3 ms·

>I bet we will need the same humans to operate those Robots at some capacity. Not sure how you can explain this. You're saying that we would need 1 person per

>I bet we will need the same humans to operate those Robots at some capacity. Not sure how you can explain this. You're saying that we would need 1 person per robot? That's not even true currently, let alone in 10 years.

codegeek 10y ago
Not necessarily 1 Person per Robot. Lets say 1 Robot replaced 5 people. 1 of those handle the Robot directly, the other 4 are now pulled in things like maintenance, cleanup, admin etc that comes with running Robots. Just like for every computer programmer, we have QA, Testers, Sys Admins etc.
- jklinger410 10y ago
  Firstly we do not need humans to "handle robots directly" now or even in the near future. Secondly it is highly wishful thinking that we would need 4 people to administrate or clean a robot as well. Going to be honest here, this doesn't hold any weight at all.
  - kd0amg 10y ago
    Besides, if it takes that many humans to maintain each robot, the robot is simply too expensive to replace those humans.
- ryandrake 10y ago
  So you're at best replacing 5 skilled (higher paying) jobs with a robot + 5 unskilled (low paying) jobs, and at worst not replacing those jobs. Multiply this across the industry and how can you say this is a good thing for all these people?
- krapp 10y ago
  >, the other 4 are now pulled in things like maintenance, cleanup, admin etc that comes with running Robots. No they're not. The entire point of automation to be able to extract the benefits of labor without paying for the burden of human employees. Unemployment isn't a bug, it's a feature. More likely - all five employees are fired, and whatever skills those employees had becomes useless to them, as regards future employment elsewhere. Operation, maintenance, cleanup, admin, etc. gets farmed out to contractors for a fraction of those former employees' salaries, or else shared by the remaining employees. A few people wind up reaping the benefits, everyone else becomes surplus to requirements.
ekianjo 10y ago
There's been huge gains in automation in various industries, yet the work force is only slowly decreasing in industry as a whole - and you can see that healthcare, business services, leisure employ more and more people: http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_201.htm http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_201.htm
- jklinger410 10y ago
  You also have to admit that since minimum wage has not been tied to inflation that true automation is being staved off by sheer cost-savings. Automating jobs requires a large up-front cost for a long-term payout. Industries have been cautious to move to full automation because for the last 20 years wages have, for the most part, favored the employer. Not to mention they can just move operations to Mexico to stave that off even further. Governments also get upset when you destroy jobs, so it is beneficial for companies to say "boy I'd like this tax break or I might have to automate" as a way to blackmail governments for more tax breaks, less oversight, etc. I'd love to bring up a bunch of statistics to refute what you're saying, and I may be wrong, but I don't believe many industries have actually moved over to full automation. Most of these automation processes are to improve productivity but keep jobs. Globalists also don't want to deal with automation because that requires a fundamental change in economic systems, which significantly degrades their power. Globalist corporations and banks are probably in charge of most employment worldwide. Their reluctance to automate is basically in self-interest. Their ability to maintain jobs while improving productivity is in self-interest. Once nimble companies thrive on automation and resist hostile takeovers, improve productivity, and drive prices down to the point where globalist bank-owned businesses have no choice but to follow suit, we will see this loss in jobs we are all talking about. We will also see a change in the way economies work, most likely in some half-assed capitalist system that still manages to support the hyper wealthy.
  - ekianjo 10y ago
    > but I don't believe many industries have actually moved over to full automation. Most of these automation processes are to improve productivity but keep jobs. I dont know, but every plant I have ever visited in the past 10 years has about no folks in the production area - most of the lines are completely automated. Yet they require lots of people for designing new lines and new products, planning for newer productions, managing inventories, shipments, etc... and all these folks are already aided in the work by software so make them more productive. I don't see industries cutting even more jobs any time soon. Or maybe in places where labor is getting really expensive only.

codegeek 10y ago

Not necessarily 1 Person per Robot. Lets say 1 Robot replaced 5 people. 1 of those handle the Robot directly, the other 4 are now pulled in things like maintenance, cleanup, admin etc that comes with running Robots. Just like for every computer programmer, we have QA, Testers, Sys Admins etc.

jklinger410 10y ago
Firstly we do not need humans to "handle robots directly" now or even in the near future. Secondly it is highly wishful thinking that we would need 4 people to administrate or clean a robot as well. Going to be honest here, this doesn't hold any weight at all.
- kd0amg 10y ago
  Besides, if it takes that many humans to maintain each robot, the robot is simply too expensive to replace those humans.
ryandrake 10y ago
So you're at best replacing 5 skilled (higher paying) jobs with a robot + 5 unskilled (low paying) jobs, and at worst not replacing those jobs. Multiply this across the industry and how can you say this is a good thing for all these people?
krapp 10y ago
>, the other 4 are now pulled in things like maintenance, cleanup, admin etc that comes with running Robots. No they're not. The entire point of automation to be able to extract the benefits of labor without paying for the burden of human employees. Unemployment isn't a bug, it's a feature. More likely - all five employees are fired, and whatever skills those employees had becomes useless to them, as regards future employment elsewhere. Operation, maintenance, cleanup, admin, etc. gets farmed out to contractors for a fraction of those former employees' salaries, or else shared by the remaining employees. A few people wind up reaping the benefits, everyone else becomes surplus to requirements.

ekianjo 10y ago

There's been huge gains in automation in various industries, yet the work force is only slowly decreasing in industry as a whole - and you can see that healthcare, business services, leisure employ more and more people: http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_201.htm http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_201.htm

jklinger410 10y ago
You also have to admit that since minimum wage has not been tied to inflation that true automation is being staved off by sheer cost-savings. Automating jobs requires a large up-front cost for a long-term payout. Industries have been cautious to move to full automation because for the last 20 years wages have, for the most part, favored the employer. Not to mention they can just move operations to Mexico to stave that off even further. Governments also get upset when you destroy jobs, so it is beneficial for companies to say "boy I'd like this tax break or I might have to automate" as a way to blackmail governments for more tax breaks, less oversight, etc. I'd love to bring up a bunch of statistics to refute what you're saying, and I may be wrong, but I don't believe many industries have actually moved over to full automation. Most of these automation processes are to improve productivity but keep jobs. Globalists also don't want to deal with automation because that requires a fundamental change in economic systems, which significantly degrades their power. Globalist corporations and banks are probably in charge of most employment worldwide. Their reluctance to automate is basically in self-interest. Their ability to maintain jobs while improving productivity is in self-interest. Once nimble companies thrive on automation and resist hostile takeovers, improve productivity, and drive prices down to the point where globalist bank-owned businesses have no choice but to follow suit, we will see this loss in jobs we are all talking about. We will also see a change in the way economies work, most likely in some half-assed capitalist system that still manages to support the hyper wealthy.
- ekianjo 10y ago
  > but I don't believe many industries have actually moved over to full automation. Most of these automation processes are to improve productivity but keep jobs. I dont know, but every plant I have ever visited in the past 10 years has about no folks in the production area - most of the lines are completely automated. Yet they require lots of people for designing new lines and new products, planning for newer productions, managing inventories, shipments, etc... and all these folks are already aided in the work by software so make them more productive. I don't see industries cutting even more jobs any time soon. Or maybe in places where labor is getting really expensive only.