Forum Thread

Does our current culture hold us back from full automation of the workforce? We can replace 40% of the workforce right now with automation and one day achieve 95% automation.

The-Alchemist 10,076 1,947 December 3, 2015 at 09:54 AM
Deal
Score
0
3,189 Views

Thread Details

Last Edited by The-Alchemist December 3, 2015 at 09:57 AM
I think it is really weird but I run into people who think machines, weak AI and robots are a bad thing. Because they take away jobs but that is the EXACT point of these inventions. To replace humans so we don't have to do mundane work. There is a ton of mundane work from digging ditches all the way up to white collar TPS reports. At this point I really do not understand why we have not fired all the fast food employees and replaced them with automation. A machine would honestly do a better job and be cheaper. So the only thing I can think of is that people think its "BAD" to fire all these people and replace them. Maybe we should shape our economy to allow mass replacement of humans instead of be held back by the current economy.

Does anyone honestly not believe that we lack the ability to replace most work with robots within 50 years? 50 years is being generous.

And if you believe we can replace humans with robots why get in the way of that?

29 Comments

1 2

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

Joined Aug 2011
L10: Grand Master
10,076 Posts
1,947 Reputation
Original Poster
Pro
#2
Can someone move this to the Podium
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#3
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Joined Jun 2008
Lord Of The G-Strings
4,416 Posts
521 Reputation
#4
I don't see it being 95% - its just cycles in industrial revolution that's all. We wont be replaced by robots until its cheaper than paying a human.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Joined Aug 2011
L10: Grand Master
10,076 Posts
1,947 Reputation
Original Poster
Pro
#5
Quote from Metric View Post :
I don't see it being 95% - its just cycles in industrial revolution that's all. We wont be replaced by robots until its cheaper than paying a human.
But they are cheaper than humans. You can buy a baxter robot for 25k, one year of salary and replace a factory worker with that. These robots also do not require advance machine code to work and reprogram so the cost of getting them to do what you need.

You don't see it being 95% but think about how many jobs are not just mundane tasks or worthless jobs. Very few.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Joined Jun 2008
Lord Of The G-Strings
4,416 Posts
521 Reputation
#6
Quote from The-Alchemist View Post :
But they are cheaper than humans. You can buy a baxter robot for 25k, one year of salary and replace a factory worker with that. These robots also do not require advance machine code to work and reprogram so the cost of getting them to do what you need.

You don't see it being 95% but think about how many jobs are not just mundane tasks or worthless jobs. Very few.
That's a particular robot for a particular function and that's been happening for decades. Nothing new.

When you have a robot that can drive me to the airport cheaper than uber then we'll talk.

And cost of machine vs salary isn't the only factor - we still have b&m stores because people want to see an item before buying or want to talk to a human.

Again - it's all about costs.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Joined Aug 2011
L10: Grand Master
10,076 Posts
1,947 Reputation
Original Poster
Pro
#7
Quote from Metric View Post :
That's a particular robot for a particular function and that's been happening for decades. Nothing new.

When you have a robot that can drive me to the airport cheaper than uber then we'll talk.

And cost of machine vs salary isn't the only factor - we still have b&m stores because people want to see an item before buying or want to talk to a human.

Again - it's all about costs.
We already have cars that can do that. Google car and BMW is making one. Should be out in a few years for consumers. We still have brick stores because culture is holding us back. No reason to talk to a human for 95% of the stuff you buy.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#8
Quote from The-Alchemist View Post :
We already have cars that can do that. Google car and BMW is making one. Should be out in a few years for consumers. We still have brick stores because culture is holding us back. No reason to talk to a human for 95% of the stuff you buy.
Well the cars aren't out yet - however automation only creates a new set of jobs. Maintaining that automation. Until there are robots who can fix the robots jobs will still be around, just different skill sets.

Secondly brick and mortar stores are still around because people want instant gratification and sometimes there is a need for things at that moment. Ex: Your pipe breaks in your home and you need a fix at that moment, not 2 day shipping.

I semi agree with the no reason for talking to a human, however reading a how to, or reviews is still humans engaging with other humans, just in a different way. It could lead to jumping onto a kiosk and asking your question. Jobs will still be around, just different.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

Joined Aug 2011
L10: Grand Master
10,076 Posts
1,947 Reputation
Original Poster
Pro
#9
Quote from voljason View Post :
Well the cars aren't out yet - however automation only creates a new set of jobs. Maintaining that automation. Until there are robots who can fix the robots jobs will still be around, just different skill sets.

Secondly brick and mortar stores are still around because people want instant gratification and sometimes there is a need for things at that moment. Ex: Your pipe breaks in your home and you need a fix at that moment, not 2 day shipping.

I semi agree with the no reason for talking to a human, however reading a how to, or reviews is still humans engaging with other humans, just in a different way. It could lead to jumping onto a kiosk and asking your question. Jobs will still be around, just different.
No, it destroys jobs. You do not replace 100 people with machines then hire 100 people to maintain and reprogram the machines. You only need one person to maintain all those machines. So what do the other 99 people do now? Not to mention they are probably low skill workers all of which can be replaced by machine. Leaving these people with no where to go.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Last edited by The-Alchemist December 5, 2015 at 09:36 AM
#10
Quote from The-Alchemist View Post :
No, it destroys jobs. You do not replace 100 people with machines then hire 100 people to maintain and reprogram the machines. You only need one person to maintain all those machines. So what do the other 99 people do now? Not to mention they are probably low skill workers all of which can be replaced by machine. Leaving these people with no where to go.
I didn't say it creates jobs 1:1 for the jobs machines replaced. However it might not create the exaggeration you are saying. For example:

It still takes resources to make the robots, it still takes people surveying, engineering, gathering the resources to build the robots. Parts have to be made to keep them up to date, updates have to be made to software, and on an on and on. We don't create a machine and it replaces 100 people and that's it. It is going to take more than 1 person to maintain all of those machines.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Joined Aug 2011
L10: Grand Master
10,076 Posts
1,947 Reputation
Original Poster
Pro
#11
Quote from voljason View Post :
I didn't say it creates jobs 1:1 for the jobs machines replaced. However it might not create the exaggeration you are saying. For example:

It still takes resources to make the robots, it still takes people surveying, engineering, gathering the resources to build the robots. Parts have to be made to keep them up to date, updates have to be made to software, and on an on and on. We don't create a machine and it replaces 100 people and that's it. It is going to take more than 1 person to maintain all of those machines.
It takes a very small work source of engineers and programmers to keep these machines updated and running.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#12
Quote from Metric View Post :
That's a particular robot for a particular function and that's been happening for decades. Nothing new.

When you have a robot that can drive me to the airport cheaper than uber then we'll talk.

And cost of machine vs salary isn't the only factor - we still have b&m stores because people want to see an item before buying or want to talk to a human.

Again - it's all about costs.
autonomous car, self driving car, is next big automation. Huge market. Baby boomer wanna drive til theyre a hundred and five.

google is working on it. This is next Big game changer. 5 years. Probably won't come to US first cause of liability laws.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#13
Of course we're held back by our current culture and society. That's a given.
In our society, a pretty damn good chunk of people are not happy with just having enough to get by, or just be comfortable, or even moderately above comfortable. They want to have status, and they persue that status by an attempt to have more than others.

Most things exist (perceptually speaking) not on their own, but in relation to their counterparts.
Rich or wealthy ceases to have meaning without poor or less wealthy. If everyone has the same amount of wealth, then nobody is rich, they just are people. No better or worse, no higher or lower status, than anyone else.

Getting rid of our workforce and replacing with automation could never happen without getting rid of expenses as well. We would have to make food, clothing, housing, utilities, etc etc etc. all free. How's that going to work? If we were to replace everyone with automation, then how do I pay my rent? The company that owns the house I rent certainly isn't going to pay for the property and let me live in it free. That means they'd have to have no cost, or the government own all property.
Then you'd have to make all housing be the same, so that nobody got pissed that so and so had a better house or apartment than them. But what about location? What if everyone (or a disproportionate amount of people) wanted to live by the coast? How do you make that happen equitably without lowering the quality of life for everyone by cramming too many people into one region?

Arguably the most apparent way to make something like this happen would be a massive shift in human attitude from one of individual benefit to altruism. One where we would all just do our part for the benefit of all, knowing that others are doing the same for our benefit as well. Good luck with that happening anytime soon. The fact that some people want more than others, or some people would put in less than others, prevents that at this time.

Too many logistical problems at this stage to be able to en masse replace the workforce with automation.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Joined Nov 2005
L10: Grand Master
25,032 Posts
3,353 Reputation
Pro
#14
Fast food is RIPE for this, since menu options can be programmed - stuff like hamburgers are really suited for an assembly line type of process. Heck, automation already exists but isn't really implemented. Most of it's cost/benefit, and it's a big jump from having a kitchen and employees to a big machine and ,maintenance. There would be a lot of negative PR mostly from ignorance.

As to what would happen to these workers? We tend to forget that there are many jobs throughout history that cease to exist or are drastically scaled back due to progress - before backhoes, ditches were dug by hand. Before refrigerators, you had milkmen and guys that delivered ice. I could go on and on. somehow society survived the death of these jobs. the bigger issue is minimum wage, which is the primary driver in the cost/benefit for automation in fast food places. At some point it will just be plain cheaper to invest in automation than to deal with growing MW. Wages are compensation for one's time and talent; it's a fact of life that with zero skills or education, your time is not worth much. If the FF industry goes to automation, you'll have a ton of workers that may be willing to work for less than MW but legally can't.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#15
Quote from Dr. J View Post :
Fast food is RIPE for this, since menu options can be programmed - stuff like hamburgers are really suited for an assembly line type of process. Heck, automation already exists but isn't really implemented. Most of it's cost/benefit, and it's a big jump from having a kitchen and employees to a big machine and ,maintenance. There would be a lot of negative PR mostly from ignorance.

As to what would happen to these workers? We tend to forget that there are many jobs throughout history that cease to exist or are drastically scaled back due to progress - before backhoes, ditches were dug by hand. Before refrigerators, you had milkmen and guys that delivered ice. I could go on and on. somehow society survived the death of these jobs. the bigger issue is minimum wage, which is the primary driver in the cost/benefit for automation in fast food places. At some point it will just be plain cheaper to invest in automation than to deal with growing MW. Wages are compensation for one's time and talent; it's a fact of life that with zero skills or education, your time is not worth much. If the FF industry goes to automation, you'll have a ton of workers that may be willing to work for less than MW but legally can't.
We still have people delivering ice, milk and hole diggers Cool
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
for those that hate spelling mistakes www.walmarts.comCool

bulb save money by checking your insurance every 2 years (and not every 20)
Page 1 of 2
1 2
Join the Conversation
Add a Comment
 
Copyright 1999 - 2016. Slickdeals, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Copyright / Infringement Policy  •  Privacy Policy  •  Terms of Service  •  Acceptable Use Policy (Rules)  •  Interest-Based Ads
Link Copied to Clipboard