3 ms·

It will be a long while. Besides, nothing about that automation actually changes the funding labor problem. I have always found it tough to sell a robot a goo

It will be a long while. Besides, nothing about that automation actually changes the funding labor problem. I have always found it tough to sell a robot a good meal too. There will be basic labors we need doing and a lot of people doing them for the foreseeable future.

bumby 5y ago
Wouldn't an automation tax change the funding labor problem?
- ddingus 5y ago
  Assuming an already expensive automation makes any kind of economic sense, it could. But right now for a vast majority of basic labors, automation remains out of reach being impractical economically, if not technically. And robots don't need a good movie, a night out, a good meal, or any of those things, so whatever taxes has to find their way to the people who do present real demand for those things. And those people do have costs, unless we simply allow them to cease to exist and not show up for work anymore.
  - bumby 5y ago
    >vast majority of basic labors We might need some qualifiers to understand exactly what you mean. Most automation is readily within reach if the job is rote and the economic differential is there. (FWIW, I used to build and program assembly line robuts). >whatever taxes has to find their way to the people who do present real demand for those things. I think this is the intent. Call it UBI, Freedom Dividend, or whatever, but the goal is to fund the societal base that has the actual need for whatever automation (or humans) will produce.
    - ddingus 5y ago
      Those are not real answers in my view. How we value human labor is a real answer, and the fact is we need to start with the cost of existing and or showing up for work. As for rote... look, automation is expensive to establish, adapt transport and maintain, and need infrastructure to support it all. People, at their real cost, are a GREAT deal and that will be true for a very long time yet. Go work through a few cases. I have experience in automation. It is the little things that cost a lot. We are more likely to succeed with augmented labor, and already do. Better tools = labor multipliers.
      - bumby 5y ago
        Automation is expensive, but so is human labor. Once you cost in all the human costs, like paid time off, the variability in performance, administrative overhead, etc. it can be a lot cheaper to automate. Which is exactly why it's done. As for cases, I worked in automotive assembly line robots. Upfront costs are high, sure, but nothing compared to the legacy costs of the dozens of the unionized human labor they supplant. (I'm not against unionization btw, only bringing it up because it tends to - fairly IMO - sway the power to the worker in terms of higher wages). An automation tax would at least make up for some of the lost revenue that supports societal infrastructure. It would also sway the economics to extend the time horizon of when it usurps specific segments of the labor economy. Automation is never fully automated, so I would consider it all augmented. It just tends to shift the labor towards fewer and more skilled workers.
        ddingus 5y ago
        "Can be a lot cheaper" Yep. I am not anti automation. Cars, for example. Great use case, as you say. Scale there, appetite for capital investment there, ability to weather high maintenance, change costs all there. There is an opposite end of the scale, and it is that end we are a very long away from. Also, the likes of FANUC do have dark running facilities that use robots to build robots. I do have experience too. That stuff is expensive, complex, and very rigid. Not applicable, at this time, to the vast majority of basic labors we depend on every day. Finally, one can automate workers away, or automation can free them to do more things. The latter is a lot more sustainable, but a lot less sexy, and not so well aligned with the dominant business justifications used to sell initial automation.
        bumby 5y ago
        >automation can free them to do more things. This was my latter point. Automation is often augmented, to use your words. This is more true the higher you get in skills. A Da Vinci robot does not replace a surgeon. But lower level skills are where the difficulty is at. A fork-lift driver may be automated away completely by a parts-picking robot. This is where unions are beneficial in my view. They can ensure at least a relatively soft landing with retraining, replacement, etc.

bumby 5y ago

Wouldn't an automation tax change the funding labor problem?

ddingus 5y ago
Assuming an already expensive automation makes any kind of economic sense, it could. But right now for a vast majority of basic labors, automation remains out of reach being impractical economically, if not technically. And robots don't need a good movie, a night out, a good meal, or any of those things, so whatever taxes has to find their way to the people who do present real demand for those things. And those people do have costs, unless we simply allow them to cease to exist and not show up for work anymore.
- bumby 5y ago
  >vast majority of basic labors We might need some qualifiers to understand exactly what you mean. Most automation is readily within reach if the job is rote and the economic differential is there. (FWIW, I used to build and program assembly line robuts). >whatever taxes has to find their way to the people who do present real demand for those things. I think this is the intent. Call it UBI, Freedom Dividend, or whatever, but the goal is to fund the societal base that has the actual need for whatever automation (or humans) will produce.
  - ddingus 5y ago
    Those are not real answers in my view. How we value human labor is a real answer, and the fact is we need to start with the cost of existing and or showing up for work. As for rote... look, automation is expensive to establish, adapt transport and maintain, and need infrastructure to support it all. People, at their real cost, are a GREAT deal and that will be true for a very long time yet. Go work through a few cases. I have experience in automation. It is the little things that cost a lot. We are more likely to succeed with augmented labor, and already do. Better tools = labor multipliers.
    - bumby 5y ago
      Automation is expensive, but so is human labor. Once you cost in all the human costs, like paid time off, the variability in performance, administrative overhead, etc. it can be a lot cheaper to automate. Which is exactly why it's done. As for cases, I worked in automotive assembly line robots. Upfront costs are high, sure, but nothing compared to the legacy costs of the dozens of the unionized human labor they supplant. (I'm not against unionization btw, only bringing it up because it tends to - fairly IMO - sway the power to the worker in terms of higher wages). An automation tax would at least make up for some of the lost revenue that supports societal infrastructure. It would also sway the economics to extend the time horizon of when it usurps specific segments of the labor economy. Automation is never fully automated, so I would consider it all augmented. It just tends to shift the labor towards fewer and more skilled workers.
      - ddingus 5y ago
        "Can be a lot cheaper" Yep. I am not anti automation. Cars, for example. Great use case, as you say. Scale there, appetite for capital investment there, ability to weather high maintenance, change costs all there. There is an opposite end of the scale, and it is that end we are a very long away from. Also, the likes of FANUC do have dark running facilities that use robots to build robots. I do have experience too. That stuff is expensive, complex, and very rigid. Not applicable, at this time, to the vast majority of basic labors we depend on every day. Finally, one can automate workers away, or automation can free them to do more things. The latter is a lot more sustainable, but a lot less sexy, and not so well aligned with the dominant business justifications used to sell initial automation.
        bumby 5y ago
        >automation can free them to do more things. This was my latter point. Automation is often augmented, to use your words. This is more true the higher you get in skills. A Da Vinci robot does not replace a surgeon. But lower level skills are where the difficulty is at. A fork-lift driver may be automated away completely by a parts-picking robot. This is where unions are beneficial in my view. They can ensure at least a relatively soft landing with retraining, replacement, etc.