Posted on 03/22/2015 9:12:40 AM PDT by artichokegrower
It’s now possible to sell a new product to hundreds of millions of people without needing many, if any, workers to produce or distribute it.
At its prime in 1988, Eastman Kodak, the iconic American photography company, had more than 145,000 employees. In 2012, Kodak filed for bankruptcy.
The same year Kodak went under, Instagram, the world’s newest photo company, had 13 employees serving 30 million customers.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Silly peasant, his wealth — like that of the other elites —is untouchable. The wealth of us among the hoi polloi is another story.
The future is going to be in the skilled trades, from installing and upgrading servers to maintaining power systems to plumbing and building repairs.
The work can’t be done by robots, nor can it be done by unskilled immigrants walking across the border.
Maybe at the point where all problems are solved and everyone has everything it’s like getting to the end of a video game. We simply disappear and somewhere in the universe a new single cell organism emerges, hell bent on survival.
True to a degree, but what you’ll start seeing is those things being designed so as to not require as much human intervention to maintain.
With all due respect, I’m involved with decision making at a manufacturing company and am closely associated with other manufacturers who are working hard to bring a renaissance in American Manufacturing and trying to bring manufacturing back to this country.
The issues I discuss are a large component of the decision dynamics driving us to invest in automation for new production lines over traditional human labor whenever practically feasible, despite the risk of automation.
In fact, the dynamics I discussed were primary drivers in the decision making process to offshore manufacturing in the first place.
I think your last sentence is backwards.
Liberals are terrified by uncertainty. That is why they want to government to plan the future for us, to remove as much uncertainty as possible.
I will stand by my statement.
Liberals push “uncertainty” on virtually every level.
Not sure if you’re a man or woman?
It’s OK, the Government will protect you.
If you use what is “less than” proper English?
It’s OK, the Government will protect you.
Feel offended by “White people”?
It’s OK, the Government will protect you.
See an American flag?
It’s OK, the Government will protect you.
There’s soo much more.
Our liberal government is promoting the “uncertainties” of childlike liberals as if it were the norm.
I did not intend to challenge your points. I agree with them.
My point is that automation is pretty much inherently more cost-effective, though not necessarily for early adopters.
IOW, absent government idiocy, this would still be an issue. Might take 5 or 10 years longer, but would not change the ultimate result.
No doubt true. But think about what you’re saying.
100 people replaced by automation. 5 people install and maintain the equipment. 95% job loss.
Also, those 5 people are by definition going to be over on the right side of the intelligence bell curve. What about those in the middle and on the left side?
I know it! I used to teach Catechism, and one of my young lads asked me, in all seriousness, why he would want to sit on a cloud all day plying a harp; wouldn't that be eternal boredom? He had a good point!
But really, think about it; what IS a job, and what does it say about our very existance?
IMNSHO it is a substitute for our previous role of hunter/gatherer. In the wild, we survived by finding and killing and foraging for our food. We built shelters or occupied natural ones such as caves where we could. We used our big, wonderful but costly brains--in terms of calories needed--to figure out how to do such things better than any other animal on the planet.
When we were not preoccupied with food or shelter, etc., we told stories, created art and fought each other. We were good at all those things. Unfortunately or fortunately, as the case may be, we didn't have a lot of time after food, shelter and safety.
Then we learned agriculture and built town and cities to live in. The majority of people in this situation were busy planting, rearing, butchering, harvesting, herding--and the JOB became born. A small number, who were smarter or more skilled, got out of THAT type of work by becoming skilled in a particular craft or used their social skills to get things from the workers. I'm not condemning these people--their leadership and insight often succeeded and kept the people of the town alive through droughts, floods, wars, etc. But they didn't labor in the fields or pastures, nor in the copper smelters and jug factories. No, they became the aristocracy.
Now we are also a an animal with a brain that has a desire to worship or feel spirituality, which I believe is set by God (let Us make man on Our image), so another group arose to service that, the priestly caste. Again, no condemnation, because often they brought us closer to God. (BTW I am a believer in Science and God)...
The industrial revolution led to the craftsman class becoming the aristocracy of modern times, thru the marketplace, which was its own craft, really. Think of the guy with a leather apron making a bronze knife now being a factory head or CEO and the herdsman now stamping out gizmos in the CEO's factory.
So what does the future hold for us? I contend a much bigger revolution than that of the industrial revolution. This one will be as big as changing from our tens of thousands of years existence as hunter/gatherers to farmers and herders. We can, ideally, pursue love and life, where ever it leads us, or simply laze around on an endless summer day. I also told the young boy that some people would LOVE to sit on a cloud and play the harp all day!
We are no where near the point of needing to fear automation. We still have an abundance of work for unskilled labor. It’s the reason we have people pouring across the border. If you are on the right side of the curve then by definition you have way more options and marketable skill.
The Great Shift Toward Automation and the Future of Employment
http://tamarawilhite.hubpages.com/hub/The-Great-Shift-and-the-Future-of-Employment
Agree not everyone can be an artist, though there could be many more than there are now. Thinking more artisans (a craft that anyone can learn through apprenticeship), plus lots of personal service type jobs.
It can be profitable to automate to avoid govenment imposed labor costs- yet is any new wealth created in that case? The government now has the added welfare costs of the lost jobs that it will take out of the wealth in the economy and spend.
And as far as ‘redistribution’. “Redistribution” is taking wealth and converting it to spending... leaving less wealth available for investment in new industries.
So ‘progressive’ government makes it profitable to replace labor, and destroys any new wealth created so new jobs are not created.
“Redistribution” is a downward spiral.
There are tasks that robots are currently unsuited to perform: raising children, caring for the elderly, teaching, virtual assisting, medical supervision.And it is unlikely robots will ever take over these tasks. The first reason is due to the high cost of robots that could do it right, either from advanced intelligence or physical dexterity and sensitivity.
I agree with the word currently, but at some future time the sophistication will rival a real flesh human. The Japanese will continue to make headway here fro two reasons. First, their population is shrinking and they are too homogenous a people to ever import immigrants--therefore the ever-increasing elderly Japanese will need them, because as they say "Necessity is the mother of invention". Secondly, for sex. Yes, it is disgusting but that is a huge factor in Japanese robotics. They just don't talk about it.
"Same flies.. same $hit"
You are right. All schemes to redistribute wealth are motivated first, foremost and completely by the desire to redistribute wealth. It is the Communist... oops, I mean... It is the Progressive Way.
I’m not an economist, but I suspect you don’t have the whole picture there.
You may be right. I certainly hope so.
But I doubt you can point me to an example of your theory working out in practice. We have lots of subgroups in society where this lifestyle of the future is the norm, though generally at a lower material level.
But they aren’t happy lazing around. They’re miserable, drug-ridden, promiscuous, violent and resentful.
At some point, where there is no financial incentive to have children, these folks will have far fewer. The remaining might wish for the adventure and excitement of space.
I hope!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.