Topic: Technological unemployment is (almost) here - page 13. (Read 88285 times)

A even better example of computer poetry http://cctvcambridge.org/node/71611

Flipping burgers is not a career, it's a teenagers job. Plus, the profit margins are thin on fast food restaurants, why do you think the food is so cheap? They are being paid what they are worth(the value they provide ) . Doesn't take much to dunk some rates in oil.

We had this arguments since the industry revolution in the early days.

Free market competition will solve the unemployment issue. That is, if we also remove intellectual protection and long term welfare.

Put it this way if its cheaper to get a machine to do it, or self service pre package the goods and let customers warm it up then they will go this way.   People just have the wrong perspective about why a business even exists.   Why not setup a fast food cooperative and then the workers will determine their own costs, pay and profits together.  

If people want to paint it as evil company making billions, treating people like slaves then why wouldnt any competition be possible.  All Im interested in is an open fair trade system, Ive worked in catering and its dam hard work but there is no monopoly on beef cooking and sticking it in some bread?

Governments forcing something to be true is a real negative, for the business, for the people working, for capitalism.   Just increase freedom and open competition and it'll raise prices for the cost of labour.  Stick a legal chain and ball on companies and it eventually causes unemployment, its sad to see people calling for it

hold on right there. the rates of pay being protested for by workers is in no way shape or for going to make these places unprofitable. they profit in the billions of dollars a year, paying workers the wage they made 10 years ago accounting for inflation is not so much to ask.

hey those things are expensive lol, thats not a bad idea. way cheaper than a maid.

There are on the verge of realising an automatic fries and burger machine, coincidently there are many popular protests for fast food workers to receive unprofitable rates of pay.  Hence they invest in machines and reduce ongoing costs, that is what a business will always do and its not about being evil or whatever because business is not charity

at some point there would honestly have to be a law against it. unless of course.... SMART people actually bought their own robots and leased them out/maintinedthem/repaired them also.

didnt think of that did ya

hehe i dunno.

ill rent out a roomba for a few bucks. why nottt

the thing about machines is someone has to maintain it. i used to work a job where i was the guy in a parking garage who took your money. then a machine got brought it (Automated payment at automatic gate) and then i became a valet parking guy, who also had to now fix that god damn machine because it broke every 45 minutes of every day. god that job sucked haha but either way. for every machine invented a job field is created for technicians of those machines, until machines start to repair themselves, which requires self awareness. and then we have bigger problems on our hands.

Technological Unemployment is (almost) here .... and it will be ALMOST here forever .... like it has been ALMOST here since the malthusians and luddites started spouting there unsubstantiated nonsense for 200 years already.

Yet.

It's mostly because it's still cheaper to use people for some labor than machines. A hiring burger making human is cheaper than building and installing a burger making robot. Same for cashiers, ticket booth operators, janitors, etc. But as long as people keep demanding increases in labor price floors (minimum wage), they will keep pushing themselves above the costs of such robots, and getting their jobs replaced. It will always be cheaper for me to just ask someone to sweep my yard, than to get a robot that's specifically designed for that job, and sits around and does nothing for most of its life.

Totally agree, government subsidy enhances inefficiency. As an aside, I believe that a large of institutionalised inefficiency is public sector unions 'protecting' their 'employees' when it's just jimmying the power of the state in a huge racket.

Boggles my mind how most people do not see the huge conflict of interest that exists in any public 'service'.

Yes, my coding heroes are above fifty, and they would wipe my ass. Mark Russinovich and Anders Hejlsberg to cite them.
And I don't cite the best book authors in development and business I read. This is what happen when someone does not stop learning until such age, they are at a whole new level.

Yes.
It happens every time government give subsidize to maintain jobs. (in any disguised form, explicitly, or implicitly via tax break or political favor)

The subsidy make it economically unprofitable to automate things, so one does not develop it.
Another way of thinking is saying that subsidy make it economically profitable to keep manual labor, at the price of intellectual labor. (Well I have some doubt about whether I am paying for it because I profit directly from the shortage of intellectual labor)

If we were robots that might work.. I'll agree job markets are manipulated, but imagining some top down mandate would be effective is communism- which is inherently ineffective due to misdirection of incentives.

I do not think i would have put in another way, well said.

To chime in on the programming aspect- I'm only 30 and experiencing similar pulls towards coding where my field is predominantly creative (I'm a games animator) there are more and more demands for multi-skilled individuals with preference towards programming/scripting. I'm lucky that I have somewhat of a proclivity towards technical skills, but a lot of my colleagues struggle to find pure animation work.

Are you suggesting that certain automation hasn't been implemented due to the significant disruption that would likely occur? It's plausible I suppose, but I think it's creeping in, slowly. Banks having automated deposit machines now, same at train stations in the UK...

Both of my parents have Masters in microbiology. Both reached a pay ceiling in that field, and spent their evenings with a private tutor learning software development, while in their early 50s, still having a family to take care of (I was out, but I think my brother was still in highschool), and not really knowing much about computers. Only because they knew programming is in high demand and is where the money is at. Both now earn more than twice what they used to. So yes, it's not age...

Someone earlier in this thread said that "The current technology is already advanced enough to replace quite significant % of man labour, it just hasn't been implemented yet." While the poster simply stated that as an ominous looming threat, and trailed off, you guys really need to examine why it hasn't happened yet.

Listen to this guy ... he totally knows what he is talking about ... people stop learning because they have chosen to at some point in their past.

Old guys, with experience in many languages and fields, yet are still able to self-train are like gold and worth 5-10 times more than their younger counter-parts.

It is not because you are old, it is because you stopped learning. (and certainly not because old people have less brain cells as the fallacy justify)
I noticed that independent developers never need training, except if they want a little boost. It does not depend on their age but need of their previous work.
An independent developer needs to train himself to get new contracts.
An employee, most of the time, just do the same thing over and over. (Software Vendor's employees does more various thing than software and computing services companies)
There is exception for sure, of independent that does always the same thing, and employee that changes, but this is rare.

A worker can't retrain himself if he lost the ability to learn, this is why I am a trainer after all. The reason they are so bad at it is not age, but past's need.

When they tell me "I don't have time to train", this is bullshit.
What I am hearing is : "I don't want to work unpaid overtime to learn something that benefit my employer, when I can see my friends and family instead".
And they are right, this is all question of incentives.
But this is also why, independent consultants' rates are between 5 and 10 times higher. I really have to work 1 week per month.
So, I think, more and more will want to become independent. You can't be independent without learning by yourself, but incentives to learn are not the same, because you profit of your own skill.

This is why, I am very confident that people will start learning by themselves, when there is economic incentive to stay up to date, you stay up to date.
Learning is not limited by our brain but by our economic incentives to learn.

The transition will take time... and any unconditional income or minimal wage would stop it, making the shortage even bigger.