The robots are coming...

[luchog]

The point remains that we are at close to full employment now.

Not particularly close, no, as has been noted.

Employers are having a hard time finding people to fill positions.

This is also wrong. Employers are having a hard time finding people to fill certain specific positions, at the salary they are willing to pay for that position. It is an unfortunate fact that many employers are willing to let positions sit empty and dump extra work on their existing employees, rather than increase what they are willing to pay for a position.

And the positions that are difficult to fill are typically highly skilled positions, or require very specialized skillsets. And, naturally, people who have those skills, especially if they're very experienced in them, tend to have much higher salary expectations that some employers are not willing to meet.

It's a good market for job seekers right now, at least in Detroit. The rise of the robots has not eliminated job opportunities, even as it has eliminated specific jobs.

Again, this is highly context dependent, and looking at one small job market does not mean that one has a good idea of what the national market looks like.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Error. Does not compute. Please enter new command.

 

[William Parcher]

What is a human if not just a biological machine? Our brains are just bio-computers and our "lifetime of experience" is just data stored in our brains.

Given that, then why can't a mechanical computer with databases of "experiences" be able to do the same thing we can?

What will be the equivalent of hormones within the robot brain and its body? Some sort of special juice that flows across the tiny metal circuits of its CPU and effects what it thinks and does?

 

[The Greater Fool]

Never has been. Since a "job" (in the modern sense of an exchange of labor for capital) came to be an absolute necessity for those not prone to thievery or born into wealth, we have been reducing the availability of jobs.

The only reason it has not been apparent is because we have been steadily reducing the classifications of who needs to have one. Children no longer are expected to have jobs- but there was a time when they were a substantial portion of the labor pool. Further, we have extended childhood into the middle of one's third decade of life with expectations of post secondary education.
We no longer expect someone who is "old" to have a job, even if they are physically hale, nor someone who is physically or mentally challenged in some way.

It seems to me that considerations of changes like that are often ignored by those who revert to the assertion that technology has "always" created more jobs than it has cost, or that "all of human history" has been one of technology creating jobs. Those kind of assertions seem to view all of history through a modern lense which fails to recognize how recent and changing the notion of a "job" is.

I have no issue with your points.

But, one group you failed to mention, that seems to be growing, are those people that have given up on finding employment. Many of these manage to get on disability and are out of the job market. Interesting NPR Story.

 

[luchog]

I have no issue with your points.

But, one group you failed to mention, that seems to be growing, are those people that have given up on finding employment. Many of these manage to get on disability and are out of the job market. Interesting NPR Story.

Nothing in there is in any way surprising when I think about it; but to have it all laid out that clearly and comprehensively is quite the eye-opener. It really calls the government's unemployment figures into question, and shows just how much of the real problem is being hidden by the official statistics. More than 14 million people, with the numbers more than tripling over the last three decades. And at a rough estimate, easily a third to half of these could be employable at a job that did not involved significant physical labour (like my job). But there needs to be extensive education and re-training programs for such people, which just aren't there, and neither, apparently, are the jobs.

 

[mgidm86]

As used here, "robot" means pretty much any machine that does work independently that used to be done by a thinking human being. A power saw is a tool, not a robot; a power saw that cuts complex shapes without operator intervention is a robot.

A CNC machine is not a robot (or is it considered one?). It is a machine controlled by a computer. The job is programmed into the machine by an operator and the machine does exactly as instructed.

This machine replaces a lot of man-hours. It does not work independently - actually I'm not sure what you mean by that - none of the guys work independently. They all have tasks dictated by the requirements of the job at hand.

A ditch digger tractor takes the job of people who dig with shovels. It too is operated by a human. What if it could be programmed to dig trenches in an entire piece of land without a driver. Is it now a robot?

Someone has to tell every machine what to do at some point. So robot or machine? If you want to tax robots then we need a very definite answer here. I personally think it sounds like a dumb idea but I'm open minded on this.

 

[luchog]

A CNC machine is not a robot (or is it considered one?). It is a machine controlled by a computer. The job is programmed into the machine by an operator and the machine does exactly as instructed.

A robot, in this context, is a machine that can perform complex tasks without direct human control. For example, an industrial robot on an assembly line can assemble widgets based on a widget-assembly program, autonomously. Turn it on, parts come in via conveyor or are picked out of a bin, assembled widgets go out, and no humans anywhere around unless something breaks. Turn it on, let it do its job, turn it off when it's done. Basically, it acts like any human worker for the purposes of a particular task. You tell it what to do, and it does it without you hanging around directing it every step of the way (mind you, I've known a number of managers who still do that with their human employees).

Someone has to tell every machine what to do at some point.

And someone has to tell a human worker what to do at some point, only for humans we call it "training" instead of "programming".

 

[Roboramma]

50,000 years of human invention and we have still managed to grow the absolute number of jobs that exist. No other previous technology has reversed that trend. Advocates that a technology will do that have a serious uphill battle.

Does unemployment exist in a hunter-gatherer society? If your "job" is collecting food to feed yourself, everyone is employed. But in modern society that is no longer possible and the division of labour means that there really are people who aren't skilled enough to do something that someone else is willing to pay them for.

Automation will continue to create new jobs, but when those jobs can also be taken up by robots, it won't matter how many jobs are created, humans won't be doing them.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Maybe needs a new thread but this is about encroaching robots.

A lot of supposed chats businesses have to fix a problem (eBay, Comcast, etc) are really sophisticated chats with auto-bots pretending to be real human interactions.

So I've had trouble opening Comcast mail off and on for days now, extremely annoying. I try the chat, knowing it's a faux person. Anyway so we go round and round with the usual algorithm getting nowhere and the bot says it will "kick it up to a higher level and someone is supposed to call me.

But then, OMG, the thing started a classic sales pitch to increase my service.This was a repair call mind you. When I said no thanks it kept going with all the classic techniques those jerks use to keep you from hanging up. Two rounds of "but just read this" and I cut it off. If I hadn't, there is no doubt it would have gone on and on with all the sleazy ways sales guys try to keep you on the line.

I can imagine this is just as effective as a real person, with a lot of people too polite to end the chat even though it isn't with a real person, especially since a lot of people haven't caught on yet to these auto-bot conversations.

 

[Meadmaker]

Maybe needs a new thread but this is about encroaching robots.

A lot of supposed chats businesses have to fix a problem (eBay, Comcast, etc) are really sophisticated chats with auto-bots pretending to be real human interactions.

So I've had trouble opening Comcast mail off and on for days now, extremely annoying. I try the chat, knowing it's a faux person. Anyway so we go round and round with the usual algorithm getting nowhere and the bot says it will "kick it up to a higher level and someone is supposed to call me.

But then, OMG, the thing started a classic sales pitch to increase my service.This was a repair call mind you. When I said no thanks it kept going with all the classic techniques those jerks use to keep you from hanging up. Two rounds of "but just read this" and I cut it off. If I hadn't, there is no doubt it would have gone on and on with all the sleazy ways sales guys try to keep you on the line.

I can imagine this is just as effective as a real person, with a lot of people too polite to end the chat even though it isn't with a real person, especially since a lot of people haven't caught on yet to these auto-bot conversations.

Some years back, as automated customer service phone menus were becoming ubiquitous, you frequently had to go several levels deep and answer multiple questions before getting to a real human being. However, I discovered that there was a word that began with "f" which, when uttered, would frequently result in "Transferring to a customer representative."

Alas, that hasn't worked for a while now. I suppose too many people caught on and the businesses didn't want you to be able to get to a human being quite so easily.

 

[Mikemcc]

The part that you and everybody else is missing is that robots can only replace humans at a given human cost (wages, benefits, etc.). Reduce those costs even a bit, and suddenly it becomes uneconomical to replace the person with a robot. This is why robots currently are only replacing people who work at very robotic tasks (driving is certainly robotic), or people who have a very high cost (surgeons).

What amuses me is that everybody on the Left feels the answer is to throw money at people who don't work anymore (sort of their default solution). I was never a big fan of the argument that welfare is theft, but when people start to talk about redistributing the fruits of robot labor it's not hard to see that's exactly what they are talking about.

Robots most certainly are not replacing surgeons. Systems such as da Vinci allow surgeons to perform far more delicate procedures than would be humanly possible unaided. But the surgeon is still operating the system, still making the decisions on how and where to operate, and reacting to any follow on issues.

Many robotic systems (outside of production lines and distribution systems) augment, rather than replace the workforce. My personal experience is in pharma labs and biotech, maintaining cell-lines is a very labour intensive task and requires constant vigilance to counter cross-contamination. Using automation allows the very skilled researchers to carry out more useful work, improves consistency, and reduces the risk of cross-contamination.

 

[Brainster]

Robots most certainly are not replacing surgeons. Systems such as da Vinci allow surgeons to perform far more delicate procedures than would be humanly possible unaided. But the surgeon is still operating the system, still making the decisions on how and where to operate, and reacting to any follow on issues.

I assume you are correct here; the only reason why I mentioned surgeons is because whenever I say that robots are only doing reasonably mindless tasks, somebody claims that they are doing surgery. Your explanation sounds quite a bit more reasonable.

Many robotic systems (outside of production lines and distribution systems) augment, rather than replace the workforce. My personal experience is in pharma labs and biotech, maintaining cell-lines is a very labour intensive task and requires constant vigilance to counter cross-contamination. Using automation allows the very skilled researchers to carry out more useful work, improves consistency, and reduces the risk of cross-contamination.

This is pretty much how tech impacted my job over the years. Back in the dark ages (pre-PCs), I did spreadsheets to analyze commercial real estate transactions. By hand, on lined sheets of paper. If my boss wanted to change one assumption and find out what it did to the deal, it was basically an afternoon with my door closed grinding out the numbers (fortunately we did have pretty good calculators by this point). Of course, within a few years it was a moment or two (depending on how long Lotus 123 took to recalc). But that did not mean mass layoffs for people in my position; it just meant that we could analyze deals on a more sophisticated basis.

 

[dudalb]

I'm not advocating it. I am saying it will happen. Look, if all this comes to pass--that robots start taking all the jobs away, you don't think quite a few people will decide that maybe they can take a little less?

Or maybe you believe this fairyland nonsense about how the government is going to be able to tax the owners of the robots enough to keep us all in middle-class heaven?

"Let Them Eat Cake" in other words.
I suggest you look at the fate of people who have this idea. It is not pretty.
And you are living in a fairyland nonsense if you think a small group of wealthy people and huge masses of people living in poverty is a situation that in today's world will lost very long.
Irony is you are trying to make an argument in favor of lassiez Faire capitalism and are having the opposite effect.

 

[Distracted1]

"Let Them Eat Cake" in other words.
I suggest you look at the fate of people who have this idea. It is not pretty.
And you are living in a fairyland nonsense if you think a small group of wealthy people and huge masses of people living in poverty is a situation that in today's world will lost very long.
Irony is you are trying to make an argument in favor of lassiez Faire capitalism and are having the opposite effect.

It has been the norm through most of history. What makes you think civilization will not revert to the mean ?

 

[Brainster]

"Let Them Eat Cake" in other words.
I suggest you look at the fate of people who have this idea. It is not pretty.
And you are living in a fairyland nonsense if you think a small group of wealthy people and huge masses of people living in poverty is a situation that in today's world will lost very long.
Irony is you are trying to make an argument in favor of lassiez Faire capitalism and are having the opposite effect.

Let's play choose your own story:

1. You decide to place heavy taxes on robots that replace human beings and redistribute the money to those displaced.
2. Laissez-faire: You decide to let the market determine what happens.
3. Something in between--say retraining for the replaced workers but moderate taxes on the robots.
4. Nobody has to work again except those who want yachts. We just sit around collecting checks from our magnificent robot partners.
5. The really rich realize they don't need us and kill us off with chemtrails or something.

Note that if you buy the premise--that we're all just useless once the robots take over, that #5 makes a lot of sense. Sound extreme? Well, let me point out that you are the one making comparisons to the French Revolution.

 

[Roboramma]

5. The really rich realize they don't need us and kill us off with chemtrails or something.

1. Why? Not needing us isn't a motive, it's the lack of one particular motive against killing us off. But what's the positive motivation for doing so.
2. How? Presumably the wealth that we all have from our tax on the robots also means that we have some power to prevent our demise, even if we are somehow not assuming powerful institutions in place with that same agenda, but of course those institutions exist now, and I see no reason to think that they will disappear.

 

[Brainster]

1. Why? Not needing us isn't a motive, it's the lack of one particular motive against killing us off. But what's the positive motivation for doing so.

Because people are seriously proposing that we take money that belongs to them and giving it to everybody who loses a job to a robot. Under the threat of another French revolution, no less.

2. How? Presumably the wealth that we all have from our tax on the robots also means that we have some power to prevent our demise, even if we are somehow not assuming powerful institutions in place with that same agenda, but of course those institutions exist now, and I see no reason to think that they will disappear.

Once you have the robot tax in place, yes, it will be harder for the wealthy to kill us all off.

 

[Roboramma]

Because people are seriously proposing that we take money that belongs to them and giving it to everybody who loses a job to a robot. Under the threat of another French revolution, no less.



Once you have the robot tax in place, yes, it will be harder for the wealthy to kill us all off.

So your suggestion is that if it looks like that tax will be passed, the wealthy will start their genocide? Or maybe just after it's passed?

I think they'd still have a hard time pulling that off.