4 ms·
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 maintena
by 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 agoFirstly 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 agoBesides, if it takes that many humans to maintain each robot, the robot is simply too expensive to replace those humans.
- ryandrake 10y agoSo 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.