Extistence of Robots in Industrial

[killer-curry]

Replacement of robots in industrial sector does helps to reduce the expense for company and increase the productivity and gain more income, however people working in those industries will be eventually replaced too and also induce unemployment crisis.

So what do you think about this issue?

 

[Her]

Over here in New Zealand, there's been talk of the eventual (some say inevitable) possibility of the a Universal Basic Income system being implemented here due to this topic. It's only recently gained traction due to the realisation that the dairy & agricultural industry, which prop up New Zealand's economy, will become increasingly automated and robot-centric in terms of production and the labour which farmers currently supply. This is representative of the rise in robotics & software across most job fields, but New Zealand is so reliant on the dairy industry (and agriculture as a whole) that nothing will be considered until the farmers are in danger. Once the farmers are pissing in their boots, and not just because of the current financial troubles most have right now, there will definitely be genuine talks of the UBI coming into effect.

 

[Nah]

You ever read Vonnegut's Player Piano? The automization of industry obviously has its economic effects, but Player Piano focuses more on the social impact this could possibly have, and I wonder if Player Piano could perhaps happen in some way in reality.

 

[Sir Codin]

In any case, automization will certainly cause society as a whole to re-examine the concept of work itself. Even in a lot of areas that are not automated, there are paid jobs that robots could now do with no problem, essentially giving rise to the idea that for the longest time now, we've created jobs for people not out of productive necessity, but simply "work for the sake of working."

I'm not going to lie...I hate working. I don't believe in the concept of "having work you enjoy" because in my view, if you're enjoying it, you're not working - you're having fun. If I make a living photographing wildlife or making video game commentaries, I'm not working. If I'm pissing and moaning at myself for having to hurt my feet and back for a grocery store job I only took to pay bills, I'm working.

 

[Midnight shadow]

I believe similar things were said at the start of the industrial revolution, when mostly automated lines were brought in. People thought it would put a lot of people out of their jobs. It didn't, simply because machines in their current form are so unreliable that they need constant monitoring by humans. Until we can develop true AI to monitor production lines there will always be a need for humans.

Then, in the far future, even if production lines become fully automated, all it will do is shift the human workforce to other areas. Less work will mean people have more time to engage in hobbies, and as a result more people will be needed to work in the leisure industry to supply that demand. After all, I don't know about you but I wouldn't want a robot teaching my kids to swim. That role will always fall to humans.

 

[Somewhere_]

I believe similar things were said at the start of the industrial revolution, when mostly automated lines were brought in. People thought it would put a lot of people out of their jobs. It didn't, simply because machines in their current form are so unreliable that they need constant monitoring by humans. Until we can develop true AI to monitor production lines there will always be a need for humans.

Then, in the far future, even if production lines become fully automated, all it will do is shift the human workforce to other areas. Less work will mean people have more time to engage in hobbies, and as a result more people will be needed to work in the leisure industry to supply that demand. After all, I don't know about you but I wouldn't want a robot teaching my kids to swim. That role will always fall to humans.

This, and automation actually leads to the creation of more jobs (or at least it should- I need to research this more).

Basically, with automation comes lower prices because the cost to make products is reduced a ton. As a result of this deflation, people have more money to spend. With this money, they create more jobs in other areas of the economy. So while automation destroys jobs in the short run, it creates jobs in the long run.

In addition, the capitalist who fired his workers and replaced them with machines now has extra profits. With these profits, he either invests it in other industries or spend it personally on a car or something. Or he invests the money back into his business for more profit, leading to the first two options. And the first two options employ people in other industries.

I think the argument can be made that automation would also lead to more people being employed in that same industry, but I am not sure. It is empirically validated, but it does not make sense because why would capitalists employ more people directly when they can just buy more machines? My guess is that they do not find the need for the machines with their surpluses? idk.

In theory, if it ever came to the point where robots could do everything, the cost of living would decrease so much you could live a lifetime for almost nothing, and jobs wouldnt be necessary.

 

[Pinkie-Dawn]

The problem with humans monitoring the robots in the industry in order to them from becoming unemployed is that it'll force them to focus their major in only engineering, because in case a robot breaks down, you have to repair it to make it functional again. This limits other humans who want to major in other careers besides engineering.

 

[gimmepie]

I believe similar things were said at the start of the industrial revolution, when mostly automated lines were brought in. People thought it would put a lot of people out of their jobs. It didn't, simply because machines in their current form are so unreliable that they need constant monitoring by humans. Until we can develop true AI to monitor production lines there will always be a need for humans.

Machines in their current form are extremely efficient and accurate for the most part. On top of that, you don't need AI to run an assembly line. There are fully automated and near-fully automated assembly lines today that don't result in large numbers of problems that don't rely on AI to function. Machines don't need to be intelligent to take human jobs, they just need to fulfil a simple function.

Then, in the far future, even if production lines become fully automated, all it will do is shift the human workforce to other areas. Less work will mean people have more time to engage in hobbies, and as a result more people will be needed to work in the leisure industry to supply that demand. After all, I don't know about you but I wouldn't want a robot teaching my kids to swim. That role will always fall to humans.

Think of what your describing as immigration. If a large number of refugees from an enormous country all suddenly migrated to Vatican City then there wouldn't be enough resources for all of them and the clergymen.

It's the same sort of situation with jobs, they're a finite resource. It's not as simple as the workforce moving elsewhere. Yes, some people will just shift to other industries but there's already people working in the other industries too. Companies don't want to pay more people then they have to, they aren't going to just hire more people because they need work - if that's how it worked industrialisation wouldn't be an issue. Some people will successfully transfer to other work (as you said some jobs will always involve humans), some will re-specialise to work on/with the machines that do their old jobs but for a lot of people they're going to get left by the wayside. Not to mention that the few that do get into other industries then take work time from the existing workforce which ends up causing a reduction in pay and short hours for everyone.

The leisure industry is not the answer to the problem either, it's an industry that might require human interaction but that does not require a large workforce. It also typically doesn't pay very much at the lower end of the corporate ladder (or in small businesses) so when you factor that in with an increase in the workforce, you get poor people.

I'm not saying that industrialisation needs to completely stop. However, it can't be left to run amok or we'll be left with problems. Just look at Detroit.

 

[curiousnathan]

I think it's also important to take into account the environmental effects. Machines in the current form may be efficient in terms of executing a set task within a given time frame/to a level of detail and precision/duration compared to humans, but they have their draw backs. For one, they're highly energy inefficient - heck most things in the world are inefficient when it comes to energy exchange. More machines means more fuel whether that be in liquid form (oil), gas or electricity which already having increasingly disastrous effects on the environment. More machines means more energy wasted at a greater cost of resources. I think it boils down to the question if machines are really that sustainable. Humans are inefficient energy machines as well. A lot of energy is wasted during digestion, absorption and energy transformation. However, we can acquire a semi-constant supply of energy from the food we eat, which can be grown in a sustainable manner from the environment. We might be unable to execute a job with the precision, duration or speed of a machine, and we might cost more to have, but looking at the bigger picture we're far more beneficial to the world as workers than machines.

 

[Caaethil]

This has been going on for years. We replaced actual people with printers which could print lots of copies of books to sell, forcing us to fire the poor scribe guy. We don't need messengers anymore, we have email. A lot of food production can be automated. New machinery has been replacing factory workers for years now.

This is no different. The sky won't start falling now specifically.

 

[gimmepie]

This has been going on for years. We replaced actual people with printers which could print lots of copies of books to sell, forcing us to fire the poor scribe guy. We don't need messengers anymore, we have email. A lot of food production can be automated. New machinery has been replacing factory workers for years now.

This is no different. The sky won't start falling now specifically.

Not immediately no, but there's only so many jobs that can be made redundant before something collapses.

 

[Caaethil]

Not immediately no, but there's only so many jobs that can be made redundant before something collapses.

But they've said that exact thing every single time. I'm not worried, people will adapt. Society will be changed greatly by AI specifically, but until the robot apocalypse, it won't be the death of us.