4 ms·

Snark about 'actual statistical evidence' notwithstanding, people losing their jobs is entirely compatible with an increase in the number of available jobs beca

by an_cap 11y ago

Snark about 'actual statistical evidence' notwithstanding, people losing their jobs is entirely compatible with an increase in the number of available jobs because, unsurprisingly, not all jobs are fungible.

bottled_poe 11y ago
Assuming we were able to build a robot that looked and behaved identically to a human, which jobs could not be replaced?
- bad_user 11y ago
  It doesn't even have to be identical, it just has to be acceptably humanoid. For example I imagine that in 5 stars restaurants human waiters will still be the norm for some time, but enterprises like McDonalds or Starbucks would probably not blink an eye in replacing people with machines if possible, as there is no human element in a McDrive. Would go hand in hand with the edible substances they sell as food.
  - otakucode 11y ago
    They could easily do that right now, the technology exists. It just wouldn't be cost-effective. They can get humans to work for so little that the government will pick up part of taking care of them in the form of food stamps. Partner that with the inability to survive a business climate which would penalize the short-term expenditure necessary to retrofit locations (even staggered and done slowly) with an immediate response that would result in insolvency in very short order, and they'll keep humans around for awhile longer. What mystifies me is why Netflix DVD processing centers have human beings in them. From their initial conception they could have been almost totally unmanned. No idea why they weren't. Maybe it would have actually had significant negative social response? I know that in my state, an automobile manufacturer was going to open a plant, but once the politicians found out that the plant was going to be heavily automated and provide 300 rather than 4000 jobs, all tax breaks were rescinded so they went elsewhere.
    - JoshTriplett 11y ago
      > What mystifies me is why Netflix DVD processing centers have human beings in them. Watch an episode of "How It's Made" or similar, and note the places where an assembly line includes a human step. Those steps often involve fine adaptable manipulation (e.g. of inconsistently placed items), pattern recognition, or similar. In general, a machine usually could handle that manufacturing step just as well if not better, but doing so would incur the development costs and construction of a highly specialized machine, plus maintenance. The hourly cost of a human employee may well work out cheaper, either in the short term or potentially even in the long run. And that leaves aside other potential value of employing humans in those roles, including goodwill/PR/perception. An apparent cost savings from automation will quickly evaporate if the company finds itself on the evening news. That holds doubly true if replacing an existing human role with automation.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 11y ago
    >> Would go hand in hand with the edible substances they sell as food. I protest your subtle redefinition of what "edible" means :P

by an_cap 11y ago

bottled_poe 11y ago

Assuming we were able to build a robot that looked and behaved identically to a human, which jobs could not be replaced?

bad_user 11y ago
It doesn't even have to be identical, it just has to be acceptably humanoid. For example I imagine that in 5 stars restaurants human waiters will still be the norm for some time, but enterprises like McDonalds or Starbucks would probably not blink an eye in replacing people with machines if possible, as there is no human element in a McDrive. Would go hand in hand with the edible substances they sell as food.
- otakucode 11y ago
  They could easily do that right now, the technology exists. It just wouldn't be cost-effective. They can get humans to work for so little that the government will pick up part of taking care of them in the form of food stamps. Partner that with the inability to survive a business climate which would penalize the short-term expenditure necessary to retrofit locations (even staggered and done slowly) with an immediate response that would result in insolvency in very short order, and they'll keep humans around for awhile longer. What mystifies me is why Netflix DVD processing centers have human beings in them. From their initial conception they could have been almost totally unmanned. No idea why they weren't. Maybe it would have actually had significant negative social response? I know that in my state, an automobile manufacturer was going to open a plant, but once the politicians found out that the plant was going to be heavily automated and provide 300 rather than 4000 jobs, all tax breaks were rescinded so they went elsewhere.
  - JoshTriplett 11y ago
    > What mystifies me is why Netflix DVD processing centers have human beings in them. Watch an episode of "How It's Made" or similar, and note the places where an assembly line includes a human step. Those steps often involve fine adaptable manipulation (e.g. of inconsistently placed items), pattern recognition, or similar. In general, a machine usually could handle that manufacturing step just as well if not better, but doing so would incur the development costs and construction of a highly specialized machine, plus maintenance. The hourly cost of a human employee may well work out cheaper, either in the short term or potentially even in the long run. And that leaves aside other potential value of employing humans in those roles, including goodwill/PR/perception. An apparent cost savings from automation will quickly evaporate if the company finds itself on the evening news. That holds doubly true if replacing an existing human role with automation.
- YeGoblynQueenne 11y ago
  >> Would go hand in hand with the edible substances they sell as food. I protest your subtle redefinition of what "edible" means :P