The Future. Good or Bad. What do you think?

[ECCOnoob]

Actually, it has the potential to be very good for us if it is handled in the right way. Who wouldn't want a machine to do all the boring stuff for us? And output would still be the same if not better. So the money would still be coming in, if not more. BUT, it's what happens to that money that's the problem (isn't it always.) Should it go to the few, the factory owners, or be shared among the many, particularly the ones who have been replaced by the machine and lost their jobs?

 

Look at it this way: 10 men build 10 cars

10 cars are sold.

1 robot builds 10 cars, 10 men are unemployed.

10 cars are sold.

 

I'm not sure I know what you are proposing.

 

The money should got to the factory owners obviously. Their business, their machinery, their investment, their profit.

 

What right exactly do the "many" have to give them claim on the proceeeds? They are paid for their services and work - that's why they get a salary. When the work runs out they go find other jobs.

 

Are you trying to suggest that if machinery is a causal link of a worker being made redudant, somehow the worker is entitled to rewards from such machinery?

 

Like I said. When one industry closes another new one is developed. Its what's been happening for generations. People will always be buying things. People will always need things.

[I1L2T3]

I'm not sure I know what you are proposing.

 

The money should got to the factory owners obviously. Their business, their machinery, their investment, their profit.

 

What right exactly do the "many" have to give them claim on the proceeeds? They are paid for their services and work - that's why they get a salary. When the work runs out they go find other jobs.

 

Are you trying to suggest that if machinery is a causal link of a worker being made redudant, somehow the worker is entitled to rewards from such machinery?

 

Like I said. When one industry closes another new one is developed. Its what's been happening for generations. People will always be buying things. People will always need things.

 

A few potential issues there.

 

If the proceeds are allowed to flow to capitalists in an unrestrained way then it would probably be bad for society. It took us about 100 years to partially unwind a similar situation that developed in the 19th century. In that era yes people did buy things, but not much.

 

If you want people to still be consumers then it will not work if capitalists are allowed to accumulate wealth at the expense of everybody else.

 

I think automation is one technical revolution where unfettered capitalism will not work. probably needs something radical to counterbalance it. Possibly new energy sources. Possibly citizens income.

[apelike]

amazons working on a lot, automatic cashier shops, drones for deliveries

 

if all that works out they will have less shop workers, delivery drivers and warehouse workers

 

The internet has given us an easier way to shop and will result in less shop workers but that is just progress and people will carry on shopping online. The biggest increase in workers are in the service industries such as takeaways. Things will still need delivering as drones will never take off (forgive the pun) and become the norm.

 

---------- Post added 05-03-2018 at 22:10 ----------

 

Automation is creeping up the social scale and will soon be replacing middle class jobs, like accountants, bank workers and even doctors.

 

I hope that accountants do get replaced as they are a rip-off anyway. Bank worker have almost disappeared anyway, and I think it a long way off yet that some medical diagnostics will be automated. Quite honestly I think most of the damage from automation has already been done.

Edited March 5, 2018 by apelike

[Anna B]

I'm not sure I know what you are proposing.

 

The money should got to the factory owners obviously. Their business, their machinery, their investment, their profit.

 

What right exactly do the "many" have to give them claim on the proceeeds? They are paid for their services and work - that's why they get a salary. When the work runs out they go find other jobs.

 

Are you trying to suggest that if machinery is a causal link of a worker being made redudant, somehow the worker is entitled to rewards from such machinery?

 

Like I said. When one industry closes another new one is developed. Its what's been happening for generations. People will always be buying things. People will always need things.

 

Actually something went wrong with my post and I think you might have written this while I was amending it. It's now as I wrote it.

I think shopping is a good analogy. People have been buying and exchanging goods since time immemorial, and as the population has increased and people have got wealthier, and choice has increased, it's grown and grown into a major retail industry. But in all that time people have had to go out to the shops to buy, employing hundreds of thousnds of people.

Now suddenly, online shopping is beginning to bite, and shops are closing because they can't compete. Thousands are losing their jobs.

 

What is replacing them are huge hanger like warehouses that are all but fully automated, (or soon will be,) the 'pickers' are already being replaced by robots. For the first time in history the human element has become redundant in this process. The High Street will deteriorate until it passes a tipping point, and then even those who want to shop in person won't bother anymore because the fun / choice has gone out of it.

The goods are largely made by automation and the banking /financial side of it can also be done by computers. This major industry no longer needs people at all, except as consumers, and if the consumers don't have money to buy with, you don't have an industry at all.

That's before you even take into account that the lack of sustainability, which means rampant consumerism is going out of fashion...

 

Just one example. There are many more. Things are changing in unprecedented ways we have no experience of.

We have never really recovered in the North from the closure of the heavy manufacturing industries, some have integrated into new jobs but many did not which is where our 'underclass' of unemployed comes from. Heaven knows what this upheaval will bring, but it won't be enough jobs for all.

Edited March 5, 2018 by Anna B

[*_ash_*]

Only briefly read the thread, because I'm not that interested, I worked this out a few years ago.

 

However, a couple of points I saw in this post:

 

 

Look at it this way: 10 men build 10 cars

10 cars are sold.

1 robot builds 10 cars, 10 men are unemployed.

10 cars are still sold.

Profits increase because 10 men's wages are saved. But who should get the profits? At the moment it's going to the manufacturer (the rich getting richer,) but then, robots don't buy cars, so he has to bear that in mind....

 

In this example, all you can see is 10 men out of work, and 10 mens wages going in the pockets of the fat cat.

 

In reality, the robots required might cost those 10 mens wages x10, so the business takes a risk doing this - but before violins, read on

In reality, they would still require some of those 10 to manage the robots (fat cat too busy counting his money of course!)

In reality, and you can see example of this on a programme called 'How it's made' (which is surprisingly quite entertaining sometimes) - there is always someone sticking a piece of something onto another - because it's cheaper to pay the person than buy a complex machine to do a simple job.

 

A company of 10 would probably reduce to 3 or 4.

However a large company might reduce from 10000 to 3000 or 4000.

 

Of course the same percentage, but if you look what can be produced in bulk, this is worth it for big companies, but more likely just puts the smaller one out of business. see next bit...

 

-

 

The second thing, is all you see is these huge profits going in some fat man's pocket,

 

however, you also have to include that, all the rival companies are doing the same, and this is because people want cheaper things.

 

-

 

What's more, this has ALWAYS happened.

 

I don't doubt that we'll survive, but what will it be like? Are we going to have a society of the few, priviledged super-rich, and nearly everyone else picking up the crumbs in dire poverty (like the Hunger Games?)

 

Yes, probably. This is the way that we've always done things (but it has increased since the industrial revolution, I think is hard to argue against) - Finding efficiencies in things to keep prices down.

 

If you want a laugh, but probably see the future, buy Idiocrasy on DVD

 

Some would say that's the way the world is going already, and it's only going to get worse as more and

 

People have been saying that for hundreds of years (and the answer I spoke of, is in this bit, btw)

 

Some would say that's the way the world is going already, and it's only going to get worse as more and more people are engulfed by unemployment and poverty.

 

If you mean here, then word poverty is just misused. There was a lot of talk of the QT the other day, but I watch all of them, not just when farage is on, and there's always someone in the audience practically crying, because the nasty government and austerity and mines closing, and 'weepy voice', the children are starving... but there has never been as much benefits, charities, and food is cheap, the woman this week said that people can't afford to cook fresh food now, because of austerity. Garbage. Food is cheap as ever been, and it's because of these robots doing things more efficiently.

Edited March 5, 2018 by *_ash_*

[hauxwell]

Farmers seem to be adopting more technology, making crops more resistant to floods, using robots and humans to pick the crops. Hopefully this helps to keep food prices down. So moving forward isn’t all that bad.

Surely automation and technology in farming had got to be good to feed the growing population.

Edited March 6, 2018 by hauxwell

[truman]

I'd sooner be living now than at any time in the past....and I daresay people in a hundred years time will be saying that they'd sooner be living then than now..

[Anna B]

I think if the scientists ever manage to produce 'immortality' (and they're working at it,) then the world will be done for.

[Harrystottle]

Online shopping is going to render the High Street irrelevant. What do we do with our Town centres?

Turn the empty shops into apartments for people to live in, thus regenerating city centres and hopefully cutting down on journeys and congestion, hence improving air quality.

 

Automation and robotics is going to bring unemployment. What new jobs are going to take up the slack? Do we need a 'Citizen's income'?

 

This is the big one; mass immigration is used to boost consumption and hence boost "economic growth" which politicians love, but if the robots take millions of jobs how do people get their living, how do they get money to keep consumerism going?

 

 

 

What do you think? What else should be taxing the minds of our long term planners?

I don't think we have any long term planners. We need infrastructure updates to cope with the growing population - new hospitals, better transport links, better public services - but there is no sign of these, just more and more houses.

 

Bad - loss of countryside.

[Anna B]

Turn the empty shops into apartments for people to live in, thus regenerating city centres and hopefully cutting down on journeys and congestion, hence improving air quality.

 

 

 

This is the big one; mass immigration is used to boost consumption and hence boost "economic growth" which politicians love, but if the robots take millions of jobs how do people get their living, how do they get money to keep consumerism going?

 

 

 

 

I don't think we have any long term planners. We need infrastructure updates to cope with the growing population - new hospitals, better transport links, better public services - but there is no sign of these, just more and more houses.

 

Bad - loss of countryside.

 

That's the problem isn't it? Everything these days seems to be at the whim of 'the market.'