Google robot is 'the end of manual labor'

[EdwardBernays]

Boston Dynamics' new "Atlas" robot is a game changer, not just for companies, but for society, Insider.com CEO Jason Calacanis said Wednesday.

"This is really the end of manual labor. When you watch this video, he's walking through the snow; he's wobbly, but he gets back up," the tech investor told CNBC's " Squawk Alley ."

"Manual labor is going to end in our lifetime, and in this video you can see how close we really are. It's a huge societal issue with jobs, but it's going to be a huge lift in terms of efficiency of companies that nobody expected."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/google-robot-end-manual-labor-185045192.html

This is also worth considering.

[arcane1]

1. Who cares about jobs when the "efficiency of companies" is at stake?

And these clueless assholes think using robots to "put your kids to bed" and "change your kid's diaper" is a good thing?

Technology is becoming just another cult, but one with global reach.

[ghostsinthemachine]

2. So how do we cope with this?

No jobs? Can this do construction? The very second that happens, it is over, done for, fini for anyone thinking about moving ahead via a trade.


Not just labor but think of the good jobs that are GONE lately. Starting with newspapers, magazines, print media almost.

Now we are seeing the end of retail, brick and mortar (and the guys who build the stores) stores with all the online purchasing.

Amazon, all of that.

Yeah right now it isn't critical (to other people) but son will be when you have more people on the streets.

Now, we need to have some answers, and goddamn soon, or we are all doomed.

[EdwardBernays]

5. Well

There are actually suggested solutions.

I actually believe that this is the beginning of a transition and the people need to get on the same page and demand a fair future... Because if corporations and international governments decide... Ehh...

Anyway.

First watch this:

Then read this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_minimum_income

And then this:

http://www.thelocal.ch/20160127/swiss-to-vote-on-guaranteed-income-for-all

And then this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_in_Japan

This sort of solution is the only positive outcome I've heard about that seems feasible. But it's also something Americans aren't really wired for. In 2016.

Maybe in 50 years when the unemployment is 30% that might change.

[ghostsinthemachine]

7. Wow, thanks a lot

this will be good to have handy.

[ghostsinthemachine]

9. Love the video...

Really terrific. What do we do? Can we do it?

[EdwardBernays]

10. That video

Really opened my eyes to a lot of things.

And really the main idea I took away is:

If an ever growing mass of humanity of humans is unemployment due to ABUNDANCE what must humans do to ensure that the outcome of that is not a dystopia.

It's also worth reading this:

http://www.socialwelfarehistory.com/eras/great-depression/tennessee-valley-authority-electricity/

America came close to having electricity that was so cheap that it cost more to administer the billing than to produce and upkeep the infrastructure.

That is something else to think about.

Abundance.

If something costs more to sell than to give away how does that effect society.

For instance food or electricity... What if the cost of employment and capitalism cost more than simply paying everyone a living wage...

It's all very futuristic... But it all stems from this idea that work is, largely, doomed. And not in a distant future but in your lifetime. Or your children's lifetime


For what it's worth this is widely discussed here in Europe where I currently live.

[wilsonbooks]

35. It won't be in 50 years, it will be much sooner.

[ghostsinthemachine]

108. I think it will be 50 years before people wake the fuck up

and realize the reasons why there are millions of people sleeping on the streets,high crime, suicides etc...... (most people are pretty stupid, I think)

[LisaM]

8. Not to mention the satisfaction a job well done can bring.

I worked in a bookstore for nine years. I loved it, interacting with the customers, learning about books, seeing what people read, having access to all the lovely books. It was rewarding. I moved to be in a relationship and had to leave the job, but I still think about it and how much fun it was. I was always proud to say, "I work in a bookstore", and all the people I know who used to or do work in bookstores are proud of it, too.

Imagine how it must feel to build something with your two hands, or paint something beautiful, or sew a beautiful dress. Why is this not respected or understood, and why is it being stripped away from us?

[EdwardBernays]

11. Well.....

Theron lies the rub... We work for money. But then again we don't.

If we had abundance caused by the complete negating of value (ie if things were so cheap to make that selling them cost more than giving them away) woukd work necessarily disappear? Or could instead you choose to work in a way that made you fulfilled instead of a way that paid your bills.

The future is going to bring global mass unemployment. We as people need to really decide how we want that to play out so that someone doesn't decide for us.

[RKP5637]

54. It will move to a jobless society. I studied that eons ago in college economics. The professor

spent a lot of time on that ... with ever increasing worker productivity and robotics, and robots repairing/maintaining robots, the notion of a job in the stereotypical sense would be eventually gone, especially when truly biological robots mature. I really doubt many of TPTB have mapped out a direction for the future, but greed and power will. The world functions extensively from a financial basis. I think in a world of the future both money and jobs will be totally obsolete.

[EdwardBernays]

57. I think you're probably right

And I think that humans need to organize and demand a good future for themselves or else greed will win the day.

[WinkyDink]

16. Because the perps and the 1% have no souls, in every single sense.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

20. If you don't know the answer to what lies after work...

then you don't understand where the universe has us going...

It's going to be a wild ride!

[LisaM]

21. Okay.....

I kind of just meant that building and making things, or cooking a good meal can be rewarding. I'm not sure I want to infuse rocks with the product of human intelligence.

[killbotfactory]

55. A comprehensive welfare state and shorter hours are the solution

unfortunately those in power don't agree on our right to exist and be productive unless it makes them more powerful and wealthy.

[Jester Messiah]

60. Guaranteed Minimum Income.

The details.

It would be tough to get right, but as humans become unnecessary and counterproductive, it's the only way we keep civilization afloat, IMHO.

[adigal]

62. Interesting...my son is an electrician apprentice

I hope robots don't take his job in ten years.

[951-Riverside]

70. Humans consume a lot and produce very little especially in the 3rd world

Its the human population that is literally heating up our earth and making it uninhabitable not to mention all the wars and other maladies humans create

As soon as we can get these robots online to replace the human population, we can talk about how to reduce. One way of reducing the human population is by creating a Zika-like virus that makes having children unappealing and downright scary then top it off with a Spanish-Flu type scenario that makes life unbearable for a decade or two.

If we don't have a reduction plan then the humans that are replaced will undoubtedly start sabotaging and attacking scientists and engineers and if they win, I'm afraid science, technology and the future of our world will take a massive leap backwards.

This cannot happen.

[Humanist_Activist]

90. Why would a reduction plan be necessary? The issue is political, rather than just a question...

of productivity.

The reason why much of the 3rd world has high birth rates is because of lack of educational opportunities for girls and women, lack of political stability, lack of affordable access to contraception, and lack of the necessities, food, shelter and healthcare. But the thing is this, most humans on this planet aren't responsible, or contribute very little, to things like global warming. The United States alone emits 10 times or more CO2 into the atmosphere than China and India combined.

More automation means more efficiency, no more, no less. What we need is the political will to assist with the many people who will be unemployed due to the shift in the workplace.

[PatrickforO]

80. Well, we do have Kissinger, who refers to the unemployed poor

in the Third World as 'useless eaters.'

I'm thinking the right wing solution would be something like Soylent Green, where we pack everyone in urban areas on starvation diets, bulldoze the corpses and then feed them back to us in nutrient bars called 'soylent green.'

On a more humane note, we will have to rethink our entire economic structure. Because we can't let a larger and larger group of people become structurally unemployed without some income or any hope. Can't do it.

I think in the end it is capitalism that is doomed.

[phleshdef]

99. We need to focus on technologies and policies that provide everyone with a base quality of life.

[RobertEarl]

3. They will replace rich people

They can't code the robots but we can,

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

18. What functions would the rich person replacement robot perform?

Is it going to sit on ass all day and have a superior attitude? Doesn't seem like that is a robot worth making.

[RobertEarl]

19. Actually ... Displace ... thanks for the question

We won't need rich people when we have robots.

We just program the robots to do our bidding, and we can all sit on our asses.

[Albertoo]

4. Which is (in part) a good thing

Remember Chaplin in 'Modern Times' where he's working on a conveyor belt and can't keep up screwing screws and ends up being swallowed by the machine? Manual labor in Taylorism or Fordism was no picnic.

[WinkyDink]

17. I'm sure having no job is better. *sarcasm*

[Albertoo]

22. Luddites thought weaving machines meant the end of employment

They were wrong.

[The2ndWheel]

42. Or maybe the power to choose their own employment

Which at least in some ways, they were correct.

[Albertoo]

47. The historical trend isn't that

Medieval peasants were the bulk of the workforce, and they had little to no control over their working condition. In the developed world, the same could be said only of a much smaller minority. So, over time, mechanization/industrialisation has been good for the common people. Not for all, but for many.

[The2ndWheel]

56. As you say, good is a subjective word

It's not that linear. The person losing their job in the moment doesn't care how it's better for the abstract greater good of humanity. Just like the person getting a job isn't going to care if it came at the expense of someone else's job, because they need to eat. Just like the people making the technology for automation don't really care if it puts someone out of work, because their job is to create the automating technology.

Mechanization/Industrialization has been good for the common people, but it's also come at the cost of whatever percentage of species, and the environment as a whole. We don't really care about that though, because it's been good for us.

Not that the Luddites were doing anything for some abstract greater good. They were as selfish as anyone else.

[Albertoo]

83. Well, you're right, of course

But no human system is without 'friction'. And I do agree with you that the polite euphemism of 'friction' means real human tragedies. But then again, to paraphrase Churchill, Mechanization/Industrialization is the worst form of work organization, except for all the others.

[olddots]

78. Albertoo

Meet your mortal enemy = ypurself .

[Glassunion]

6. I'm personally exited to welcome our new robot overlords.

[JanMichael]

28. i agree i willl do whatever they want us to do. (hopes AI reading this in 5 years believes me) nt

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

12. Sure... whatever.

This is probably coming from the same people that go on and on about the "Singularity". Robot lovers.

[EdwardBernays]

14. Many many many

Jobs have already been lost to robotics and automation.

This is largely not an if but a when situation.

[brush]

27. It's already started with politicians — the Rubiobot is already out there.

[WinkyDink]

13. This is a very worrisome development. These are jobs needed by people WHO MADE ME A DEMOCRAT.

[EdwardBernays]

15. It's inevitable

Watch this

[hunter]

23. It's always been about distribution of wealth. What has technology got to do with it?

We humans have always had everything we need yet there are always warlords among us doing their very best to impose their bizarre religions and economic ideologies on everyone else. They piss in the fountains of life and make us drink it.

Most of us have jobs that are not making the world a better place, and nine out of ten of our celebrated wealthy people are sociopaths who became wealthy using and abusing people and the earth itself.

Slavery and wage slavery are still common.

What we label "economic productivity" is a direct measure of the damage we are doing to the earth's natural environment and our own human spirit.

[Sam_Fields]

24. The o0nly problem is that robots don't buy anything

The economies of the world will collapse. No workers mean no paychecks which mean no consumers buying goods. No more home mortgages. AI will even replace workers that make executive decisions.

[EdwardBernays]

25. not necessarily true

I mean, they'll have to radically change, but that change is inevitable. Society doesn't HAVE to COLLAPSE, but it does have to change.

It would be VERY wise for humanity to actively come to terms with this reality and start planning for it, and for the masses to decide what this should mean for them... if they don't some one or some government will decide for them... and it won't be pretty.

You should consider watching that.

[abelenkpe]

26. Computers will boost productivity leading to the

Four day work week.

Somehow that meant 80 hour work weeks.

This is amazing tech, tho. Pretty much thought the same thing watching that video. Followed by "wonder if Boston Dynamics needs an animator."

[Logical]

29. Someday robots will do anything we can do. And there is no stopping it. nt

[backscatter712]

30. So, how long until Atlas turns into this?

Granted, the Atlas robot is pretty damned cool, seeing how it knows how to keep and regain its balance when it's pushed, or trudging through the snow, it can even get up when it falls down.

But damn, when you're pushing robots with a stick, that's just inviting a Terminator-esque robot revolution...

After that...

The Cylons were created by man. They rebelled. They "evolved". There are many copies. And they have a plan...

[librechik]

31. …so line up at the suicide booths, everybody. Meat bags are so yesterday

no, really. What's the plan?

[Ghost in the Machine]

32. I would like to see a bunch of them 15 to 20 stories in the air, putting metal decking on a

12/12 pitch roof, screwing & welding it down and then covering it with DensDeck and either shingles or metal roofing.... or even framing houses, for that matter.

I'm disabled and can't work now anyways so my dog can do what I do, well, except for go grocery shopping, clean the house or cut the grass. I wouldn't mind having a robot that can cut my grass, though....

Peace,

Ghost

[RedRocco]

34. there are already several on the market

take your pick

[PasadenaTrudy]

33. I'm glad I'm old.... n/t

[ChairmanAgnostic]

59. What? Type louder and slower, please.

[kentauros]

36. I watched part of that video.

I stopped when they didn't truly address how the cost of such robots would be a major stumbling block to most businesses.

Yes, the big guys will buy them and put them to use such as in fast food, Starbucks, and the like. My friends who run a little Mediterranean cafe only just recently raised their menu prices after ten years in business. I don't see small, family-run businesses like theirs going robotic even in our lifetimes.

Plus, I could see small, family-run businesses experiencing a huge boom in their popularity as a backlash hits because people don't want food or other hand-made services done by robots.

[EdwardBernays]

37. Well...

I think that's pretty obvious.

Three decades ago only the largest multinationals could afford robots. Or lots of others things that are ubiquitous now.

Now that tech in growing much more common in very low level manufacturing...

On top of that this sort of tech will be disruptive to small businesses like Walmart was. It will lower prices exponentially and push out competition that can afford to play.

[kentauros]

39. I disagree on it lowering prices.

We have a great example of why some kinds of abundance doesn't factor into lower prices. Fuel costs are insanely low right now. And yet, food costs have not fallen, not even from small farms. It's a boon to them because they're making more money for the same prices on their product. Abundance doesn't always flow downhill.

Really, I don't agree with most of this topic. It seems to be put forth by futurists, and they're a lot like economists. That is, it doesn't matter if they are ultimately right or wrong; they're still getting a paycheck at the end of the day.

[EdwardBernays]

43. what you're talking about

is taxes.

The problem with that is that basing an economy on taxes requires consumers which require jobs.

Long term the unemployment rate is boing to be MUCH higher, because so much of the work currently being done will be replaced by automation and robotics. That's what the industry is pushing for and that's what's happening.

If you are sitting at a desk, driving a taxi or carrying a hod, stop for a moment and ask: could a robot or machine do this job better?

The answer, unfortunately for you, is probably - yes.

The debate about whether machines will eliminate the need for human employment is no longer just academic.

Boston Consulting Group predicts that by 2025, up to a quarter of jobs will be replaced by either smart software or robots, while a study from Oxford University has suggested that 35% of existing UK jobs are at risk of automation in the next 20 years.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-33327659

So if 1/3 or 1/4 jobs disappear in the next few decades, the tax base will shrink close to exponentially in that same time period.

And this is not just a western phenomena:

In China’s factories, the robots are rising.

For decades, manufacturers employed young migrant workers from the countryside to work at countless factories in coastal provinces, churning out cheap toys, clothing and electronics that helped power the country’s economic ascent.

Now factories are rapidly replacing those workers with automation, a pivot that is encouraged by rising wages and new official directives aimed at helping the country move away from low-cost manufacturing as the supply of pliant young workers shrinks.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/09/27/business/tech/robot-revolution-rises-china-factories/

And in small factories:

Robots Work Their Way Into Small Factories

A new breed of so-called collaborative machines—designed to work alongside people in close settings—is changing the way some of America's smaller manufacturers do their jobs.

The machines, priced as low as $20,000, provide such companies—small jewelry makers and toy makers among them—with new incentives to automate to increase overall productivity and lower labor costs.

At Panek Precision Inc., a Northbrook, Ill., machine shop, 21 shiny new robots hum as they place metal parts into cutting machines and remove the parts after they are done. It's a tedious and oily task once handled by machine operators who earn about $16.50 an hour.

One new robot doubled the output from a machine that was previously operated by a worker "because robots work overnight and don't take lunch breaks and they just keep going," says Gregg Panek, the company's president. In some cases, the robots, which are single articulated arms, can even hold a part while it's getting cut since there is no danger of injury.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/robots-work-their-way-into-small-factories-1410979100

And it's not just in manufacturing, but also in the service industry:

McDonald's is rolling out self-service kiosks in restaurants across the US that allow customers to order and pay for their food without ever having to interact with a human.

Some people suspect that the technology is also meant to eventually replace staff as McDonald's franchisees start to worry about rising labor costs.

Bennigan's CEO Paul Mangiamele said in a recent interview that McDonald's kiosks — as well as self-service technologies at other chains like Panera and TGI Fridays — are a direct response to rising labor costs and calls for a higher minimum wage.

"Many, many concepts ... are going to kiosks because we have to address, somehow, the rising costs of operating in our businesses," Mangiamele told Fox Business.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/what-self-serve-kiosks-at-mcdonalds-mean-for-cashiers-2015-8?r=US&IR=T

All of this is being driven by the corporate mindset that growth is the only goal. And that mindset is not going to change any time soon. The rise of automation, as difficult as it may be to accept, is not only real, it's accelerating quickly. These are not classroom predictions, it's something that exists already and is just accelerating.

[kentauros]

46. Well, I'm not reading any of that.

I'm seeing a lot of people trying to use something that is simply not applicable to the minds of small business owners: logic.

[EdwardBernays]

48. umm...

ok

[Humanist_Activist]

38. As niche markets, I'm sure human run and operated businesses have a place...

but bear in mind that these machines will get cheaper and better as time goes on.

Also, he did address the cost, noting that many of these modern, more sophisticated, general/multipurpose robots are cheaper than the specialized robots of the past, and are a lot cheaper than humans doing the same tasks.

There's a company right now that is developing a Chef Robot that would be able to recreate practically any recipe that is given to it with accuracy and efficiency that no human can match. The price point for the robot is in the tens of thousands of dollars, not exactly a household appliance, but as a business appliance, for what it does? Its a steal. Why pay a chef(or even a fry cook) a salary when you have this machine that costs pennies on the dollar compared to a human. Even for family run businesses, this would be the equivalent of buying a new stove or walk-in freezer, some will utilize it, others won't.

[kentauros]

40. Again: cost.

And this: stubbornness and/or cheapness.

Sure, that chef robot could replace a top chef, and even save money in the long run. However, if it costs $50,000+ initially, even with a loan, the owner still has to pay that out, and I can't tell you how many people I've known in the food industry that are the cheapest people you will ever meet. And that's even for top dollar restaurants.

Fast food companies will go for this. Honestly, I'm surprised McDonalds and the rest haven't. Why don't they have AFMs (Automatic Food Machines) in place now? There's not a single thing done in their kitchens that can't be done in an automated box with an ATM-style interface for customers. Coke already has such automated dispensers.

Big companies will buys these. Little companies will not.

[EdwardBernays]

45. robots

are already 20K.

Not 50.

And that's in 2016.

20 is SUBSTANTIALLY cheaper than skilled labour and can work 24/7.

Cost is not what you think it is, and it's already falling precipitously.

[kentauros]

49. And the small business owner is not what you seem to think it is.

You could give away the robots, and in their minds they'd still be losing money (as in having to train the robot when they could be making money right now.)

The only small businesses I see going robotic are those just starting out. Established owners think about how much something costs right now, not how much they will save later. A robot could cost only the price of, say, a new oven. But if the cost of repairing that existing oven is just a fraction of its cost new, the small business owner is going to opt for the repair every single time. They are not going to buy robots. They will go out of business before they buy robots.

Remember, it's all about being efficient (i.e, cheap) and good business practices (i.e., stubborn.)

[EdwardBernays]

50. here's where that falls down

robots and automation DRAMATICALLY lower costs.

Small businesses that use them will be able to offer products and services at substantially lower prices.

Like every other time this has happened in the economy, those that don't adapt will collapse.

And honestly, if you go and look at the data - lots exists - it's not just new businesses. LOTS of existing small manufacturing concerns are automating repetitive tasks. Universal Robots has already sold 4K of their robotic arms, many in the US. The price is about the same as one year of skilled labor, and it's EXTREMELY easy to program. AND. That's just one company.

But that's just manufacturing.

Lot's of small businesses are transportation, and self-driving cars are coming, quickly, and they WILL be used in industry - they're already being tested in the EU for long haul trucking and package delivery.

Self-driving trucks are just TWO years away says Daimler as it is set to get go-ahead for trials on German roads within months


On-board computers and wireless technology can also allow the trucks to 'platoon' in a long convoy where a long row of vehicles all follow the same instructions in lock-step.

Its technology could hypothetically eliminate the need for a driver completely, though current designs and regulations call for a qualified driver to be in the cab at all times.

Nonetheless, the specter of fully automated vehicles in the future could lessen the negotiating power of major drivers' unions, including the truck-driving branch of Teamsters.


Freightlinger, part of Daimler, unveiled their 'Inspiration Truck' in Nevada on Tuesday, where the autonomous vehicle has just been licensed for the first time

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3176535/Self-driving-trucks-just-TWO-years-away-says-Daimler-set-ahead-trials-German-roads-months.html

And delivery services:

His company's solution? Small, lightweight, autonomous delivery robots. First announced in November, the robots will be tested on the UK's streets in 2016 ahead of a full commercial roll-out planned for 2017. Heinla expects land-based robots to beat much-hyped drone delivery technology to the market.

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-11/23/anita-heinla-starship-wired-retail-2015

Don't forget warehouses either:

This is an adapt or die situation I'm afraid. The projections made by multiple sources in industry and robotics say the time frame for a 20-30% job loss is decades, not a century. If old business don't adapt new business will replace them.

[kentauros]

51. I get the impression you haven't talked to many small business owners.

And I don't read your data because my reading speed is low and my attention span isn't made for data.

I'm talking psychology. You're talking logic. The two do not meet in the minds of the small and established business owners.

[EdwardBernays]

52. I am a small business owner

so yeah, I've talked to a few.

Plus I work a lot with startup and do a lot of work with chartered accountants...

I understand your position, but I don't think you're grasping mine.

I don't know if you remember small towns before Walmart, but I do. I saw my local town basically shuttered by Walmart. The small businesses that DID survive were ones that used logic and didn't pretend that they could ignore changes in the local economy.

I know two people that lost their businesses to Walmart and one to Best Buy.

I do feel like I have a pretty solid understanding of this stuff, and do have to make my own business work and do spend time with people making theirs work... or trying.

[kentauros]

64. Well, I've both talked to many and worked for many.

And my point of view is based on that fact. If I was in the business of supplying any of them in any way, I'd have died of stress-induced illness a long time ago. None of them think logically, even with regards to competing.

I am grasping your point of view, but I see it as the typical futurist "everything will be wonderful!" point of view. We've seen far too many times how often futurists have been wrong. And yet, people continue to go back to them as if maybe they'll be right this time. The one thing futurists seem to have a difficult time factoring into their ideas is human psychology. I'm no expert on that, yet my observation is that topics like this one fail on human psychology every single time.

I did watch the latest NOVA the other night on this very topic. And even though they were less naive about it being a wonderful future with robots replacing everything, they still didn't factor in the psychology of how people will even consider having robots replace workers. It continued the idea that it's going to happen as they foresee it now. Reality is never like that.

I am not against robots in the workforce. I'm just not convinced it will be anything like it's being portrayed here. And really, I'd much rather see robots put to work cleaning up our environmental messes than replacing existing jobs. That's far more useful than even replacing fast food workers, and of a far more immediate need.

[EdwardBernays]

71. I don't think everything will be wonderful

unless we fight for it to be... that's what I keep saying. We must start talking about this now and figuring out what we want the future to look like or we're screwed. That's my opinion.

I don't think people can predict the future, but I DO think that the way capitalism - especially corporatism - works is that growth comes before everything else. That's it's engine. The only way to drive up growth is a world with stagnant wages is to lower prices. And to do that you have to lower costs.

Low cost manufacturing, by offshoring, has almost run it's course, unless the Chinese can ever manage to get African manufacturing online... and even then...

So other solutions are being found.

automation is basically legalised slavery... free work.. it does DRAMATICALLY raise profit where it's been implemented and corporations know this, which is why they invest in it so heavily... small businesses are only in the last 4-5 years truly able to take part... that uptake will dramatically increase, and the outcome will mean collapse for those companies that don't cop on.

Heck over here in Europe it's come to this sort of thing:

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-34066941

[kentauros]

74. Perhaps small businesses think that way in Europe,

but in my experience, that's not the case in the US. Again, big businesses will embrace it, and for everything you've pointed out. Small businesses will not, for all of the reasons I've pointed out. Human psychology in these matters is predictable, too.

[EdwardBernays]

75. Like with Walmart

if they don't adapt they will collapse.

[kentauros]

82. Except, I'm not talking about small businesses competing with big businesses.

I'm talking about small businesses competing with other small businesses. When the majority of small businesses are thinking and doing the same as all the rest of them, there isn't going to be a collapse of their businesses.

As for your example, let's go back to food instead. Even with the plethora of fast food franchises literally everywhere, single shop restaurants and cafes still exist and even thrive. Why weren't they all put out of business by the fast food places? Fast food is far more efficient (and faster) than those small places, and yet... And we're also not talking about "niche" businesses. We're talking about direct competition with the big guys and doing more than simply surviving. How much did they have to adapt? Not much from both my observation, and from working in that business.

[EdwardBernays]

107. Obviously

Every business won't disappear.

But.

Did you see that Apple is looking at pairing with McDonald and Starbucks with their self driving car thing.

Want food well the car will take you their no problems. Want something else you'll have to do something more complex.

How many of those little food establishments will survive that kind of product integration...?

These business are planning on using this sort of automation and robotics to push selected brands as well...

Not all small businesses will die or use robots in 2020. How many will be left by 2050 though?

Its worth considering.

[kentauros]

109. Plenty will still be around by 2050.

Because humans will still want human-made, human-created products. Who cares if the self-driving cars make it more difficult to get to the non-corporate places. Has the complexity of smart-phones today stopped people from using them and making them do things the designers had never imagined?

Corporations will always try to subvert the norm, and people will always find ways to subvert the corps. So, don't expect to see the corps win that one, either.

[adigal]

63. Part of the pleasure of going out to eat, or getting a coffee1

is the human interaction, especially with dining out.

Heck, I still miss having someone pump my gas!! I don't see small businesses going for this, and I also see a huge pushback for people wanting truly handmade. I made handmade jewelry, and people are wanting something made by a human rather than a machine more and more, especially young people. There is a big pushback against all of these advances. Young people see computers as a work tool, not the fun we 50 somethings see them as. And they are very into the old "hippie" and "boho" thing, which eschews a lot of technology.

[kentauros]

66. That is a big factor,

and again, it's human psychology. Big corporations will embrace robots, because they've also got deep pockets. Small companies have far more reasons to justify not using them than the big guys.

And like you say, people want handmade, and people want to do handmade.

[whatthehey]

100. That's hardly universal

I'd dearly love to eat out without the variable service, human error and incessant interruptions of wait staff. I seek out places with the auto pay terminals because wait staff only ever seem to leave you alone for 5 minutes when you are ready to pay. I eat out for food I cannot or do not care to produce and the company I go with, not the overly chirpy prattlings of twenty somethings.

[Humanist_Activist]

65. That machine, at 50 grand, will be cheaper than a human and pay for itself...

in about a couple of years.

It will be a lot cheaper than paying someone 20k a year plus benefits, and that's on the low end.

Not saying such machines will be adopted by everyone right away, as you said, there will be various reasons they won't, even trying to save short term versus long term.

[kentauros]

68. Some businesses will embrace their use.

I just don't see the majority of small businesses doing so, unless they are a start-up, and can afford using them from the very beginning. Established small businesses are not going to embrace the use of robots to replace their workforce. Simple as that.

[Humanist_Activist]

76. That's a blanket claim that will prove untrue, I'm sure. There will be some...

small business owners who jump at the chance, and there are others who won't.

To give an example, there's a small restaurant in St. Louis that now has the waiters carry tablets around, and that's how they enter orders in for the food. This is someone's single, wholly owned restaurant, no other locations, its not a chain. By the way, their burgers are delicious, Breakfast n' Burgers. There, I turned my post into a commercial.

The fact is that pen and paper would have, and did suffice, but they went the more expensive, technological route. They may save some money no longer buying the pen and paper anymore, or they won't, not sure what was calculated that had the owners buy tablets to use for restaurant ordering.

Yet, if I went to Applebee's, or a number of other chain restaurants, its still pen and paper.

[kentauros]

84. It's a blanket statement based on how a majority of people think.

Some businesses will embrace the technology. The majority won't, or (again) not without being a startup with the mindset of embracing the tech from the beginning. The majority of established small business owners just don't think that way.

[HughBeaumont]

41. I'm laughing that anyone thinks anything positive is going to happen as a result of mass automation.

Last edited Thu Feb 25, 2016, 02:34 PM - Edit history (1)

Do you forget who runs the American Private Sector?

Do you forget who runs American government?

"Oh, but automation's a blessing in disguise, because they'll HAVE to give America a guaranteed minimum income!"

PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTT.

Corporate purchased Washington doesn't have to do shit and isn't GOING to do shit in that regard. It's not happening. Conservatives exist in both parties in 2016 and they all think MNCs still practice meritocracy. Democrats are now low-grade Republicans and Republicans are now George Dubya on Steroids. Get that notion out of your heads, Guaranteed Minimum Income is never going to happen in our lifetimes.

By some lottery miracle the political will exists to enact it; how, exactly, would it get paid for with scant revenue coming in because no one can work? Are we going to all of a sudden disproportionately tax wealthy and corporations like we should have been doing all along? We've seen the ugly result of giving these motherfuckers free money . . . they perform stock buybacks and lay off their workers.

Oh, and if you think the millions upon millions of unemployed in retail, manufacturing, medical, warehouses, industry, automotive, etc, etc, etc doesn't affect YOU, white collar worker, THINK AGAIN.

If no one has a paycheck coming in, guess what: they aren't buying your services or your funds or seeing you for loans/mortgages . . . forget about them buying stocks, doing taxes, forget about the investments in R & D, forget about all of that. Demand's going to dry up faster than an ice cube in the Sahara and you might as well take a goddamned lighter to that MBA or PhD, because it's a-gonna be worthless.

But hey, just ignore me. LAUGH AWAY. "Ha ha ha ha, Luddite! Because America has invented everything they need already, right? HA HA HA HA HA!" What, you think Joe Sixpack's going to invent his way out of this mess? It doesn't work that way anymore - most invention is performed in corporate laboratories with mean-ass patent attorneys in 2016. You know, unless Joe Sixpack is somehow rich with lots of 3-D printers at his disposal. Oh wait, who's going to buy his product?

Any light bulbs going off in your heads yet?

Laugh gleefully while some of you think that this is the event that's going to finally lead to the Democratic Socialism we all want. Y'all couldn't be more incorrect on this. This is going to lead to a dystopia that will make the Great Depression seem like a two-car accident. It's going to be horrific, there's going to be a shit-ton of pain, there's going to be starvation, there's going to be unneeded deaths and it's going to be biblical.

[EdwardBernays]

44. You're missing the point

it's not "coming," it's already here; it's accelerating and finally being acknowledged by the mainstream, but it's not new and it's not going away.

I agree - and if you look at my comments you'll see I said this yesterday - that America is the last place a guaranteed minimum income will happen.

I ALSO think the the masses need to be demanding a say in their future, because if they don't - well this is coming, mass unemployment - and if people don't demand something good for themselves like they did at at the end of the 19th century - others - corporations and giant bureaucracies - will decide for them...

It's not about you being a luddite. I expect most people to be ignorant of the reality of the situation, but ignorance is not gonna stop this from happening.

Small businesses in America are currently replacing staff with cheap robots. Some of which are 20K - prices are falling all the time - can work 24/7 and require no healthcare or benefits. That's already afoot across America.

At Panek Precision Inc., a Northbrook, Ill., machine shop, 21 shiny new robots hum as they place metal parts into cutting machines and remove the parts after they are done. It's a tedious and oily task once handled by machine operators who earn about $16.50 an hour.

One new robot doubled the output from a machine that was previously operated by a worker "because robots work overnight and don't take lunch breaks and they just keep going," says Gregg Panek, the company's president. In some cases, the robots, which are single articulated arms, can even hold a part while it's getting cut since there is no danger of injury.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/robots-work-their-way-into-small-factories-1410979100

And that's just first gen stuff for small businesses. Give it 10 years.

This is also happening all over China, and in Europe.

It's happening in the legal profession, in reporting and music, and in broadcasting.

And it's not happening in the future, but NOW.

So, as it's happening, and as it's unstoppable, and as it will either lead to a dystopia - as you say- or to something else entirely new - it would SEEM TO ME that humanity should start talking about this and figuring out what we want. Back in the early 1900s Europe was still run by aristocrats.Women couldn't vote. Minorities couldn't vote, or marry white people. There was almost no protection for workers.

But

People didn't just give up. They organised and demanded that society be arranged in such a way as to protect the majority.

We are transitioning to something new. It's time to start having this conversation before something awful is foisted on us.

[HughBeaumont]

85. See, you're coming from an idealist perspective that American power brokers are reasonable.

That, in the face of economic disaster, they're going to do what's right for and by their constituents . . . all we have to do is demand that they do something.

I'm going to let you in on a secret: THEY'RE NOT AND THEY WON'T.

Why?

In this case, past performance IS a guarantee of future results. Look how behind we are on universal education, universal health care, infrastructure, taxation, public transportation and human rights in general.

When "The Decider" and his cabal of war criminals were rattling their usual war drums on their favorite Middle Eastern punching bags, millions of people around the world took to the streets and demanded that a peaceful situation be enacted. The Decider with his raised middle fingers pretty much told them to go pound sand and went anyway, unleashing needless death and destruction while dealing resources with the same nation that attacked us.

This sort of nonsense is what happens when people who would be OK with a mass culling of humanity are running things. It does not matter one iota to those in power whether it's urgently necessary to institute action that prevents societal and economic cataclysm. What are we going to do, beat them up if they don't do what we want? Vote them out so someone worse or even more milquetoast replaces them?

And then there's our incredibly passive and lobotomized citizenry . . . . GOD. America's conditioned, SO well.

They believe the CEO myth that "retaining executive talent" requires lotteries, or they'll be disincentivized. While at the same time, taking money away from people who have to spend and save every dime will . . . are you ready . . . motivate them to get a better life (search me how you pay to better yourself when you have no disposable income).

They hear the words "Democratic Socialism" and all of a sudden, "L'Internationale" goes off in their heads, with propaganda visions of threshers in the Soviet wheat fields or 1980s Cuba or some shit.

We're expected to just rugged individualize our own futures . . . . lack of patronage, privilege, luck, resources and time be damned, it's expected to JUST HAPPEN and if it doesn't, it's our fault for not trying hard enough and that's that. That's the way America and it's Crapitalism works. I don't like it anymore than anyone else, but I'm not one ounce optimistic that people are going to change and demand something better. I'm just not.

And it doesn't really matter if it's necessary or not . . . the fact is, Dubya's war 'n' rich people's tax cut spending has put us in an improbable conundrum to fund a Universal (insert benefit here) in the first place. With mass unemployment . . . short of making some powerful people bite some bitter not-able-to-shelter-it economic and tax pills, I'm not seeing where the revenue is going to come from. There are posters here that have said Universal Health Care will never work without an additional VAT (a Ted Cruz staple, but he wants to eliminate the IRS on top of it) or an across-the-board 50% tax hike (which America would never stand for). How would Guaranteed Minimum Income ever be funded?

[jeff47]

89. Not at all.

That, in the face of economic disaster, they're going to do what's right for and by their constituents . . . all we have to do is demand that they do something.

Not at all.

The idea is to start talking about this so that we are not surprised by this transition. So that we can overcome those stereotypes you mention and be ready to force the issue.

It's not that we'll say "pretty please", or that it will "just happen". We'll have torches and pitchforks standing by.

[EdwardBernays]

93. This this 100 times this

I am not in any way an idealist.

But I know enough history to know that change can be forced on oligarchs and monarchs and corporate overlords.

But if we're not talking now we can't coalesce around a common goal. The same won't be true for those in power. They know what they want.

We have to be organized and willing to sacrifice for our kids and their kids etc etc.

If you go back and look at even the woman's suffrage movement - where frankly the stakes will be lower than what's coming - those women literally went on hunger strikes. They got repeatedly arrested and attacked. They also used direct action against the power structure they were trying to change.

It was hard and painful and long. But they did it and women have benefited for decades - we all have.

No one is going to give us anything worth having. We'll have to demand it and if we need to take it.

[HughBeaumont]

103. Yeah . . . better let their military and police know ahead of time.

Neither institution is sympathetic to the progress of humankind or progressive causes. Which, of course, makes them the perfect muscle for getting their way. Well, that and a taxophobic, bitter and jealous citizenry that's strung out on either Hope Dope or Horatio Alger heroin.

[EdwardBernays]

105. Like always

The majority of people cant be leaders.

And there will of course be people that unwilling to simply give up what they see as theirs.

But the alternatives are too bleak to consider.

[PasadenaTrudy]

87. This is so obviously happening

I don't see why people here are denying it. I'm not saying I think it's a good thing, but, d'uh, it's here! No stopping this train.

[closeupready]

53. So will robots be assembling robots? Manufacturing their parts?

I don't think so.

[The2ndWheel]

58. Do you think people will stop trying to make that happen?

Human beings don't like limits. If there is a way to make robots assemble robots, and manufacture their parts, we will try to find it. We'll get out best minds on trying to find a way to do it.

[Fast Walker 52]

61. indeed... although we could put restrictions on it much like we do for human gene engineering

Clearly much like genetic engineering, there is stuff we can do that would easily get out of control, so it is outlawed.

[The2ndWheel]

72. There are a lot of things human beings have tried to make illegal

and that hasn't stopped, really any of them, from getting, being, or staying out of control.

The only real restriction is the ease at which something can be done. Maybe genetic engineering isn't quite easy enough to do yet, so that's what limits it. Once we get really good at it, I'm sure there will be a few issues.

It all goes back to the most fundamental of questions concerning the human condition; who gets to tell who what they can or cannot do? We haven't figured that out yet. Even elections don't work as much as we would want.

There's no way to know exactly how things will go, but we will try to find a way around whatever it is, and do it as quickly as possible.

[Fast Walker 52]

77. this is true... still, it seems obvious that we should enact some restrictions on what robots can do

There's of course a huge sci-fi literature on this.

[closeupready]

69. This is what I know, I know that there will always be a need for manual labor.

If there are universal truisms of nation states, one of those is that able-bodied adults with no gainful employment become a destabilizing segment of the established order. In the Bible, I think it's expressed, "Idle hands are the devil's workshop."

[The2ndWheel]

81. Just another limit we'll try and get around

Both the need for manual labor, and destabilizing segments within society. We'll try to get around both, probably at the same time, probably with varying and conflicting results. Maybe even try and figure out how to get around the nation state limit.

Our attempts to circumvent conceptual reality, and most importantly, physical reality, don't always work. For example, we still haven't gotten around the death limit yet, which is really the most fundamental of limits, and where it all stems from.

Every person or group tries to set up and circumvent limits. Set up limits for others, knock down limits by others. It's the push and pull, the yin and yang, of what we call existence.

[closeupready]

86. I'm not sure if I agree entirely, but your last paragraph is very true.

I won't lie and say I was able to get through the whole book (it's huge, but fascinating); however, in "The First Tycoon" biography of Cornelius Vanderbilt, the writer (forgetting his name ATM) begins the first few chapters by explaining how the economy in post-Revolutionary New York was highly class-stratified. The aristocratic Livingston Family enjoyed a 'gentlemen's agreement' monopoly on waterway traffic, and the young Vanderbilt (born in a shack on Staten Island) broke that monopoly by doing that job better for more people for a lower fare. Just a fun sidenote...

[Humanist_Activist]

67. Actually yes, why would humans be more suited for that.

in fact, I would expect that computers will eventually be responsible for streamlining designs for all sorts of products, even creating other products entirely, which will remove another level of human interaction.

Robots manufacture cars, electronics, etc, even other robots now, why would that change?

[closeupready]

73. Will robots be doing inventory, intake? In Pixar cartoons, it seems so easy.

But I have my doubts about that.

[Humanist_Activist]

79. Actually I would expect they would, as long as they are capable of manipulating...

products and scanning them into a Telxon type system, why not? Computers do most of the calculating as is, humans are only used for the counts because we don't have robots with the dexterity required to manipulate a variety of products on things like store shelves or warehouses without designed such things with the robots mobility in mind first. But a human-analog robot with the capability to count? Sure, that seems more than likely to occur, and may be one of the first examples of such robots to be seen out in the real world, as it were.

[jeff47]

94. Why not?

Obviously humans would have to assemble the first generation, but after that you can have robots assemble robots.

[closeupready]

95. It's funny sometimes here in discussions about physical reality,

a reality which is governed by the laws of physics. There are those who seem to be thinking in terms of virtual reality (as your icon reflects) which is NOT governed by the laws of physics, but rather, whatever laws one wants to apply - it's a seductive paradigm because you can dispense with the laws of physics with a shrug, and the expression, "why not?" And here I thought one would need a Ph.D. in quantum mechanics. Nope. Wrong I was. You need merely check in to any one of many different threads here on DU, any day of the week.

[jeff47]

96. What limit of physical reality prevents robots from assembling robot parts and other robots?

Robots can already assemble cell phones and all their components. Robots can already assemble cars and all their components. We already have people 3D printing 3D printers.

What prevents robots from ever assembling other robots?

[closeupready]

97. Robots are things. Things fall apart. Therefore,

robots fall apart.

[jeff47]

98. And when a robot falls apart, other robots can repair or replace it.

It's not like all robots would fall apart simultaneously.

Again, what limit of physical reality prevents robots from ever assembling robots?

[closeupready]

104. For one thing, access to natural resources can be an insurmountable physical limit

to that scenario.

[jeff47]

106. The solar system has a lot of resources.

And with no requirement for oxygen, more-or-less immune to radiation and ability to withstand far higher G-forces, robots can exploit those resources far easier than we can.

But I really don't think we're talking about a post-sun-becomes-red-giant timeframe here.

[bettyellen]

110. "We already have people 3D printing 3D printers. " This is like the lady on the Land O Lakes Butter

box.... holding a Land O Lakes Butter box with a picture of herself holding a Land O Lakes Butter box with a picture of herself holding a Land O Lakes Butter box with a picture of herself holding a Land O Lakes Butter box with a picture of herself holding a Land O Lakes Butter box with a picture of herself holding a Land O Lakes Butter box with a picture of herself holding a Land O Lakes Butter box with a picture of herself holding a Land O Lakes Butter box with a picture of herself holding a Land O Lakes Butter box with a picture of herself .

Sally Draper was a smart kid.

[KamaAina]

88. "It's a huge societal issue with jobs"

No sheet, Ceesco!

[B Calm]

91. Hell if it can do manual work, surely it could replace office workers too!

The only ones left will be the stock holders.

[Oneironaut]

92. Close to the end of manual labor? Meh.

I think the robot is very interesting, but A - it's very slow, and B - It only really works in ideal conditions and situations (physical and intellectual). There are a number of problems that make this thing impractical for use in the outside world. It might have good niche uses, though.

Before this thing has any use, it has a number of physical and AI-related hurdles to jump over. We're not there yet.

[Initech]

101. Skynet begins.

[Deadshot]

102. I can get behind this.

Nobody wants to do manual labor.

The jobs situation for people, though, will be difficult to address...