Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
No, it can't. A massive unemployable population means that the state either accepts socialism voluntarily, or the new state formed after the unemployable masses rise up and execute the capitalists accepts socialism.

Or the more likely 3rd option. The people rise up and execute the socialists, destroy the robots, and pass laws heavily regulating/banning mass automation.

But laws like that are socialism...

 skyth wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
No, it can't. A massive unemployable population means that the state either accepts socialism voluntarily, or the new state formed after the unemployable masses rise up and execute the capitalists accepts socialism.

Or the more likely 3rd option. The people rise up and execute the socialists, destroy the robots, and pass laws heavily regulating/banning mass automation.

But laws like that are socialism...

No its not. Banning or limiting something isn't unique to socialism, or indeed any political-economic system.

A lot of the jobs in industry are already gone. The millions in the coal and steel industry have been lost, you’re talking about preserving the remaining shadow of a much greater workforce. Where did these people go? For many, no where, which is why so many areas of Wales and North England are so terribly deprived.

These days we hear about a car factory shutting, and losing a few hundred jobs, on the national news. Yet prior to Thatcher every valley near my parents had collieries and steel works employing ten thousand *each*, and they’ve all been swept aside.

The things that will remain are those that require creativity, real thinking, human skills and traits like empathy. I’m a school teacher, I’ll never be replaced with a robot in my lifetime, likely ever, because machines can’t genuinely empathise with children and can’t judge creative merit of children’s work and ideas.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I’m a school teacher, I’ll never be replaced with a robot in my lifetime, likely ever, because machines can’t genuinely empathise with children and can’t judge creative merit of children’s work and ideas.

It depends on the subject. Math could be taught in an entirely automated way. Anything involving analysis of written text like History or Language classes couldn't be automated of course.

Now it might not be a good idea to automate education, but certain subjects could be.

nfe wrote:

nou wrote:

The topic is vast and language linear, so there are many confusions here. Some of modern industries (examples given - furniture making, assembly lines, clothes production) are still human labor based because they are too hard to fully automate at any reasonable cost despite all existing advances in automation that indeed affect other areas of production to smaller or larger extent.

Not everything can be turned into fully automated soda bottles production lines. And none of those industries mentioned are at the imminent risk of being fully automated and those are not only examples available.

No, not everything can be, but, as you noted yourself, in the lower to mid-range considerable portions of this production is already automated.

After '89 polish transformation total unemployment rates rocketed by about 15 percent points in just three years. That is comparable to succesfull and full automatization of a single large undustry.

But not comparable to the near-simultaneous automation of significant percentages of most industries.

And as to "biggest area of employment being production line operation" - I don't have global data, but in Poland all production (that encompasses all kinds of production, be it low scale craftsman or high scale line assembly) comprises about 30% of all jobs (with just a little more than half of entire workforce in that area working in companies larger than 250 people), with services being the at nearly 60% and agriculture is the last 10%.

I said one of the biggest employers. Globally, it is presumably second to agriculture. In the west I imagine it sits behind services and retail (specially if you count them as the same thing). Services are going to take a hammering too. Already are. All those people doing data input in banks, insurance underwriters, legal PAs, cashiers in supermarkets etc are already being reduced as software and technology is allowing fewer of them to do more work.

Of those in services, most jobs in Poland are in education and health care. In light of all the hard data I really think I can sleep soundly and not be afraid of waking up in a fully automated world anytime soon.

Worryingly (for me especially!), technology is already harming higher education jobs. Things as simple as video lectures. I don't think we're about to see robot teachers, but then, as I've said, it's not robots in the style of the Jetsons that are the threat to employment, it's software and machines carrying out simple, repeated actions.

And regarding call centers - it doesn't matter if you write or speak via phone, there must be a human being on the other side in most cases due to our failure at high enough level of automated natural language interpretation, which was my point earlier.

I'm still not being clear enough, it seems. I'm not saying you will converse with a machine via text instead of speech. I'm saying there will be no conversation via any medium. We're already close to dealing with all such matters via questions and drop down menus of answers. Which people prefer (in the anglophone world, largely due to the movement of centres to India and racism). It's going further that way and will continue to do so until all complaints and changes you used to speak to humans about are dealt with without a human on the other end doing anything at all. Customers directly dealing with their own problems. You know how you used to have to talk to someone in a mobile phone shop for an hour to change contract but now you log into the website and set it up yourself? More of that.

A side example - we are discussing this at a forum about a hobby that hinges on assembly of finely detailed plastic miniatures. This relatively simple but fully 3D process still exceeds the limits of even the most articulate industrial robots. And before you counterargue that this is a niche hobby - this kind of task is very representative to all sorts of human labor at assembly lines of all sorts of products. Basically, the dexterity and sensitivity of our hands and an opposing thumb, the very features that gave us our evolutionary advantage, are still prooving to be the most energy and cost efficient object manipulators available to humanity. And we have billions of them readily available for work in industry.

Again, you are talking about a creative process which no one thinks automation is anywhere close to replacing. I did explicitly reference simple but dexterous processes as being safe above in response to your examples of plumbers and electricians etc. Of course, in the case of GW, after the creation process, the production is completely automated.

I really think you are overly worried here and you over estimate the autonomy of automation in production of even low end products. In my example about citadel miniatures I wasn't talking about creative part of the process of assembling miniatures, but about the level of dexterity required to manipulate complex 3D objects in 3D space. Mobile phones assembly line requires exactly the same dexterity, that is why mobile phone or any other small but complex item production lines won't get automated anytime soon. It is similar on the other side of the dexterity/mobility spectrum. I don't know if you are aware how large scale vehicle (like buses, trams or trains) assembly lines are organized: there is a "template workstation" with all necessary rigs, holds, platforms and tools built in at exact places at which workers must hand wield the frame or mount any external parts to it. Then entire inside of the bus/tram/train is mounted in place by human workers. Those "template workstations" are in turn built entirely via human labor and typical industry tools. Small vehicle construction has more automated lines, but human workers are still needed where universal mobility and dexterity matters. It would require fully fledged sci-fi androids to replace human workforce entirely in such areas of production as shipyards, vechicle assembly, building/road construction, utility construction, meat production etc - everywhere where universal dexterity is key we won't see a shift to full automation in any forseeable future.

Another thing you egzagerrate is the time period needed to shift production from human labor to fully automated, especially on the scale of billions of human workers - those are milions of tonnes of high end machinery that you need to produce from raw materials to installed end product even if you invent a way to fully automate such tasks as mobile phone assembly. It won't happen overnight and we will have time to adapt as we currently have.

As to automated work in retail - you underestimate the global level of human stupidity and emotional instability when it comes to daily routines and interactions - I doubt we will ever shift to fully automated retail because of this fundamental human drive to social interaction on even basic level. And there are other caveats of e.g. workplace computerization. In many areas it actually takes longer now than it took 20 years ago to service a single consumer (e.g. train ticket handling), but the scope of service possible service has widened. That you can buy a ticket online via your mobile phone? Untill everyone switches to those you have to double up on on board validation. We have one of the most modern banking systems in Poland and you can pay via proximity cards virtually everywhere, but it did not removed the necessity for cash registers and physically handling cash by cashiers. Virtually everyday I stumble upon cashiers having to help elderly to count money or recheck some prices or other unprogrammable exceptions requiring mobility and/or human brain power. This is another area in which automation reduces workforce, but does not and will not remove the need for human workforce entirely.

It works as long as the robots only replace relatively unskilled labour. With additional education, the people in those positions can generally still move up to more skilled labour positions instead.
Problems will start to arise however when robots continue to become more and more advanced and become able to replace people in more skilled labour positions as well. There is a hard limit on how much Humans are able to improve themselves and move up to the more demanding new positions that are being created. Robots do not suffer from such a limit, they can be improved indefinitely. Taken to its logical extreme, almost every single person is going to be losing his or her job some time in the future. Obviously, capitalism can't work in such a situation, it will have become irrelevant by then.
But unregulated automation is going to lead to problems long before that. As more and more positions are automated, the underclass of people that can no longer keep up and remain competitive in the job market is going to grow. When this underclass grows too large, revolution (and the end of capitalism with it) becomes a certainty.
To prevent this, it is going to become necessary for governments at some point in the future to either introduce limits to automation or to create an alternate economical system in which this underclass can find a place.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I’m a school teacher, I’ll never be replaced with a robot in my lifetime, likely ever, because machines can’t genuinely empathise with children and can’t judge creative merit of children’s work and ideas.

It depends on the subject. Math could be taught in an entirely automated way. Anything involving analysis of written text like History or Language classes couldn't be automated of course.

Now it might not be a good idea to automate education, but certain subjects could be.

Irrespective of the the subject, you're still going to need somebody to keep the little gaks in line. Now, in the technical subjects one could replace the teacher with a much cheaper supervisory role while a machine did the actual teaching, but the combined cost might make a teacher still the preferable option.

Or we get full blown AIs which replace teachers both in a social and functional sense. But by that point, we've effectively made our own species redundant.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
A lot of the jobs in industry are already gone. The millions in the coal and steel industry have been lost, you’re talking about preserving the remaining shadow of a much greater workforce. Where did these people go? For many, no where, which is why so many areas of Wales and North England are so terribly deprived.

These days we hear about a car factory shutting, and losing a few hundred jobs, on the national news. Yet prior to Thatcher every valley near my parents had collieries and steel works employing ten thousand *each*, and they’ve all been swept aside.

The things that will remain are those that require creativity, real thinking, human skills and traits like empathy. I’m a school teacher, I’ll never be replaced with a robot in my lifetime, likely ever, because machines can’t genuinely empathise with children and can’t judge creative merit of children’s work and ideas.

That is another misconception - those manual workplaces did not vanish - they have been outsorced to countries, where coal and steel industries operate exactly the same as they did years back in UK, but are more cost optimal. Lift a tax-free air fuel de-globalizing worldwide logistics a bit, wait for far east asia to "catch up" on development and living expectations and many of those forgotten jobs will return to the west - this has already started to happening.

It looks like many posters in this thread are not aware, that the global gross product per capita is around Polish average wage and many jobs that you are seeing vanishing from developed countries are not vanishing because of automation but because of globalization of job markets and cost effective global logistics...

nou wrote:


I really think you are overly worried here and you over estimate the autonomy of automation in production of even low end products. In my example about citadel miniatures I wasn't talking about creative part of the process of assembling miniatures, but about the level of dexterity required to manipulate complex 3D objects in 3D space. Mobile phones assembly line requires exactly the same dexterity, that is why mobile phone or any other small but complex item production lines won't get automated anytime soon. It is similar on the other side of the dexterity/mobility spectrum. I don't know if you are aware how large scale vehicle (like buses, trams or trains) assembly lines are organized: there is a "template workstation" with all necessary rigs, holds, platforms and tools built in at exact places at which workers must hand wield the frame or mount any external parts to it. Then entire inside of the bus/tram/train is mounted in place by human workers. Those "template workstations" are in turn built entirely via human labor and typical industry tools. Small vehicle construction has more automated lines, but human workers are still needed where universal mobility and dexterity matters. It would require fully fledged sci-fi androids to replace human workforce entirely in such areas of production as shipyards, vechicle assembly, building/road construction, utility construction, meat production etc - everywhere where universal dexterity is key we won't see a shift to full automation in any forseeable future.

I'm sorry, I really think you are repeatedly misreading what I'm saying. You keep returning to simple operations that require dexterity which I have specifically stated, twice, is not under thread of automation in the near future.

There is an important difference, however, between an unpredictable simple operation that requires dexterity and a predictable simple operation that requires dexterity. Plumbing is the former and isn't going to be automated any time soon. Almost all non-bespoke manufacturing is the latter and is at risk of automation.

You are essentially making the arguments that people did about machines replacing manual looms - a process which required considerable dexterity and vast practice to be able to do efficiently. How much cloth is still produced on manual looms in the developed world? At a guess, a fraction of a percent, and all of it for high end or traditional products.

You also appear to be reading 'automation' as 'not a single human involved'. No one claims this to be the case, only that a severe decrease in human labour will be facilitated.

Another thing you egzagerrate is the time period needed to shift production from human labor to fully automated, especially on the scale of billions of human workers - those are milions of tonnes of high end machinery that you need to produce from raw materials to installed end product even if you invent a way to fully automate such tasks as mobile phone assembly. It won't happen overnight and we will have time to adapt as we currently have.

I've not said anything about timescales. No one thinks this will be overnight. Most predictions of mass change put it at a few decades.

As to automated work in retail - you underestimate the global level of human stupidity and emotional instability when it comes to daily routines and interactions - I doubt we will ever shift to fully automated retail because of this fundamental human drive to social interaction on even basic level.

Again, no one predicts total automation in any industry anything like soon.

We have one of the most modern banking systems in Poland and you can pay via proximity cards virtually everywhere, but it did not removed the necessity for cash registers and physically handling cash by cashiers.

And again, no one predicts complete automation. In most supermarkets here, cashiers have halved or more. You have one person overseeing banks of self-service counters, many of which are card only. Hell, there are pubs here that don't accept cash. Pubs!

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
No, it can't. A massive unemployable population means that the state either accepts socialism voluntarily, or the new state formed after the unemployable masses rise up and execute the capitalists accepts socialism.

Or the more likely 3rd option. The people rise up and execute the socialists, destroy the robots, and pass laws heavily regulating/banning mass automation.

Capitalists: "you're all fired, I have robots to replace you and paying your salaries doesn't help me get even more obscenely wealthy".

Socialists: "this is broken, the state should ensure a minimum standard of living even if the taxes mean that the wealthy are slightly less obscenely wealthy".

The unemployed masses: KILL THE SOCIALISTS.

Makes sense to me. I mean, it actually does make sense in a world where a major party can win power by simultaneously arguing that a 70% tax rate for the top bracket is unacceptable socialism and that the 1950s (where the top tax rate was 90%) are an ideal that our society has fallen from.

nfe wrote:

nou wrote:


I really think you are overly worried here and you over estimate the autonomy of automation in production of even low end products. In my example about citadel miniatures I wasn't talking about creative part of the process of assembling miniatures, but about the level of dexterity required to manipulate complex 3D objects in 3D space. Mobile phones assembly line requires exactly the same dexterity, that is why mobile phone or any other small but complex item production lines won't get automated anytime soon. It is similar on the other side of the dexterity/mobility spectrum. I don't know if you are aware how large scale vehicle (like buses, trams or trains) assembly lines are organized: there is a "template workstation" with all necessary rigs, holds, platforms and tools built in at exact places at which workers must hand wield the frame or mount any external parts to it. Then entire inside of the bus/tram/train is mounted in place by human workers. Those "template workstations" are in turn built entirely via human labor and typical industry tools. Small vehicle construction has more automated lines, but human workers are still needed where universal mobility and dexterity matters. It would require fully fledged sci-fi androids to replace human workforce entirely in such areas of production as shipyards, vechicle assembly, building/road construction, utility construction, meat production etc - everywhere where universal dexterity is key we won't see a shift to full automation in any forseeable future.

I'm sorry, I really think you are repeatedly misreading what I'm saying. You keep returning to simple operations that require dexterity which I have specifically stated, twice, is not under thread of automation in the near future.

There is an important difference, however, between an unpredictable simple operation that requires dexterity and a predictable simple operation that requires dexterity. Plumbing is the former and isn't going to be automated any time soon. Almost all non-bespoke manufacturing is the latter and is at risk of automation.

You are essentially making the arguments that people did about machines replacing manual looms - a process which required considerable dexterity and vast practice to be able to do efficiently. How much cloth is still produced on manual looms in the developed world? At a guess, a fraction of a percent, and all of it for high end or traditional products.

You also appear to be reading 'automation' as 'not a single human involved'. No one claims this to be the case, only that a severe decrease in human labour will be facilitated.

Another thing you egzagerrate is the time period needed to shift production from human labor to fully automated, especially on the scale of billions of human workers - those are milions of tonnes of high end machinery that you need to produce from raw materials to installed end product even if you invent a way to fully automate such tasks as mobile phone assembly. It won't happen overnight and we will have time to adapt as we currently have.

I've not said anything about timescales. No one thinks this will be overnight. Most predictions of mass change put it at a few decades.

As to automated work in retail - you underestimate the global level of human stupidity and emotional instability when it comes to daily routines and interactions - I doubt we will ever shift to fully automated retail because of this fundamental human drive to social interaction on even basic level.

Again, no one predicts total automation in any industry anything like soon.

We have one of the most modern banking systems in Poland and you can pay via proximity cards virtually everywhere, but it did not removed the necessity for cash registers and physically handling cash by cashiers.

And again, no one predicts complete automation. In most supermarkets here, cashiers have halved or more. You have one person overseeing banks of self-service counters, many of which are card only. Hell, there are pubs here that don't accept cash. Pubs!

Looms are not a valid example, as those were the first automated production processes and we already know, that automation has it's limits. Cashiers in Poland actually increased in absolute numbers, because lower demand on cashiers per shop increased the total number of shops - moreover, cashiers are in so short supply these days, that there is a steady increase in wages and benefits in that group and that they are now earning more from the first day than entry level teachers. Predictable and repeatable dexterity is exactly what is used in car manufacturing and after initial shift to robot-aided lines we don't see that much of further progress. Instead new technical development focuses on exoskeletal improvement of work safety and reducing human injuries, because human workforce is so valuable in this industry. Again, the original post is about total automation. You and I basically dismiss the idea and are now arguing the exact extent of possible practical and cost effective automation and differ only in our perspectives on where exactly this line lies - you are convinced that it is rather further from where we are now, I am convinced that it is rather closer to where we are now and that is pretty much it.

I must say, it was a pleasure to discuss something on Dakka in a civilized manner for a change, so thank you for that! However I lost a bigger part of my saturday already and it's high time for me to leave this thread. Cheers!

Re: dexterity: I work in a field where 0.1mm distances are huge and tiny parts have to be precisely aligned and assembled. Guess who does all of the actual work: machines. The only thing humans do, once the engineers/techs have set up the production line, is carry boxes of parts and materials between machines and press the start button. Humans dont have that job because of dexterity, they have it because a robot would cost more than a minimum-wage temp worker. Get the cost of that robot down and the humans are gone.

 Peregrine wrote:
Re: dexterity: I work in a field where 0.1mm distances are huge and tiny parts have to be precisely aligned and assembled.

But enough about your sex life...

 Peregrine wrote:
Re: dexterity: I work in a field where 0.1mm distances are huge and tiny parts have to be precisely aligned and assembled. Guess who does all of the actual work: machines. The only thing humans do, once the engineers/techs have set up the production line, is carry boxes of parts and materials between machines and press the start button. Humans dont have that job because of dexterity, they have it because a robot would cost more than a minimum-wage temp worker. Get the cost of that robot down and the humans are gone.

Do you actually know what dexterity means?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
No, it can't. A massive unemployable population means that the state either accepts socialism voluntarily, or the new state formed after the unemployable masses rise up and execute the capitalists accepts socialism.

Or the more likely 3rd option. The people rise up and execute the socialists, destroy the robots, and pass laws heavily regulating/banning mass automation.

Capitalists: "you're all fired, I have robots to replace you and paying your salaries doesn't help me get even more obscenely wealthy".

Socialists: "this is broken, the state should ensure a minimum standard of living even if the taxes mean that the wealthy are slightly less obscenely wealthy".

The unemployed masses: KILL THE SOCIALISTS.

Makes sense to me. I mean, it actually does make sense in a world where a major party can win power by simultaneously arguing that a 70% tax rate for the top bracket is unacceptable socialism and that the 1950s (where the top tax rate was 90%) are an ideal that our society has fallen from.

Nope. The order is,

1) Robots become the most efficient means of production.

2) The unemployed masses are duped into socialism because they are told its the only way to survive.

3) Unemployed masses realize socialism is even worse than Capitalism because they lose all their freedoms, and the system won't function anyway because free stuff isn't actually free.

4) Socialism is annihilated in a revolution and heavily automated production is banned so that humans can still have jobs.

The last step is a check on unregulated capitalism so that it doesn't destroy itself by eliminating both its workforce and customers. Socialism is also exposed for the farce it really is. You'd think after destroying dozens and dozens of countries people would have realized its a bad idea.

You also know damn well that people wanting to return to the 1950s are not including the tax rates in that desire.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
No, it can't. A massive unemployable population means that the state either accepts socialism voluntarily, or the new state formed after the unemployable masses rise up and execute the capitalists accepts socialism.

Or the more likely 3rd option. The people rise up and execute the socialists, destroy the robots, and pass laws heavily regulating/banning mass automation.

Capitalists: "you're all fired, I have robots to replace you and paying your salaries doesn't help me get even more obscenely wealthy".

Socialists: "this is broken, the state should ensure a minimum standard of living even if the taxes mean that the wealthy are slightly less obscenely wealthy".

The unemployed masses: KILL THE SOCIALISTS.

Makes sense to me. I mean, it actually does make sense in a world where a major party can win power by simultaneously arguing that a 70% tax rate for the top bracket is unacceptable socialism and that the 1950s (where the top tax rate was 90%) are an ideal that our society has fallen from.

Nope. The order is,

1) Robots become the most efficient means of production.

2) The unemployed masses are duped into socialism.

3) Unemployed masses realize socialism is even worse than Capitalism.

4) Socialism is annihilated and heavily automated production is banned so that humans can still have jobs.

The last step is a check on unregulated capitalism so that it doesn't destroy itself by eliminating both its workforce and customers. Socialism is also exposed for the farce it really is. You'd think after destroying dozens and dozens of countries people would have realized its a bad idea.

You also know damn well that people wanting to return to the 1950s are not including the tax rates in that desire.

Logic problem there, in such a scenario (read robots do everything) literally all premises have changed. Ergo your logical lead that "socialism is exposed for the farcé it is" is literally not verfyiable and a statement that has no foundation whatsoever.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
No, it can't. A massive unemployable population means that the state either accepts socialism voluntarily, or the new state formed after the unemployable masses rise up and execute the capitalists accepts socialism.

Or the more likely 3rd option. The people rise up and execute the socialists, destroy the robots, and pass laws heavily regulating/banning mass automation.

Capitalists: "you're all fired, I have robots to replace you and paying your salaries doesn't help me get even more obscenely wealthy".

Socialists: "this is broken, the state should ensure a minimum standard of living even if the taxes mean that the wealthy are slightly less obscenely wealthy".

The unemployed masses: KILL THE SOCIALISTS.

Makes sense to me. I mean, it actually does make sense in a world where a major party can win power by simultaneously arguing that a 70% tax rate for the top bracket is unacceptable socialism and that the 1950s (where the top tax rate was 90%) are an ideal that our society has fallen from.

Nope. The order is,

1) Robots become the most efficient means of production.

2) The unemployed masses are duped into socialism.

3) Unemployed masses realize socialism is even worse than Capitalism.

4) Socialism is annihilated and heavily automated production is banned so that humans can still have jobs.

The last step is a check on unregulated capitalism so that it doesn't destroy itself by eliminating both its workforce and customers. Socialism is also exposed for the farce it really is. You'd think after destroying dozens and dozens of countries people would have realized its a bad idea.

You also know damn well that people wanting to return to the 1950s are not including the tax rates in that desire.

Logic problem there, in such a scenario (read robots do everything) literally all premises have changed. Ergo your logical lead that "socialism is exposed for the farcé it is" is literally not verfyiable and a statement that has no foundation whatsoever.

The evils of socialism are already crystal clear. Venezuela, China, all former Soviet bloc countries, European Thought Police, etc... Thats all the verification needed.

Of course, everyone concentrates on automation ruining manufacturing employment, but in most developed nations outsourcing already did so much damage to the field it's hardly worth worrying about. Information management, on the other hand, is still a HUGE employer of people in the developed world... and much of it could be automated NOW, if businesses only figured out that they could.

Let's face it. If your job consists of gathering information for your boss and/or passing information (orders) from your boss to subordinates, you are replaceable right now. The VP/Ops can get the information delivered to his e-mail by a computer program, and use that e-mail to directly communicate with anyone in the organization he needs to communicate with. You're just grit in the gears now. And once business wakes up to this fact, your career goes bye-bye.

The fun part is, these are jobs paying well above average in most cases. No few are six-figure jobs. When they go, that's going to be a very significant chunk of the total economy gone with them.

And what will they be replaced with? Artisan manufacturing? Fine arts? YouTube Channels? I'd be most people in those jobs do not make what middle and upper management does, most middle- and upper-management personnel won't have the right skills or talents for such jobs... and there won't be anything like the demand for people to do those jobs once those middle- and upper-management payscales disappear so there's fewer people who can pay for those products.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
No, it can't. A massive unemployable population means that the state either accepts socialism voluntarily, or the new state formed after the unemployable masses rise up and execute the capitalists accepts socialism.

Or the more likely 3rd option. The people rise up and execute the socialists, destroy the robots, and pass laws heavily regulating/banning mass automation.

Capitalists: "you're all fired, I have robots to replace you and paying your salaries doesn't help me get even more obscenely wealthy".

Socialists: "this is broken, the state should ensure a minimum standard of living even if the taxes mean that the wealthy are slightly less obscenely wealthy".

The unemployed masses: KILL THE SOCIALISTS.

Makes sense to me. I mean, it actually does make sense in a world where a major party can win power by simultaneously arguing that a 70% tax rate for the top bracket is unacceptable socialism and that the 1950s (where the top tax rate was 90%) are an ideal that our society has fallen from.

Nope. The order is,

1) Robots become the most efficient means of production.

2) The unemployed masses are duped into socialism.

3) Unemployed masses realize socialism is even worse than Capitalism.

4) Socialism is annihilated and heavily automated production is banned so that humans can still have jobs.

The last step is a check on unregulated capitalism so that it doesn't destroy itself by eliminating both its workforce and customers. Socialism is also exposed for the farce it really is. You'd think after destroying dozens and dozens of countries people would have realized its a bad idea.

You also know damn well that people wanting to return to the 1950s are not including the tax rates in that desire.

Logic problem there, in such a scenario (read robots do everything) literally all premises have changed. Ergo your logical lead that "socialism is exposed for the farcé it is" is literally not verfyiable and a statement that has no foundation whatsoever.

The evils of socialism are already crystal clear. Venezuela, China, all former Soviet bloc countries, European Thought Police, etc... Thats all the verification needed.

European Thought Police? What the Hell? In what kind of world are you living?

You should try coming back to reality. It is far from perfect but it seems to be a nicer place than wherever you find yourself currently.

The evils of socialism are already crystal clear. Venezuela, China, all former Soviet bloc countries, European Thought Police, etc... Thats all the verification needed.

They turn the friggin frogs gay!!!!!!

Ok seriously, the situation then, workers forced to work for authoritarian regime.

Situation in scenario: worker can't even work anymore, ergo the state intervenes because he has a duty torwards the small, and look at that, he could just use this new cheap labour of robots to do anything at minimal cost, making socialism possible for the first time.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
No, it can't. A massive unemployable population means that the state either accepts socialism voluntarily, or the new state formed after the unemployable masses rise up and execute the capitalists accepts socialism.

Or the more likely 3rd option. The people rise up and execute the socialists, destroy the robots, and pass laws heavily regulating/banning mass automation.

Capitalists: "you're all fired, I have robots to replace you and paying your salaries doesn't help me get even more obscenely wealthy".

Socialists: "this is broken, the state should ensure a minimum standard of living even if the taxes mean that the wealthy are slightly less obscenely wealthy".

The unemployed masses: KILL THE SOCIALISTS.

Makes sense to me. I mean, it actually does make sense in a world where a major party can win power by simultaneously arguing that a 70% tax rate for the top bracket is unacceptable socialism and that the 1950s (where the top tax rate was 90%) are an ideal that our society has fallen from.

Nope. The order is,

1) Robots become the most efficient means of production.

2) The unemployed masses are duped into socialism.

3) Unemployed masses realize socialism is even worse than Capitalism.

4) Socialism is annihilated and heavily automated production is banned so that humans can still have jobs.

The last step is a check on unregulated capitalism so that it doesn't destroy itself by eliminating both its workforce and customers. Socialism is also exposed for the farce it really is. You'd think after destroying dozens and dozens of countries people would have realized its a bad idea.

You also know damn well that people wanting to return to the 1950s are not including the tax rates in that desire.

Logic problem there, in such a scenario (read robots do everything) literally all premises have changed. Ergo your logical lead that "socialism is exposed for the farcé it is" is literally not verfyiable and a statement that has no foundation whatsoever.

The evils of socialism are already crystal clear. Venezuela, China, all former Soviet bloc countries, European Thought Police, etc... Thats all the verification needed.

European Thought Police? What the Hell? In what kind of world are you living?

You should try coming back to reality. It is far from perfect but it seems to be a nicer place than wherever you find yourself currently.

This also, next i hear that i am a lizardmen Controlling the Rothschilds and Jews from my phareonic place of switzerland.

(no seriously people belive that crap, that is a active conspiracy theory going around)

 Grey Templar wrote:


The evils of socialism are already crystal clear. Venezuela, China, all former Soviet bloc countries, European Thought Police, etc... Thats all the verification needed.

Yes, the failure of countries like Sweden and Switzerland and China are all well-known...

 Iron_Captain wrote:

European Thought Police? What the Hell? In what kind of world are you living?

You should try coming back to reality. It is far from perfect but it seems to be a nicer place than wherever you find yourself currently.

People in England have literally been arrested for just stating their opinions on Facebook. They may be despicable opinions, but they should be allowed to have them.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/uk-politics-uncovered/uk-police-arrest-man-for-offensive-facebook-post-about-migrants/890222007758302/

That is Thought Police.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


The evils of socialism are already crystal clear. Venezuela, China, all former Soviet bloc countries, European Thought Police, etc... Thats all the verification needed.

Yes, the failure of countries like Sweden and Switzerland and China are all well-known...

Well China is terrible to it's people, in the name of socialism (actually it more like authoritarian coorperatism but that is another discussion)

Switzerland is not social, not liberal but konkordant, economicaly speaking we are not socialist, but we tax more via specific institutions that are social security.
So kinda difficult to put us in.

As for sweden, the states allright, I would spread the migrants around more but then again i am swiss and therefore everything needs to be decentralized. EVERYTHING, even Migration.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Situation in scenario: worker can't even work anymore, ergo the state intervenes because he has a duty torwards the small, and look at that, he could just use this new cheap labour of robots to do anything at minimal cost, making socialism possible for the first time.

Sure, it sounds good on paper. The problem is that the socialism state can only function through taxes. You've still got to pay the few people who are working, but those are also the only people you can tax. And there is also no incentive for people to even do those few jobs because the can just have all their needs provided for free. Why work and have your pay taxed out the wazoo when you can just do nothing and have all needs taken care of?

So because the system doesn't work, the system collapses and you have starving masses rioting in the streets.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Situation in scenario: worker can't even work anymore, ergo the state intervenes because he has a duty torwards the small, and look at that, he could just use this new cheap labour of robots to do anything at minimal cost, making socialism possible for the first time.

Sure, it sounds good on paper. The problem is that the socialism state can only function through taxes. You've still got to pay the few people who are working, but those are also the only people you can tax. And there is also no incentive for people to even do those few jobs because the can just have all their needs provided for free. Why work and have your pay taxed out the wazoo when you can just do nothing and have all needs taken care of?

So because the system doesn't work, the system collapses and you have starving masses rioting in the streets.

Wrong, the state can be run as a buisness that has the robots do slave labour for the wellfare system.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

European Thought Police? What the Hell? In what kind of world are you living?

You should try coming back to reality. It is far from perfect but it seems to be a nicer place than wherever you find yourself currently.

People in England have literally been arrested for just stating their opinions on Facebook. They may be despicable opinions, but they should be allowed to have them.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/uk-politics-uncovered/uk-police-arrest-man-for-offensive-facebook-post-about-migrants/890222007758302/

That is Thought Police.

So we have no official statement beyond a citation for a talking too, no punishment, only threats.
Secondly Twitter and Facebook adopting german law and policing themselves is not thought police but companies policing their own platform so again you are stating something without foundation.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I’m a school teacher, I’ll never be replaced with a robot in my lifetime, likely ever, because machines can’t genuinely empathise with children and can’t judge creative merit of children’s work and ideas.

It depends on the subject. Math could be taught in an entirely automated way. Anything involving analysis of written text like History or Language classes couldn't be automated of course.

Now it might not be a good idea to automate education, but certain subjects could be.

Hahaha. If it was that easy for children to learn maths you could give them a book. Crikey, the idea that you could teach maths effectively, but somehow not history of course, through an automated process is laughable.

The point is that the skill of teaching is far more than merely imparting knowledge, that’s why you need people and not books and computers in a class. And those teaching skills are beyond a machine, any AI that could empathise with children and be able to manage them emotionally would have to be hyper advanced to the point where none of humanity are needed any more.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Situation in scenario: worker can't even work anymore, ergo the state intervenes because he has a duty torwards the small, and look at that, he could just use this new cheap labour of robots to do anything at minimal cost, making socialism possible for the first time.

Sure, it sounds good on paper. The problem is that the socialism state can only function through taxes. You've still got to pay the few people who are working, but those are also the only people you can tax. And there is also no incentive for people to even do those few jobs because the can just have all their needs provided for free. Why work and have your pay taxed out the wazoo when you can just do nothing and have all needs taken care of?

So because the system doesn't work, the system collapses and you have starving masses rioting in the streets.

Wrong, the state can be run as a buisness that has the robots do slave labour for the wellfare system.

They'd still have to have an incentive for people to do the few jobs that do exist.

1) You pressgang people into service, forcing them to undergo years of schooling to be able to do the job they've been assigned. This builds resentment in whoever is forced to do this.

2) You offer better social perks for people who volunteer for these tasks. This builds resentment in the portion of the population who don't get accepted.

Either way, you end up with the system collapsing. In the first case, these slaves can simply withhold their expertise and your robots suddenly stop working. In the 2nd case, the individuals who feel slighted are very numerous and can take over with sheer numbers.

Also, how would you put down such a rebellion? Your soldiers will have little incentive to be soldiers and fight for you. Why have a job that puts you at risk when you could just spend your entire life doing fun hobbies?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I’m a school teacher, I’ll never be replaced with a robot in my lifetime, likely ever, because machines can’t genuinely empathise with children and can’t judge creative merit of children’s work and ideas.

It depends on the subject. Math could be taught in an entirely automated way. Anything involving analysis of written text like History or Language classes couldn't be automated of course.

Now it might not be a good idea to automate education, but certain subjects could be.

Hahaha. If it was that easy for children to learn maths you could give them a book. Crikey, the idea that you could teach maths effectively, but somehow not history of course, through an automated process is laughable.

The point is that the skill of teaching is far more than merely imparting knowledge, that’s why you need people and not books and computers in a class. And those teaching skills are beyond a machine, any AI that could empathise with children and be able to manage them emotionally would have to be hyper advanced to the point where none of humanity are needed any more.

I didn't say it was a good idea. Just that it could be done.

Of course in the event that we replaced most of the workforce with robots, we wouldn't need to teach math anymore. Not to the masses anyway.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Situation in scenario: worker can't even work anymore, ergo the state intervenes because he has a duty torwards the small, and look at that, he could just use this new cheap labour of robots to do anything at minimal cost, making socialism possible for the first time.

Sure, it sounds good on paper. The problem is that the socialism state can only function through taxes. You've still got to pay the few people who are working, but those are also the only people you can tax. And there is also no incentive for people to even do those few jobs because the can just have all their needs provided for free. Why work and have your pay taxed out the wazoo when you can just do nothing and have all needs taken care of?

So because the system doesn't work, the system collapses and you have starving masses rioting in the streets.

Wrong, the state can be run as a buisness that has the robots do slave labour for the wellfare system.

They'd still have to have an incentive for people to do the few jobs that do exist.

1) You pressgang people into service, forcing them to undergo years of schooling to be able to do the job they've been assigned. This builds resentment in whoever is forced to do this.

2) You offer better social perks for people who volunteer for these tasks. This builds resentment in the portion of the population who don't get accepted.

Either way, you end up with the system collapsing. In the first case, these slaves can simply withhold their expertise and your robots suddenly stop working. In the 2nd case, the individuals who feel slighted are very numerous and can take over with sheer numbers.

Also, how would you put down such a rebellion? Your soldiers will have little incentive to be soldiers and fight for you. Why have a job that puts you at risk when you could just spend your entire life doing fun hobbies?

At this point i am actually convinced that you don't want to understand, when ALL Jobs are done by robots, there does not need to be any incentive anymore, and even if, don't you think you'd find a random person who'd do it voluntarily? Heck you could randomize and chosen people via lot, like athens did.....

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Situation in scenario: worker can't even work anymore, ergo the state intervenes because he has a duty torwards the small, and look at that, he could just use this new cheap labour of robots to do anything at minimal cost, making socialism possible for the first time.

Sure, it sounds good on paper. The problem is that the socialism state can only function through taxes. You've still got to pay the few people who are working, but those are also the only people you can tax. And there is also no incentive for people to even do those few jobs because the can just have all their needs provided for free. Why work and have your pay taxed out the wazoo when you can just do nothing and have all needs taken care of?

So because the system doesn't work, the system collapses and you have starving masses rioting in the streets.

Wrong, the state can be run as a buisness that has the robots do slave labour for the wellfare system.

They'd still have to have an incentive for people to do the few jobs that do exist.

1) You pressgang people into service, forcing them to undergo years of schooling to be able to do the job they've been assigned. This builds resentment in whoever is forced to do this.

2) You offer better social perks for people who volunteer for these tasks. This builds resentment in the portion of the population who don't get accepted.

Either way, you end up with the system collapsing. In the first case, these slaves can simply withhold their expertise and your robots suddenly stop working. In the 2nd case, the individuals who feel slighted are very numerous and can take over with sheer numbers.

Also, how would you put down such a rebellion? Your soldiers will have little incentive to be soldiers and fight for you. Why have a job that puts you at risk when you could just spend your entire life doing fun hobbies?

At this point i am actually convinced that you don't want to understand, when ALL Jobs are done by robots, there does not need to be any incentive anymore, and even if, don't you think you'd find a random person who'd do it voluntarily? Heck you could randomize and chosen people via lot, like athens did.....

Sure, hinge your entire society around hoping that someone will volunteer for free. Even if people are chosen at random, the people who didn't get chosen will not like that. You might be able to find a few people who would enjoy working on the robots, but it wouldn't be enough.

I ask you. If you were in a society that gave you all the food you could need, shelter, clothing, as well as free entertainment. Would you be happy if a guy in a suit suddenly showed up one day and said "Hey, you've been chosen by lottery. You gotta go to Robot school and learn how to fix the Toilet Maintenance Robots! You can't play Grand Theft Auto:19 for 16 hours a day anymore. But we'll give you some better food vouchers!"

Would you be happy about that? Heck no you wouldn't. Time would be about the only thing worth anything anymore, and they'd be forcing you to lose a bunch of it to do something you don't want to do.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Situation in scenario: worker can't even work anymore, ergo the state intervenes because he has a duty torwards the small, and look at that, he could just use this new cheap labour of robots to do anything at minimal cost, making socialism possible for the first time.

Sure, it sounds good on paper. The problem is that the socialism state can only function through taxes. You've still got to pay the few people who are working, but those are also the only people you can tax. And there is also no incentive for people to even do those few jobs because the can just have all their needs provided for free. Why work and have your pay taxed out the wazoo when you can just do nothing and have all needs taken care of?

So because the system doesn't work, the system collapses and you have starving masses rioting in the streets.

Wrong, the state can be run as a buisness that has the robots do slave labour for the wellfare system.

They'd still have to have an incentive for people to do the few jobs that do exist.

1) You pressgang people into service, forcing them to undergo years of schooling to be able to do the job they've been assigned. This builds resentment in whoever is forced to do this.

2) You offer better social perks for people who volunteer for these tasks. This builds resentment in the portion of the population who don't get accepted.

Either way, you end up with the system collapsing. In the first case, these slaves can simply withhold their expertise and your robots suddenly stop working. In the 2nd case, the individuals who feel slighted are very numerous and can take over with sheer numbers.

Also, how would you put down such a rebellion? Your soldiers will have little incentive to be soldiers and fight for you. Why have a job that puts you at risk when you could just spend your entire life doing fun hobbies?

At this point i am actually convinced that you don't want to understand, when ALL Jobs are done by robots, there does not need to be any incentive anymore, and even if, don't you think you'd find a random person who'd do it voluntarily? Heck you could randomize and chosen people via lot, like athens did.....

Sure, hinge your entire society around hoping that someone will volunteer for free. Even if people are chosen at random, the people who didn't get chosen will not like that. You might be able to find a few people who would enjoy working on the robots, but it wouldn't be enough.

I ask you. If you were in a society that gave you all the food you could need, shelter, clothing, as well as free entertainment. Would you be happy if a guy in a suit suddenly showed up one day and said "Hey, you've been chosen by lottery. You gotta go to Robot school and learn how to fix the Toilet Maintenance Robots! You can't play Grand Theft Auto:19 for 16 hours a day anymore. But we'll give you some better food vouchers!"

Would you be happy about that? Heck no you wouldn't. Time would be about the only thing worth anything anymore, and they'd be forcing you to lose a bunch of it to do something you don't want to do.

Yes, because i have a sense of duty, unlike you it seems.
I did the same when the army conscripted me and made me a Füsilier, i would survive managing a bunch of scraprheaps aswell.

Edit: and you want now to know why i'd do it? Because i live in a halfdirect democracy ergo i get to say how it is run. I am basically the sovereign and I govern myself in conjunction of the whole collective society.