4 ms·

Robots won't just take our jobs – they'll make the rich even richer

12 points by Shivetya 10y ago

leecarraher 10y ago
not too surprising, this is the outcome of all forms of automation technology.
zpatel 10y ago
But wouldn't there be jobs to make, fix, manage robots ?
- dragonbonheur 10y ago
  Low paid, scarce jobs, even outsourced. Why keep an expensive engineer on call when you can just swap a robot out, ship it to its manufacturer for repairs and just keep production going, no matter what?
  - zpatel 10y ago
    Sure , would it not be more of an extension (although agreeably an extreme one) of computers, vending machines, self serve checkouts, self driving cars etc ?
    - dragonbonheur 10y ago
      And soon enough, programmers and even CEOs. Given enough time, everyone can be replaced. What will you do then? Sweep the streets? there's a robot for that. Clean toilets? Self-cleaning toilets can be built. Cook food? There's a robot for that. Look after other people's kids? Other people won't have a job either to be able to pay you. > Ian: Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should. Jurassic Park
  - dvtv75 10y ago
    That makes sense - I would imagine a purchase agreement would lock you into product warranties, service contracts, and so on. You might end up in violation of your contract if you send the robots to someone else for maintenance.
petre 10y ago
The leftist editors of this site are fail to see the big picture. Robots will replace human workers because of rising healthcare costs and an aging population in developed coutries (we are already seing this in Japan). A tax on robots would impact the economy of the country that does this, for the robotic workforce will move elsewhere. We should really replace government workers with robots because gov't expenditures in many countries account for more than 30% of the GDP. If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. -- Milton Friedman
- bediger4000 10y ago
  So human workers shouldn't incur healthcare costs and/or age, so as to keep their jobs? We should really replace lawyers and financiers with robots, as those professions are only a drag on the economy. If you put the federal government in charge of the Department of Defense, in 5 years, there'd be a shortage of wars.
chrisbrandow 10y ago
This seems like a fairly obvious conclusion. With few exceptions, the highest paid jobs require the highest cognitive abilities. As robots replace cognitively demanding jobs, then instead of splitting the "cost" of labor with the laborer, the owner of the equipment will simply pay for the cost of a robot and keep the rest. This is the more immediate threat of AI. And there's no obvious way to avoid it because any responsible business owner will always replace a more expensive, lower performing unit with a cheaper, higher performing one. There may be plenty of jobs but they will increasingly bifurcate between lots of low paying ones and fewer high paying ones.

12 points by Shivetya 10y ago

leecarraher 10y ago

not too surprising, this is the outcome of all forms of automation technology.

zpatel 10y ago

But wouldn't there be jobs to make, fix, manage robots ?

dragonbonheur 10y ago
Low paid, scarce jobs, even outsourced. Why keep an expensive engineer on call when you can just swap a robot out, ship it to its manufacturer for repairs and just keep production going, no matter what?
- zpatel 10y ago
  Sure , would it not be more of an extension (although agreeably an extreme one) of computers, vending machines, self serve checkouts, self driving cars etc ?
  - dragonbonheur 10y ago
    And soon enough, programmers and even CEOs. Given enough time, everyone can be replaced. What will you do then? Sweep the streets? there's a robot for that. Clean toilets? Self-cleaning toilets can be built. Cook food? There's a robot for that. Look after other people's kids? Other people won't have a job either to be able to pay you. > Ian: Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should. Jurassic Park
- dvtv75 10y ago
  That makes sense - I would imagine a purchase agreement would lock you into product warranties, service contracts, and so on. You might end up in violation of your contract if you send the robots to someone else for maintenance.

petre 10y ago

The leftist editors of this site are fail to see the big picture. Robots will replace human workers because of rising healthcare costs and an aging population in developed coutries (we are already seing this in Japan). A tax on robots would impact the economy of the country that does this, for the robotic workforce will move elsewhere. We should really replace government workers with robots because gov't expenditures in many countries account for more than 30% of the GDP. If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. -- Milton Friedman

bediger4000 10y ago
So human workers shouldn't incur healthcare costs and/or age, so as to keep their jobs? We should really replace lawyers and financiers with robots, as those professions are only a drag on the economy. If you put the federal government in charge of the Department of Defense, in 5 years, there'd be a shortage of wars.

chrisbrandow 10y ago

This seems like a fairly obvious conclusion. With few exceptions, the highest paid jobs require the highest cognitive abilities. As robots replace cognitively demanding jobs, then instead of splitting the "cost" of labor with the laborer, the owner of the equipment will simply pay for the cost of a robot and keep the rest. This is the more immediate threat of AI. And there's no obvious way to avoid it because any responsible business owner will always replace a more expensive, lower performing unit with a cheaper, higher performing one. There may be plenty of jobs but they will increasingly bifurcate between lots of low paying ones and fewer high paying ones.