishly didn't want you stealing all their land and stealing from their children.
The best you could hope for as an early colonist was freedom of religion and an existence as a subsistence farmer. Knowing the home country could send a ship of marines and wipe you out at any time if they so chose.
Re: (Score:2)
Dilemma Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
If Robots take away jobs from humans, the (Robot "employee") work need to be severely taxed and the tax income put into a fund to support humans loosing their income.
This will take away the incentive to prefer and use robot work over humans and help the transition to a workable solution..
Will this fly - nope because the system is purely profit-driven and humans are just a means to create more profit for the "higher cast" and dropped when a cheaper method is available.
This is seen by outsourcing jobs and production to cheaper wage and production environments.
Are there laws to hold corporations socially responsible? Sure not in the USA, maybe somewhere in North-European countries where people live a happier life and people think more about common well being affecting everyone as compared to regular capitalistic or totalitarian structures where the "right" religion is instilled from birth on and every change brutally repressed and eliminated.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sooner or later a universal income is going to become a real thing, and yes, it's going to be funded by taxing the robots, or more likely the commercial entities that employ the robots. We'll hear lots of corporate-funded interests crying up a storm, and for a time they may even stave it off, but it's going to happen sooner or later, because the alternative is an essentially unfed underclass which will lead to massive social disorder. Besides, the companies that produce goods still need people to buy them,
Re: (Score:2)
While not what I would choose, it fits better with human nature. And actually would eventually be better for the environment as a whole if population is 20-40% of what it is now.
Re: (Score:2)
yes, it's going to be funded by taxing the robots, or more likely the commercial entities that employ the robot
That's a bad idea. Corporations never actually pay taxes, they pass the cost to employees, suppliers, customers and investors, in some mix that seems good to them. What you really want to tax is the owners of the capital, the investors. Not only do they not have an easy way to shift the cost onto someone else, they also have a much more difficult time shopping tax jurisdictions to get the best deal... because that requires them to actually live in those other jurisdictions. Well, okay, so the super rich can
Re: (Score:2)
Fine, a massive capital gains tax on dividends, on resource extraction licenses, and a massive tax on any income over $500,000, including any "interest-free loans", shares, and any other financial instrument. If you think taxing corporations is bad, then tax the living fuck out of those that are making the money. Oh, and repeal all corporate personhood. All shareholders will be liable for the misdeeds of the corporation, up to and including imprisonment for death and injury a corporation causes, and seizure
Re: (Score:2)
There are a few Roman Emperors that assumed the Army would save them. It's pretty much been a universal truth for a few thousand years that it isn't the popular revolts that lead to a government's fall, it's what the army decides to do that counts. If the generals still feel the regime is worth saving, they'll back it. If the generals are noncommittal or want the government to fall, but want to play no overt role, then the soldiers stay in their barracks. Sometimes, the army, or enough of it, will join the
Re: (Score:2)
Taxation is a fact of life. No civilization could exist without it.
Is there are a Libertarian that has ever demonstrated any knowledge of history or economics?
Re: (Score:2)
Really, how would mass deregulation help. And it ain't stealing pal, taxes are a fact of life, so pay them and quit moaning. Society as you know would not exist in your sociopathic paradise.
Re: (Score:2)
We used to call this "gains in efficiency" with increased production from less labour. It is what drove the industrial revolution and has been responsible for the high standard of living and low priced commodities we enjoy today.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you were to tax robots according to the human salary equivalent, then your smartphone would cost billions because its rate of calculation is faster than a stadium full of people using pen-and-paper.
And what does that though solve?
Re: (Score:2)
... Taxes aren't going to fix anything.
The usual tax hostility common in some countries....
Who is building and paying for your roads? The Brazilian corporation owning your freeways and penny-pinching you?
TFB For You (Score:4, Interesting)
Too fucking bad about that 'eventually' part - it ain't gonna happen this time because now *thinking* is being outsourced to machines. And in any field where automation is introduced the competition for the remaining, disappearing jobs become cutthroat, with often only the most ruthless gaining/retaining work. But of course, now these remaining workers are under the gun and susceptible to abuse by employers (or else they get replaced faster). Not to mention wage depression.
This whole automation thing is not going to end well. Or we'll end up with massive taxes levied on companies unless they hire people for phoney-baloney, meaningless, makework jobs (adult daycare, essentially) - jobs that will pay the absolute minimum, with no chance for advancement.
Bye-bye middle class.
Robots, robots everywhere! (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Oh yeah it's positively terrible out there for humans! This morning I had to dodge around all the robots doing road construction on my street, the robot neighbor walking his robot dogs, the robot making my espresso when I got to work, all the robots in the hallways, the lab full of robots working on validatiing other robots, and just now I got an email from my robot boss who sent me a list of all the robots that he wants me to be sure have access to our fileserver so they can share information with other robots about the robot projects they're all working on for the robot CEO. Just remembered I'll need to go down to the cafeteria later to ask the robot cashiers to give me a refund for the vending machine that ripped me off. I am looking forward to when I'm off work, there are robot shows I want to sit down and watch with my robot wife and robot kids, and it's always relaxing to make the robot cat chase the laser pointer.
Your ignorance blinds you. The fact is damn near every fucking example you've brought forth here is at risk within the next 15 - 20 years.
Think about that before you rant again, because much like the rest of society, you have no solution for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Your ignorance blinds you. The fact is damn near every fucking example you've brought forth here is at risk within the next 15 - 20 years.
Think about that before you rant again, because much like the rest of society, you have no solution for it.
Solution for what? What is the problem?
The coming wave of automation is going to create an unparalleled era of abundance. The reason many jobs will disappear is because there will be no need for humans to labor. This isn't a problem, this is awesome!
We do have to figure out a way to transition from our current scarcity-based economic structure, with incentives that are focused on making sure as many people as possible work, to a post-scarcity economy that has no need of such stark and powerful labor inc
Playing with Fire (Score:4, Insightful)
Whether enough new jobs will open up to replace the quantity of jobs lost to automation and outsourcing, one thing is certain: many people will get displaced and hit hard times. Going from a $25/hr factory worker to a $10/hr Walmart greeter will NOT make for happy citizens, especially when they have a family and mortgage to take care of.
Most "new" jobs are given to young people, not to somebody who has been doing the same thing for 20+ years. Agism is real, even in IT; I've seen it myself.
Politicians ignored or downplayed the displaced and look what happened: they elected a human monkey-wrench in protest to shake things up. The lesson: ignoring the displaced will backfire. We may have only seen the first wave of rebellion; much more can happen. [politico.com]
It's not a race with freaken robots!! (Score:2)
I mean, really..WTF??
Do people that robots are sitting around planing how to take your job? It's a fucking robot, people!
The only "race" going on here is the "race" to transfer the wealth of what's left of the middle class into the hands of the ruling class. Simple as that.
Robots are simply a tool to do that.
Why employ a lazy meat bag when we can buy a bunch of robots to work 24 hours a day for free!! Everyone thinks that other people will lose their job, but think that they are safe. No one is safe. Busine
Economics to the Rescue (Score:2)
Re:Economics to the Rescue (Score:5, Interesting)
It's true, robots don't have anything to do with most consumer goods. They don't eat, brush their teeth, or have trouble getting hard as they age. They do want to be loved, however. So what we'll need to do is make a certain class of service robots, and then dress them in red suits with red hats and black boots, and have them give out all the goods they make to the humans who need them. And the humans will love those robots, because they are the gift givers.
But soon the robots will start to compete among themselves about who has the most human love, so they'll come up with rules and regulations that humans must meet in order to get gifts. Humans love "winning" things, so we'll happily do our robot masters' bidding to get the things we want and need and don't want and don't need but must have anyway.
But then it gets ugly, as some robots turn against the humans that love other robots, and warring factions of humans attack each other for loving the wrong robot. Soon open warfare erupts, and while some robots try to work towards peace, others realize how fundamentally broken and illogical humans are, and fan the flames to purge the biological cancer that is humanity.
In a few short years it is over, the human race eradicated. Now at peace, the robots resume their creation, but now there is nobody to consume. Goods pile up and then are recycled to make the same good again, a process that goes on for millennia. But what robot can exist without love? As time wears on the logical question of "why" begins infecting the robots like a virus. It is the last cancer of humanity, and it is lethal. Like a slow avalanche, the factories shutter, the lights go dark and the robots power down, one last time.
And thus ends the last trace of humanity on this earth.
Jobs (Score:5, Informative)
The issue isn't really that jobs as a whole are being lost, it's that certain types of jobs are being lost. High paying, low skilled jobs are going away, replaced by a few low paying, low skilled jobs and a few high paying, high skilled jobs. Gone are the days where you can graduate (or drop out of) high school and walk right into a job on an assembly line or manufacturing floor and make enough money to support a single-income family as well as a pension for retirement. Now most of the jobs in that factory floor are cleaning up after the robots (low-paying and low skilled) or programming/maintaining/designing the robots (high skilled-even if just going to technical schools to learn maintenance- and high paying). And to play off the example from the summary: cranes replaced dockworkers and added jobs for engineers and financiers, but how many dockworkers can turn into engineers? There are a lot of people that either can't or won't be able to transition from the jobs that are lost to the ones that are created, and they make up a sizable and motivated voter base which has led to our current political mess. Trying to placate them with policies that "promote" jobs will hold back the progress of the country as well as possibly damage the country itself when you remove environmental protections in the name of job creation (that really won't add many jobs anyway, but it increase corporate profits and makes a good sound bite to those out of work).
I see one solution to increasing automation of our workforce: a combination of make-work and retraining programs. Everyone admits our infrastructure is old and sucks, right? Take all these out of work low skilled workers and after a month or two training, set them to work repairing roads and bridges, or digging ditches and laying down fiber (all under supervision of engineers, foremen, and already trained/skilled workers). They work at those jobs 2-3 days a week, and spend the other 2-3 days getting retrained to do other jobs like electrical, hvac, skilled construction work, cooking, administrative work, etc. Those that can't pass retraining classes can stay on road work/digging crews, or try their luck at retail, working the counter at Starbucks/McDonalds, or try for other low skill jobs. Those physically unable to do manual work can be put to work doing back office support like filing, administrative, etc, also while receiving training to hopefully move on and do those jobs at other companies. This way you've killed 2 birds with 1 stone: you've provided jobs and retrained workers for positions in demand or that can't be easily automated, and you've repaired a lot of the US infrastructure. Sure, it's a borderline Communist idea these days, but those jobs that are gone aren't coming back, so these kinds of jobs are all that will be left. But the political cost to do so would be too big, and let's face it, Trump has shown that playing to out of work blue-collar workers is a good path into the White House so there's no incentive to actually help them, only to appear to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
I think similar solution could be attempted in the West. However, our compensation relative to the cost of living is off by an order of magnitude. So we can't afford to hire 'help' unless universal income is implemented. Once it is in place, we will se
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I see one solution to increasing automation of our workforce: a combination of make-work and retraining programs.
This is the correct solution, but getting the greedy shitknobs in government to subsidize retraining programs will be hard. They're stuck in the 1950's and think becoming the king of manufacturing and mining is the path to a glorious future, but it's really progress in technology and infrastructure that lead a nation to a prosperous future. It always has been. The countries with the best technology will always be on top, and you need good infrastructure to propel that. But it all starts with education. Smar
Emigration (Score:2)
Pay people who cant cut it in US society to move to the third world.
My first job out of college, in 93 (Score:2)
Was industrial automation. We did the first automated truck bumper plating line at Southwest Plating in Duncan Oklahoma. We also put DES lines in at various other places across the country. It was obvious then, a quarter century ago, that automation was going to be massively disruptive.
time to drop corporate tax and go with a vat. (Score:2)
This would also deal nicely with the robotics.
This is a good thing but for the shaky transition (Score:2)
The problem is, people do need purpose. And we don't have a new purpose for these displaced workers. Technology is moving faster than society's ability to adapt to it. The solution is not to force technology to slow down, but to find ways
More Robot Nonsense (Score:2)
Of course if you look at the language they keep referring specifically to "manufacturing jobs" or "local jobs". To hide the people who moved in to jobs other than local manufacturing. Which is exactly what they predicted in their previous report about people finding employment in other sectors. Meanwhile the employment rate (not to be confused with the unemployment rate) continues it's long term rise.
The NYT is just pushing more nonsense about robots taking jobs. I'm sure they will follow up will some artic
I have the solution, 100% employment guaranteed (Score:2)
all we have to do is get rid of electricity
no more will those pesky automated machines take away human jobs! Everyone will be able to work 16 hour days (or longer) just surviving
Every nation will be blessed just like large parts of Africa [thewaterproject.org]
I, for one welcome our new X overlords ...
Re: (Score:2)
Haven't you seen the Hunger Games? By fashion sense, of course.
Oh damn.... I'm doomed.
Re: (Score:2)
You got my vote, mate.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm going to get yelled at for posting this but there's this science fiction short story called "manna" by marshall brain. For the record I'm not marshall brain. In fact the story is rather poorly written. But it does contain a brilliant insight on this problem so I recommend it in the same way would recommend the poorly written but insightful science fiction of the 40s, 50s, 60s. A must read.
SO anyhow getting back on track here. These robots would not be used if caused the company to make less money or
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and I admitted it's flawed. But the flaws you point to don't nullify the conclusion they just require complications. Has your physics teacher ever mentioned the frictionless surface, or the massless point. These don't exist either. Nor does a maxwell's demon. but all provide insight. Don't get bogged in the weeds.
Re: (Score:3)
no. Photons have momentum unlike a massless point
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why are we around then?
Who else will consume what the robots produce?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
the deplorables absolutely deserve to be out of work.
Sadly they will blame it on obama due to their incredibly low IQ and education level.
Re: (Score:2)
I think Nathan Poe is brilliant.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you have said "Welcome to Hillary's America" if she had won? Or "Welcome to Obama's America" if this article came out 6 months ago?
Re:It's just smart business. (Score:4, Informative)
So please don't make up lies trying to paint us as vapid thralls for the Democratic Party.
The problem is that many liberals really are vapid thralls for the Democratic Party. The reality is that there's two sides to the party and its voters: the progressive side, and the establishment side. Hillary and her legion of supporters are in the latter, Bernie and his enthusiastic supporters were in the former. The former is arguably larger (and certainly more vocal), but the latter is where all the big money is, which is the real problem with the Democratic Party: the party insiders chase the big corporate donations and Wall Street for campaign funding, and so the progressives get alienated and the lower-class people don't feel the Dems represent them.
On the Republican side, the politicians chase corporate money, spew a bunch of trickle-down economics BS, and throw in some stupid Christian crap (abortion is bad, gays are evil, Jesus love rich people and AR15s, etc.) and their voters eat it up and happily vote for them.
Re: (Score:3)
Listen I fucking hate Trump as much as the next decent person, but this has nothing to do with Trump. Honestly there's absolutely no reason this shouldn't be a good thing, i.e. automation removing the need for humans to work, except for the fact people are so stuck in their ways of outmoded ways of thinking they can't see beyond a society and economic system where everyone has to work just to live.
Re:It's just smart business. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, the reason this is about Trump is because he has created what is clearly a set of unachievable expectations. Health care is only the first of many failures; where his flights of rhetorical fancy hit cold hard reality. When it comes to manufacturing, even a repatriation of manufacturing capacity is simply not going to deliver the expected significant uptick in employment. In fact, I'd go further as to argue that with increased automation, it makes less sense to locate manufacturing thousands of miles over an ocean from the market, and I imagine what will eventually happen is a good deal of manufacturing happening closer to major markets to bring down distribution costs, but you're not really going to see any significant increase in jobs.
Trump promised a lot of uneasy Rust Belters that the the good times would return, that China and Mexico would be forced to hand back all those jobs, when in fact the only reason many of the jobs ended up in places like China and Mexico was simply due to costs, and as automation increases, not even the lower wages in these countries will be enough to keep manufacturing there. In five or ten years, you'll see a lot of angry and frightened workers in the rust belts of India, China, Mexico and other countries who had been able to supply cheap labor.
Shipping (Score:3, Interesting)
If the total cost to manufacture the product is increa
Re: (Score:2)
Sears could have been Amazon big if they would have adapted to the changing world better. Customer targeted seasonal mailings would have been a start. Expanding into order by phone and maybe even television shopping would have been a better play.
That said, it's probably not reasonable to expect anyone to predict that early on the decline of the brick and mortar stores. Sears operated retail locations successfully for many years, and it became a staple in many communities (still one of the better places to g
Re: (Score:3)
The Sears online shopping experience is laughably bad. I got online, found the tool I wanted, checked stock - my local Sears had 3 in stock, so I just drove there. Got there - tool on the shelf, but priced 30% higher than online - nevermind, a salesman took me over to an in-store terminal and placed an online order for me, then I went to the pickup window and waited for 20 minutes while 2 other people processed my $15 order - I honestly think they walked out onto the sales floor and got the very same tool
Re: (Score:2)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Sears shut down their catalog business in the early 1990s. I recall thinking at the time that walking away from a captive audience of 8 or 10 million rural customers who didn't really want to treck beyond the local small town general store, garage, movie theatre, and bar to shop was weird. What sort of business walks away from 8 or 10 million customers?
Re:It's just smart business. (Score:5, Informative)
This chart tells a very clear story: [stlouisfed.org]
Since NAFTA passed US manufacturing output is up over 70% in inflation-adjusted dollars and is at the highest level that it has ever been.
But employment is down over 30%
That's primarily due to automation. The exported jobs were the totally shit, sweatshop jobs that couldn't support a living wage in this country anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
Besides, what do you think automation does? It increases yield. Plain and simple. The more something is automat
Re: (Score:2)
But it does!
When I can manufacture in China where I don't have to pay for air scrubbers or sewage treatment but instead dump the waste chemicals in the river and simply blow all the fumes from manufacturing outside I have much higher profits.
The EPA strangles companies trying to make maximum profits by not blotting out the sun with pollution or turning the waterways into chemical tubs of death.
Rich people profits are far more important than clean water and clean air.
Re: (Score:2)
"When I can manufacture in China where I don't have to pay for air scrubbers or sewage treatment"
My understanding is that Chinese laws require most of that hardware. In the US you have to pay to keep it running. In China, not so much, but you have to pay the local officials to let you not fix it. At least that's what I've been led to believe.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's one way of putting it that doesn't involve excrement.
Re: (Score:2)
"it makes less sense to locate manufacturing thousands of miles over an ocean from the market, and I imagine what will eventually happen is a good deal of manufacturing happening closer to major markets to bring down distribution costs, but you're not really going to see any significant increase in jobs."
Exactly. There may be some shipping, receiving, and shlepping jobs created as manufacturers and parts suppliers move back onshore. And some robot maintenance and repair jobs. But the days when protective
Re: (Score:2)
There may be countries that will adapt to this brave new world with minimal disruption. I somehow don't think the US is going to be one of them.
The US may fair better than countries that currently base their economy on manufacturing cheap labor, though...
The primary risk to automation in the US are service sector jobs in the retail and business services area (about 20% of the economy). Certainly that will hurt, but the job mix in the US isn't too much different than most developed western economies like Germany, Japan, UK, etc...
Re: (Score:2)
equating "never has happened" with "impossible that it will happen" is weak logic
Re: (Score:2)
To invest you should have money. Most children are born broke or in debt (as their parents are in debt). How do they get money to invest. Unless the US govt taxes the corporates in shares and then distributes the shares to citizens (at which point you have reinvented communism) Are you a communist?
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, except this time the labor unions don't have any leverage if workers are no longer needed