• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Will robots steal our jobs?

barehl said:
When the steam donkey became available it eliminated jobs in a number of areas such as the number of men required to handle sails on schooners. ...
Click to expand...
It's amazing that people have to go back 100s of years in order to prove that technology won't reduce jobs.
 
psionl0 said:
It's amazing that people have to go back 100s of years in order to prove that technology won't reduce jobs.
Click to expand...
It's amazing that you don't see the hundred year track record. Technology has advanced. Population has increased. But unemployment has not kept up.

This signature is intended to irradiate people.
 
theprestige said:
It's amazing that you don't see the hundred year track record. Technology has advanced. Population has increased. But unemployment has not kept up.
Click to expand...
No? Youth unemployment is at record levels and it would be a darn sight higher if the figures weren't disguised by young people acquiring record levels of student debt instead.
 
Dr. Keith said:
I'll let my former cleaning lady know that she hasn't lost her job. Because I was about to rehire her before the wife bought this.
Click to expand...
That wasn't what I said. I don't care why you in particular bought a DeeBot or if you have now decided that you no longer need all the other types of cleaning that a DeeBot can't do. Many businesses have lots and lots of floor space that needs to be vacuumed. So even though a DeeBot can only do one thing that one thing should still be very useful if the DeeBot actually worked. The savings in labor cost would be another tremendous advantage. We both know why this hasn't happened; the DeeBot is not capable of doing the job.
 
psionl0 said:
It's amazing that people have to go back 100s of years in order to prove that technology won't reduce jobs.
Click to expand...

That would be amazing if that was what I said. It wasn't what I said though and I don't know why you are pretending otherwise. Why don't you see if you can quote me without the strawmen?
 
Dr. Keith said:
The above assumes that the basic living allowance is only provided to the unemployed. Most basic income proposals are of the "universal" nature to sidestep this issue entirely.

I agree that in connection you would no longer need a minimum wage. And wages may even go down a bit for very easy jobs. But menial jobs or disgusting jobs may see a wage increase. It could be interesting.
Click to expand...

Where are you going to get the money? Let's say you make it $10,000 a year. I don't know how you can live on much less. For a population of 300 million, that's $3 trillion a year. And that's new spending (I presume you wouldn't be heartless enough to reduce social security checks either).
 
Brainster said:
Where are you going to get the money? Let's say you make it $10,000 a year. I don't know how you can live on much less. For a population of 300 million, that's $3 trillion a year. And that's new spending (I presume you wouldn't be heartless enough to reduce social security checks either).
Click to expand...

There will be no need for unemployment benefits if there is a basic wage given to all as they can live on the basic wage. Then currently there are the subsidies given to the parents of children. And money to private schools. They can go. Nor would there be any need for people to administer those abolished benefits. So your figures are an overestimate.
 
barehl said:
What you have today is Advanced AI. It works quite well on structured, high volume, and repetitive tasks. It's efficient but profoundly stupid. It is not unusual for people to hope that advanced AI will somehow grow up to be General AI. However, there is still no experimental foundation and no theoretical basis for this.

General AI. If this actually exists then no one has yet been able to say how it would differ from cognitive theory. If it is the same as cognitive theory then that wouldn't help you because it would only give you a sentient agent with similar reasoning capabilities to a human.

Fractional Theory. This is a hypothetical overlap between cognitive and computational theory. It involves the idea that behavior can be hard limited based on computation. It's the model most often used in science fiction including Asimov's three laws and Robby from The Forbidden Planet. If you want a perfect servant or an intelligent weapon, this is what you would need.
Click to expand...

You have missed that I was talking about what AI/expert systems (the nomenclature is an irrelevance) can do today, that is not theory that is reality.
 
rjh01 said:
There will be no need for unemployment benefits if there is a basic wage given to all as they can live on the basic wage. Then currently there are the subsidies given to the parents of children. And money to private schools. They can go. Nor would there be any need for people to administer those abolished benefits. So your figures are an overestimate.
Click to expand...
Indeed - the whole point about Universal Basic Income is that it replaces all other forms of welfare with a guaranteed and unconditional minimum income.
 
arthwollipot said:
Indeed - the whole point about Universal Basic Income is that it replaces all other forms of welfare with a guaranteed and unconditional minimum income.
Click to expand...
This assumes that the productivity being taxed is sufficient to support all these erstwhile welfare recipients, and that the tax is not so onerous as to discourage the needed productivity.

This signature is intended to irradiate people.
 
Skeptical Greg said:
Well, it ain't universal if it ain't universal...
Click to expand...
It's called "universal" because it applies to everyone - it isn't means tested and it isn't conditional.

It doesn't mean that it applies to everyone in the universe. I mean that'd be nice, and it'll be necessary when robots take all our jobs, but capitalists aren't ready for that yet because of some misguided impression that you have to actually work in order to deserve to live.
 
barehl said:
That would be amazing if that was what I said. It wasn't what I said though and I don't know why you are pretending otherwise. Why don't you see if you can quote me without the strawmen?
Click to expand...
I don't know what you are complaining about. You are the one who brought up "steam donkeys" and "sails on schooners".

"Steam engines" seems to be the universal response to claims that technology threatens jobs.
 
psionl0 said:
technology threatens jobs
Click to expand...
100 years here and there, technology has come and gone. Some joblessness is ever present. Is it even connected to technology so much? Joblessness is merely a way to cut a thinner slice of the cake to some people, so the rest can have wider slices.
 
barehl said:
That wasn't what I said. I don't care why you in particular bought a DeeBot or if you have now decided that you no longer need all the other types of cleaning that a DeeBot can't do. Many businesses have lots and lots of floor space that needs to be vacuumed. So even though a DeeBot can only do one thing that one thing should still be very useful if the DeeBot actually worked. The savings in labor cost would be another tremendous advantage. We both know why this hasn't happened; the DeeBot is not capable of doing the job.
Click to expand...

My point was that a robot can take jobs away. Not that it can take the job you were talking about away. Cleaning a hotel and cleaning my house are two completely different jobs. That is like comparing a Keurig to a barista. My office has a Keurrig, but no baristas lost their jobs due to it. (Although it can be confusing, Mr. Coffee is not actually a person.)
 
Brainster said:
Where are you going to get the money? Let's say you make it $10,000 a year. I don't know how you can live on much less. For a population of 300 million, that's $3 trillion a year. And that's new spending (I presume you wouldn't be heartless enough to reduce social security checks either).
Click to expand...

rjh01 said:
There will be no need for unemployment benefits if there is a basic wage given to all as they can live on the basic wage. Then currently there are the subsidies given to the parents of children. And money to private schools. They can go. Nor would there be any need for people to administer those abolished benefits. So your figures are an overestimate.
Click to expand...

arthwollipot said:
Indeed - the whole point about Universal Basic Income is that it replaces all other forms of welfare with a guaranteed and unconditional minimum income.
Click to expand...

As a fiscal conservative it should be an easy sell: less overhead, less whining, more direct impact on the economy. Combined with a universal basic health care, it could reduce needless spending tremendously.

So, current welfare recipients and unemployment recipients just start getting a monthly check. Same for everyone, no need for means testing or location adjustments. If you live in NYC and can't get by on the same as someone living in Detroit, then move your ass to Detroit. It's about an 18 hour train ride and the tickets appear to be available for around $100. But you want to stay in NYC, because that is where all your friends and family are? Great, get a job.

For people like you and me, who pay more in taxes than the government would ever pay as a UBI, we will get the UBI, but our taxes go up by the same amount. so, about 40% of the people getting the UBI will just be paying it back in taxes. Sound inefficient? Compare it to the number of people working for the government right now trying to keep track of all our damn social welfare programs.

In the middle there will be people who get the UBI and pay a bit more in taxes. Currently they have to juggle the pros and cons of getting a job: what benefits do I loose by being a Walmart greeter. With UBI you would remove the perverse incentives not to work that are inherent in the current system. The added income may be taxed, but there would be no decrease in the UBI. So, using your number of $10,000, an unemployed person is far better off getting a job that pays another $20,000 per year even if they have to pay as much as $2,000 in income taxes. They don't lose their UBI just because they get a raise at work or work a few more hours during the holiday rush.
 
psionl0 said:
I have news for you. Technology is still here.

And it has the potential to replace far more jobs than steam engines ever did - without creating new jobs in the process.
Click to expand...
Its absolutely reasonable to point out that that claim has been made before about other technology. Historically, those claims were only true in the short term. Sure, steam engines aren't an exact parallel but it and other examples indicate that predictions of the end of work are probably premature.


@Mr Keith,

In theory, UBI would be the fiscally conservative answer to a social safety net but:

Depending on the amount proposed if its universal and not means tested it will be more expensive than a means tested program.

Most libertarians and conservatives don't believe it would actually replace other programs but just be added on top.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom