4 ms·

No. More and more robots and systems will have to work to support the expanding, aging demographics. We're going to desperately need all the automation, roboti

No. More and more robots and systems will have to work to support the expanding, aging demographics. We're going to desperately need all the automation, robotics, AI and related productivity enhancements we can get. Most likely we can't build it fast enough given the rate at which large population segments are aging, the demand will be staggering.

lm28469 7y ago
If you live in a hardcore capitalist country like the US all the automation money will go straight to the business owners pockets. We keep talking about automation like it is _going_ to happen in the future, truth is it's happening for 40 years, if not more. In europe politicians were promising a 30 hours work week and retirement at 50 in the 70s, all of that thanks to automation, you don't need to be an expert in this field to know that it didn't turn out that way.
- bluGill 7y ago
  You don't need be an expert to know that quality of life has changed too. If you want to live like the 1970s you need a lot less money. No cable TV bill for your 19 inch TV. No cell phone or internet bill. Your car has an AM only monophonic radio (unless you splurge on an aftermarket 8-track player), and no AC unless you are rich. Those are just a few of the areas of life that people have upgraded. I contend that if all the people who worked on the above were spread out to the jobs of the 1970s with just automation applied the 30 hour workweek would be practical. However people have chosen to use the extra time automation gives them to develop more luxuries in life.
  - lm28469 7y ago
    > quality of life has changed too. "changed" is the keyword here, not everything got better. At some point you hit the diminishing return law. Did Uber, Facebook and Netflix had a greater impact on human life than hot tap water and fridges ? Do we need 3 new versions of iphones per year ? Same day delivery ? Did food delivery really upped your quality of life or are we just getting lazy and fat because we consider walking 10 minutes a chore ? Technological progress is automatically assumed to be good, but when you take a few steps back and look at the big picture we're not much better than 50 years ago. We have more useless activities and gadgets to spend our hard earned money, that's for sure, did it make the world a better place, that's another question. > However people have chosen to use the extra time automation gives them to develop more luxuries in life. I don't think "people" chose anything, the elite are very happy with the status quo. Look at wealth inequality stats, it's very easy to see where the money is going, and it's not in the interest of "the people".
    - bluGill 7y ago
      People choose it. Every time you take a uber you choose to spend money instead of walking. All those little decisions add up to less money in your pocket so you need to work more/longer hours to support your spending habits. You don't have to, your boss might demand 40 hours a week, but if you only spend 30 hours/week of that income and save the rest after some years you can retire early on your savings. (note I'm ignoring the risk that you die young!) Most people want more luxury in life now. The result of that choice is they have to work 40 hours/week to afford it.
    - kortilla 7y ago
      Uber, Lyft, and ride sharing in general have significantly reduced drunk driving in places without good public transportation (i.e. most of the US). Wealth inequality stats are irrelevant if your bar for success is “how people lived in 1970”. You can pretty easily live a 1970 middle-class life buying unsafe, unreliable, highly polluting cars living in an asbestos insulated house with ungrounded electricity that’s sweltering in the summer. Nobody is forcing people to use food delivery services. You can still go to the grocery store like folks did in 1970 and save money just like they did. Inventing something expensive but convenient doesn’t force anyone to use it that’s struggling to make ends meet. Finally, you’re living in a fantasy if you think any non-negligible portion of the US can walk “10 minutes” to get a meal at a restaurant or even to get to a grocery store.
- snikeris 7y ago
  Look around you. You're surrounded by goods you could afford only because automation made it so. So sure, you can say "all the automation money is going to business owners pockets", but you're surrounded by wealth made possible by automation. > If you live in a hardcore capitalist country like the US all the automation money will go straight to the business owners pockets. Let's look at this through a moral lens. If you come up with an automated way to make mouse traps, who should profit from your invention? If you came up with it on company time, the business owners should. If you came up with it on your own time, then its yours. Diverting that money anywhere else is immoral and disincentivizes future inventions.
maxaf 7y ago
You forgot to bundle “solution to corporate greed” along with the other things you say we’re going to need. Today’s keepers of “automation, robotics, AI, and related productivity enhancements” are for-profit corporations who are beholden to their managers and shareholders. It’s those two groups who act as beneficiaries of the soils; certainly not public pension funds. I find it rather naive to expect a causal link to materialize between corporate profits attributable to automation and solvency of government pension schemes. Corporations certainly wouldn’t do anything to help humans out of the goodness of their heart.
- ZeroFries 7y ago
  A few ways automation can help: 1. Things become cheaper. Maybe you don't need a car anymore since robot taxis are much more affordable. Houses become cheaper to produce, as well as the objects inside. Food is cheaper to produce. 2. Stocks in the "greedy corporations" do better, growing retirement savings. 3. Taxes on the profits grow, which can contribute to pension plans.
JoeAltmaier 7y ago
Automation is/has been happening at an explosive rate in the US for 20 years. The number of 'factory workers' has halved in that time. And the rate is increasing. So there's that.

lm28469 7y ago

If you live in a hardcore capitalist country like the US all the automation money will go straight to the business owners pockets. We keep talking about automation like it is _going_ to happen in the future, truth is it's happening for 40 years, if not more. In europe politicians were promising a 30 hours work week and retirement at 50 in the 70s, all of that thanks to automation, you don't need to be an expert in this field to know that it didn't turn out that way.

bluGill 7y ago
You don't need be an expert to know that quality of life has changed too. If you want to live like the 1970s you need a lot less money. No cable TV bill for your 19 inch TV. No cell phone or internet bill. Your car has an AM only monophonic radio (unless you splurge on an aftermarket 8-track player), and no AC unless you are rich. Those are just a few of the areas of life that people have upgraded. I contend that if all the people who worked on the above were spread out to the jobs of the 1970s with just automation applied the 30 hour workweek would be practical. However people have chosen to use the extra time automation gives them to develop more luxuries in life.
- lm28469 7y ago
  > quality of life has changed too. "changed" is the keyword here, not everything got better. At some point you hit the diminishing return law. Did Uber, Facebook and Netflix had a greater impact on human life than hot tap water and fridges ? Do we need 3 new versions of iphones per year ? Same day delivery ? Did food delivery really upped your quality of life or are we just getting lazy and fat because we consider walking 10 minutes a chore ? Technological progress is automatically assumed to be good, but when you take a few steps back and look at the big picture we're not much better than 50 years ago. We have more useless activities and gadgets to spend our hard earned money, that's for sure, did it make the world a better place, that's another question. > However people have chosen to use the extra time automation gives them to develop more luxuries in life. I don't think "people" chose anything, the elite are very happy with the status quo. Look at wealth inequality stats, it's very easy to see where the money is going, and it's not in the interest of "the people".
  - bluGill 7y ago
    People choose it. Every time you take a uber you choose to spend money instead of walking. All those little decisions add up to less money in your pocket so you need to work more/longer hours to support your spending habits. You don't have to, your boss might demand 40 hours a week, but if you only spend 30 hours/week of that income and save the rest after some years you can retire early on your savings. (note I'm ignoring the risk that you die young!) Most people want more luxury in life now. The result of that choice is they have to work 40 hours/week to afford it.
  - kortilla 7y ago
    Uber, Lyft, and ride sharing in general have significantly reduced drunk driving in places without good public transportation (i.e. most of the US). Wealth inequality stats are irrelevant if your bar for success is “how people lived in 1970”. You can pretty easily live a 1970 middle-class life buying unsafe, unreliable, highly polluting cars living in an asbestos insulated house with ungrounded electricity that’s sweltering in the summer. Nobody is forcing people to use food delivery services. You can still go to the grocery store like folks did in 1970 and save money just like they did. Inventing something expensive but convenient doesn’t force anyone to use it that’s struggling to make ends meet. Finally, you’re living in a fantasy if you think any non-negligible portion of the US can walk “10 minutes” to get a meal at a restaurant or even to get to a grocery store.
snikeris 7y ago
Look around you. You're surrounded by goods you could afford only because automation made it so. So sure, you can say "all the automation money is going to business owners pockets", but you're surrounded by wealth made possible by automation. > If you live in a hardcore capitalist country like the US all the automation money will go straight to the business owners pockets. Let's look at this through a moral lens. If you come up with an automated way to make mouse traps, who should profit from your invention? If you came up with it on company time, the business owners should. If you came up with it on your own time, then its yours. Diverting that money anywhere else is immoral and disincentivizes future inventions.

maxaf 7y ago

You forgot to bundle “solution to corporate greed” along with the other things you say we’re going to need. Today’s keepers of “automation, robotics, AI, and related productivity enhancements” are for-profit corporations who are beholden to their managers and shareholders. It’s those two groups who act as beneficiaries of the soils; certainly not public pension funds. I find it rather naive to expect a causal link to materialize between corporate profits attributable to automation and solvency of government pension schemes. Corporations certainly wouldn’t do anything to help humans out of the goodness of their heart.

ZeroFries 7y ago
A few ways automation can help: 1. Things become cheaper. Maybe you don't need a car anymore since robot taxis are much more affordable. Houses become cheaper to produce, as well as the objects inside. Food is cheaper to produce. 2. Stocks in the "greedy corporations" do better, growing retirement savings. 3. Taxes on the profits grow, which can contribute to pension plans.

JoeAltmaier 7y ago

Automation is/has been happening at an explosive rate in the US for 20 years. The number of 'factory workers' has halved in that time. And the rate is increasing. So there's that.