Robots stealing our jobs!

[Kuciwalker]

Just like every other invention has benefited the rich and only the rich?

[Dis]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


We're talking about the complete elimination of labor, not merely labor saving devices. When humans are no longer involved in the role of production, then our only jobs will be to sell each other stuff, and that too can be handled by machines. So what do we do for money, just move things around?

as the service industry has shown, humans are more receptive dealing with other humans. It gives a more personal touch. You will sell more items.

[Kuciwalker]

And, btw, the reason change always benefits the "rich" is because the people who receive most of the benefits become rich.

[Snowflake]

The very fact more robots would be doing more elementary jobs means that there would be more "rich" people who have more leisure time to demand and create something else.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
We're talking about the complete elimination of labor, not merely labor saving devices. When humans are no longer involved in the role of production, then our only jobs will be to sell each other stuff, and that too can be handled by machines. So what do we do for money, just move things around?

Wrong, someone still has to design the machines, repair the machines, install them in the factory, remove them when they are broken, supply the factory lines with goods, etc... Then there are the nonfactory jobs of marketing, distribution, warehousing, sales, accounting, etc... There will be lots of jobs and we are only talking about the continuation of a long line of efficiency improvements.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Just like every other invention has benefited the rich and only the rich?

If you want to go off on your own tangent about something I'm not arguing, feel free. But I'm not following you there.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
someone still has to design the machines, repair the machines, install them in the factory, remove them when they are broken, supply the factory lines with goods, etc... Then there are the nonfactory jobs of marketing, distribution, warehousing, sales, accounting, etc... There will be lots of jobs and we are only talking about the continuation of a long line of efficiency improvements.

Most likely, yes, though eventually these too could be handled by intelligent-seeming AIs.

But the assumption in the argument was the complete elimation of human labor. In that case, those who don't own any means of production are completely superfluous, and given our current method of handling superfluous people on this planet, they'll likely starve.

[Snowflake]

Maybe that's when communism descent us and we all can eat all we want without having to do anything if we don't want to.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
But the assumption in the argument was the complete elimation of human labor. In that case, those who don't own any means of production are completely superfluous, and given our current method of handling superfluous people on this planet, they'll likely starve.

Even if we assume machines 100% take over production, which is an impossibility, then we still have sales, distribution, accounting, design, and human to human services. That doesn't even count farming, science, engineering, energy production, human to human services, specialty art, handy crafts, or hundreds of other fields. We are in no danger of losing these employment opportunities and since manufacturing efficency is emproving so much we will be able to lower the cost of goods and through taxes provide more help to those few individuals who are displaced by the efficency gains.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Most likely, yes, though eventually these too could be handled by intelligent-seeming AIs.

But the assumption in the argument was the complete elimation of human labor. In that case, those who don't own any means of production are completely superfluous, and given our current method of handling superfluous people on this planet, they'll likely starve.

Except assuming infinite production, there would be no point to not giving stuff to everyone. All it would take would be ONE person who had some means of production.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Even if we assume machines 100% take over production, which is an impossibility, then we still have sales, distribution, accounting, design, and human to human services. That doesn't even count farming, science, engineering, energy production, human to human services, specialty art, handy crafts, or hundreds of other fields. We are in no danger of losing these employment opportunities and since manufacturing efficency is emproving so much we will be able to lower the cost of goods and through taxes provide more help to those few individuals who are displaced by the efficency gains.

You're missing the point - eventually we can replace humans in ANY job with computer programs and robots.

[Kuciwalker]

Che, I'm willing to concede that we'll eventually have to become communist if you're willing to concede it'll only happen when we reach a state of infinite production

[chequita guevara]

We don't need infinite production, just practically infinite prodution, i.e., we produce more than we possibly use. The trick here, of course, is that in a capitalist society, that day will never come since capital will be shifted from overproductive areas. The problem for capitalism, though, is what happens when we reach the point when every important area is overproductive.

[Kuciwalker]

Capital will never shift to an area that won't sell.

[pchang]

When robots take all the jobs, everyone will become part of the porn industry.