Support NeoGAF

[KissVibes]

The only real solution is population control, I guess. Companies will jump at the chance to not hire people and use robots. If we control how many children are born and to whom, and euthanize people once they hit a certain age we should be okay. I've been pushing this plan for years and now hopefully people will see that it's needed, instead of dismissing it as lunacy. Fact is, we have too many people and not enough jobs. It's time to start correcting that.

I know people need to work but i cant help but feel bad when i see 96% older women as staff

So should those people be without jobs? If so, for what reason?

 

[sp3000]

And obviously what the people who make their living off these jobs and manage to make it stretch need is to lose their jobs as a kick in the pants to spend thousands of dollars they don't have to get a college education in order to get a 'skilled' job.

You can make the exact same argument about the thousands of retail stores that have been totally removed because of amazon.

No one will say it though because they are too busy enjoying the benefits that amazon offers. The same exact thing will happen. People will whine and faux outrage for a while and then a few years later it will not matter.

 

[sans_pants]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/b...-changing-global-industry.html?pagewanted=all

new robots are much cheaper and safer than they were a few years ago. many, many jobs are going to be replaced over the next 20 years. if your job involves a computer, you will likely be replaced. there are ai journalists and lawyers and scientists and doctors that will only be getting better.


we can either fight progress or our governments can start focusing on a smooth transition to socialism. capitalism would be a terrible thing. giving everyone school and healthcare would be a great start and allow us to train a smarter and smarter citizenry.

they should raise taxes and use it to train the unemployed to build our renewable infrastructure, so that the corps wont worry about powering their robots or mid east tensions

 

[AlexBasch]

I don't know why I always lose my shit watching that gif, hahahah.

 

[Zaptruder]

I don't know why I always lose my shit watching that gif, hahahah.

Because we imbue it with human qualities that it doesn't have.

"Look at that robot. It's so cute, but also such an asshole!"

 

[Kevtones]

They took urr'jobs!

 

[7Th]

Here's a good reason - hunger.

Capitalism is unsustainable, news at 11.

 

[Lonely1]

And obviously what the people who make their living off these jobs and manage to make it stretch need is to lose their jobs as a kick in the pants to spend thousands of dollars they don't have to get a college education in order to get a 'skilled' job.

Isn't that an actual political platform?

 

[AlexBasch]

Because we imbue it with human qualities that it doesn't have.

"Look at that robot. It's so cute, but also such an asshole!"

I can only picture saying "Oh sorry, I'm so sorry, I'll clean it up right away, sorry, oh god. ):" with a trembling, robot voice.

 

[Ken Masters]

As if Americans haven't lost enough jobs.

What's your point with this post? You don't want technology to advance in order for low skilled jobs to continue?

 

[Trent Strong]

What's your point with this post? You don't want technology to advance in order for low skilled jobs to continue?

Yes.

 

[davepoobond]

the correct answer will be that there will have to be training done for technicians to fix these dastardly job-stealing contraptions.

the only thing being lost here is low-wage, low-skill jobs. and we gain more in high-wage, high-skill jobs, forcing people to go to school, for better or worse.

 

[Mariolee]

The only real solution is population control, I guess. Companies will jump at the chance to not hire people and use robots. If we control how many children are born and to whom, and euthanize people once they hit a certain age we should be okay. I've been pushing this plan for years and now hopefully people will see that it's needed, instead of dismissing it as lunacy. Fact is, we have too many people and not enough jobs. It's time to start correcting that.



So should those people be without jobs? If so, for what reason?

Erm...

 

[maharg]

the correct answer will be that there will have to be training done for technicians to fix these dastardly job-stealing contraptions.

the only thing being lost here is low-wage, low-skill jobs. and we gain more in high-wage, high-skill jobs, forcing people to go to school, for better or worse.

While tuition rates are going up. That'll work out well.

 

[J-Rod]

It seems no different than what's been happening for the past 300 years or so since the industrial revolution, and so far leveraging machines has proven to be the best thing to ever happen to humanity.

 

[Cyan]

the only thing being lost here is low-wage, low-skill jobs. and we gain more in high-wage, high-skill jobs, forcing people to go to school, for better or worse.

There are 2.7 million jobs in fast food in the US. (source) If we assume half of those will be put out of work by fast food robots, that's 1.35 million jobs lost.

Are we really just going to assume that there'll be 1.35 million jobs in robot repair and maintenance? Because that seems wildly unlikely.

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

the correct answer will be that there will have to be training done for technicians to fix these dastardly job-stealing contraptions.

the only thing being lost here is low-wage, low-skill jobs. and we gain more in high-wage, high-skill jobs, forcing people to go to school, for better or worse.

you do know the law industry for example is overflowing with too many lawyers and not enough positions, for example. all well educated people.

Erm...

well we have to look at our population and how it keeps growing (yeah yeah I know western world is shrinking) but the overall human trend keeps going up and up. what are we going to do?

 

[UrokeJoe]

I'm glad I'm kind of old, you kids can deal with this. The thought of one of these things changing my bed pans though... man I can already feel the impersonal touch

 

[ultrazilla]

Can I buy stock in this company?

 

[OnkelC]

I would like to speak to the manager.

 

[Trent Strong]

I'm not gonna make it to retirement age before Jobmaggedon comes. I'm screwed. I'll be homeless. I need to start building up the courage I'll need to kill myself when ultra mass unemployment happens. Fuck.

 

[M-PG71C]

Reality: If it does happen, a world of people will end up in complete poverty. Call socalism all you want but the bottom line is the government does a poor job of maintaining them today, tomorrow will only be worse in such a unique circumstance.

Which, funny enough, fast-food makes a lot of money off of the poor/lower class. You know, the same ones who are working in these type of low-wage jobs. I like to think it comes full circle and it ends up "obviating" them in the process as well. Which would also eliminate a whole world of jobs on that end too. Corporate, food scientists, etc.

Redundancy is necessary for our economy. It keeps the money pumping through, so to say the least.

 

[mclaren777]

That start-up company needs to buy a better camera.

 

[brumx]

Most of us will be deads by the time robots invade every fast food and store since they still need to perfect tech which will take another generation.

 

[ultrazilla]

^Quite possibly the best reply I've ever witnessed!! LMAOOOOOOOOO!!!!

 

[Kinitari]

Most of us will be deads by the time robots invade every fast food and store since they still need to perfect tech which will take another generation.

You think it will take another... what, 50 years before robots get good enough and cheap enough to replace the jobs completely in a fast food restaurant?

Why that long?

 

[Karl2177]

Inevitably though, you will sooner or later reach a point where we simply won't need as many people to efficiently run society.

Sooner or later, people are going to have to take a hard look at what societal structure is the most ideal at such a point.

HINT:
It's not capitalism.

And look at it from the manager's perspective, too. Every transaction is automated, so they can go out and play a round of golf if they wanted to. Damn, I can't wait for an awesome future.

The only real solution is population control, I guess. Companies will jump at the chance to not hire people and use robots. If we control how many children are born and to whom, and euthanize people once they hit a certain age we should be okay. I've been pushing this plan for years and now hopefully people will see that it's needed, instead of dismissing it as lunacy. Fact is, we have too many people and not enough jobs. It's time to start correcting that.

I... strongly disagree that this is the preferred route.

well we have to look at our population and how it keeps growing (yeah yeah I know western world is shrinking) but the overall human trend keeps going up and up. what are we going to do?

Space. Invest in an sustainable off-Earth biome, and work on the basic infrastructure today.

 

[Trent Strong]

And look at it from the manager's perspective, too. Every transaction is automated, so they can go out and play a round of golf if they wanted to. Damn, I can't wait for an awesome future.

I... strongly disagree that this is the preferred route.


Space. Invest in an sustainable off-Earth biome, and work on the basic infrastructure today.

I don't know how space, or a colony on Mars or something, could be a solution to overpopulation. Say that in this overpopulated future, worldwide, people are producing a million babies a day beyond the Earth's population limit. You'd have to ship a million people a day to Mars to keep the population down. Even if there were 2000 too many babies produced every day, you'd have to ship 2000 people a day to Mars to keep the population down.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Increase wealth, lower income inequality, raise standard of living and increase sex eduction/access to contraceptives in countries and population problems sort themselves out. You don't need to start murdering old people.

 

[MrToughPants]

I'm in tears.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_C3D0rcFXrY

Best one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcniyQYFU6M

My ribs hurt from laughing, I can't stop...

 

[sans_pants]

It seems no different than what's been happening for the past 300 years or so since the industrial revolution, and so far leveraging machines has proven to be the best thing to ever happen to humanity.

sure. progress should be embraced. i dont think you really understand though. for 300 years technology moved at a creep. then we got computers, and those evolved pretty slow until the last decade. we're about to hit a wall over the next 30 years where nearly all human jobs could be automated. the question is what road we take and what position our leaders put us in

 

[sans_pants]

I don't know how space, or a colony on Mars or something, could be a solution to overpopulation. Say that in this overpopulated future, worldwide, people are producing a million babies a day beyond the Earth's population limit. You'd have to ship a million people a day to Mars to keep the population down. Even if there were 2000 too many babies produced every day, you'd have to ship 2000 people a day to Mars to keep the population down.

colonized planets could provide living space and resources. the earth is far from its breaking point if technology keeps pace

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

I welcome all technological progress. Advances in technology have already reduced our working hours from 15-16 hours a day, 7 days a week at the peak of the industrial revolution to the more comfortable lifestyle we have now.

The only reason people are acting all doom and gloom is because we're in a middle of a recession. The news would have been welcomed with open arms back in 2006 or so.

 

[See You Next Wednesday]

Can I buy stock in this company?

Why would anyone invest in this?

A 100,000+ machine to replace 3 low wage restaurant workers.
They claim the machine will pay for itself in a few years, but a expensive machine like that needs constant maintenance & people who fix those type of machines do not come cheap.
There is also repair costs, replacement parts for that must be insanely high. The electricity for it to be operating all the time etc...

There is also no contingency if the thing breaks down. If it goes down, the entire restaurant will have to shut down.

Not surprising that it comes from San Fransisco.

 

[sans_pants]

Why would anyone invest in this?

A 100,000+ machine to replace 3 low wage restaurant workers.
They claim the machine will pay for itself in a few years, but a expensive machine like that needs constant maintenance & people who fix those type of machines do not come cheap.
There is also repair costs, replacement parts for that must be insanely high. The electricity for it to be operating all the time etc...

There is also no contingency if the thing breaks down. If it goes down, the entire restaurant will have to shut down.

Not surprising that it comes from San Fransisco.

you think mcdonalds wouldn't have a backup?

 

[Battersea Power Station]

For those who advocate potentially banning machines like this in order to keep jobs, how do you decide what level of technology is allowable?

Should we ban garbage cans in public parks so we can hire more trash collectors to walk around and take your refuse? That seems ridiculous, but it would certainly create more jobs.

Should we require businesses to limit email use so more secretaries will be required for faxing and mailing?

I'm offering extreme examples not to elicit a reaction but because I'm genuinely curious as to the moral and philosophical implications of this dynamic of low-skill jobs.

 

[Reuenthal]

I see mostly benefits from technological progress until we reach robots that are very human like and cheaper to make than humans of same skill and quality.

But then again if humanity possess such power, the humanity of that time can try and adjust to the circumstances and try to implement a solution to its issues. It is not as if fewer work hours for people is the end of the world. We don't need to retain current work hours so a future where humanity is sufficiently productive with people needing less work is not necessarily bad. Yes I do think a future where people will have less work to do is kind of inevitable but I am more optimistic and not seeing doom and gloom about that.

 

[Tzeentch]

A 100,000+ machine to replace 3 low wage restaurant workers.

-- Yes. I think you are rather underestimating how much even low-wage workers cost. It's actually replacing more people than that, because you no longer need different shifts of those three workers either.

They claim the machine will pay for itself in a few years, but a expensive machine like that needs constant maintenance & people who fix those type of machines do not come cheap.

-- It doesn't look any more complex than other automation tools I'm familiar with. So one guy contracted for all the local facilities to handle weekly maintenance and is on-call for breakdowns. One or two employees can be retasked or called it when it's on the fritz. No real difference from the contractors who manage the Wi-Fi and fix the POS machines.
-- Let's assume the restaurant is open for 12 hours a day (that's low) every day. It replaces 36 man-hours of low-skill labor each day. Further lowballing that it costs the business $8 a man-hour for humans (actually MUCH higher than that, including associated administrative costs). So every day it saves at least (36 * 8) = $288. So in one year it's saving $105,120. As long as it's fairly reliable (and that thing looks pretty simple compared to the multi-axis machines used in car manufacturing) it will easily pay for itself.

There is also repair costs, replacement parts for that must be insanely high. The electricity for it to be operating all the time etc...

-- What's special about this that would require insanely expensive parts? Meh. Doesn't look that that complex honestly.

There is also no contingency if the thing breaks down. If it goes down, the entire restaurant will have to shut down.

-- Without seeing a video I assume you just stow the moving parts and have an employee flipping burgers like normal. Might have to call in someone if the restaurant is busy. And new restaurants may even have a backup grill installed in case something happens.

Not surprising that it comes from San Fransisco.

-- ?? Did you pin your hopes and dreams on being a team lead at McDonalds or something? Nothing about this machine is that impressive other then it's now cheap enough to design and install this stuff that even small franchises can easily justify the expense.

 

[UFRA]

Maybe now I can order things from Taco Bell and my order won't be messed up.

 

[Deleted member 1235]

And with this, a lot of jobs will be gone, but this is the future.

I'm really curious to know at what point in human evolution 50% unemployment will be normal and economies will have to entirely change to support that.

how would a society work in which we've automated it so much that literally half the people simply don't need to work? Maybe... working life is from 20-40? Everyone else is provided for by the government unless you start some kind of unheard of before business?

How would rich and poor work then!

 

[Reuenthal]

I'm really curious to know at what point in human evolution 50% unemployment will be normal and economies will have to entirely change to support that.

how would a society work in which we've automated it so much that literally half the people simply don't need to work? Maybe... working life is from 20-40? Everyone else is provided for by the government unless you start some kind of unheard of before business?

How would rich and poor work then!

A possibility is that could have a more part time environment where people work but work much fewer hours than now. Like a sizable percentage works three days a week. Plus people with money whether governments or corporations like to do things and expand and sell products so that they can increase their profits. And governments like to spend. So more productive capabilities at smaller expenses does not necessarily mean more unemployment at current production but can mean bigger production with new professions related to the field or and new fields that have gained bigger growth due to increased use of technology.

And very importantly new technologies or an old technology becoming very advanced and cheaper can mean new professions related to new technologies. The scientific growth from humanity gaining much more advanced robots is probably very hard to predict.

 

[KissVibes]

I... strongly disagree that this is the preferred route.

Erm...

Well, you guys need to start thinking about the future. What happens when these machines are commonplace and extend beyond fast food and into other fields? What are we going to do when there's 1 human job for every ten of us? And it's not just robots we need to worry about. What happens when programs in the vain of Siri are good enough to replace call center workers and other communication jobs? Hell, what will happen when the retail store is completely phased out as online shopping takes complete control? There wont be infinite warehouse jobs for people, if any at all when machines can do it all anyway.

We write these things off as novelty and innovation to make our lives easier when in reality they'll only begin to undermine us as they get better. Once companies can make this profitable and don't need people anymore, everyone who isn't already rich will suffer and even those that are will start to have hardships too. We wont be able to sustain life like that unless we start thinning the numbers dramatically. A good deal of that lies within population control at a childbirth level but we also need to consider euthanasia for the super elderly and maybe those who are terminally ill or severely mentally handicapped.

This isn't ideal and I don't want it to come to this. The ideal solution would be to cast aside these machines and programs and keep these jobs humans-only. That will never be an option as long as these corporations are running things and profits outweigh the good of humanity.

 

[davepoobond]

While tuition rates are going up. That'll work out well.

never said it was a good thing. my belief about the schooling system is that it should shift towards a profession-based/trade school sort of thing rather than traditional 4-year universities that teach you things you will never use in what you plan on doing. it might serve to enlighten you in some regard, but that means dick all when you're out on the street and don't have useful skills.

There are 2.7 million jobs in fast food in the US. (source) If we assume half of those will be put out of work by fast food robots, that's 1.35 million jobs lost.

Are we really just going to assume that there'll be 1.35 million jobs in robot repair and maintenance? Because that seems wildly unlikely.

obviously not. if these became widespread, you'd probably have about 100 thousand trained maintenance people across the nation (just pulling the number out of my ass), but i doubt those would even be "new" jobs. most would probably be normal appliance repair technicians who get a certification to fix stuff. or maybe not. who do they use to fix fryers at fast food restaurants? do they have their own staff or do they have a maintenance plan with who they got the machine from?

regardless, there's still people being hired in a highly skilled area. and people have to install them. and ship them.

you do know the law industry for example is overflowing with too many lawyers and not enough positions, for example. all well educated people.

such is the free market. overabundance in an industry means that they'll be able to pay lawyers less since there are so many of them.

some of those lawyers should have chosen to be something else. it'll be the same when there's an "overflow" of fast food workers once these machines start getting pumped out.

 

[Tzeentch]

The scientific growth from humanity gaining much more advanced robots is probably very hard to predict.

-- I sincerely doubt there will be any correlation to increases in unemployment/underemployment and "scientific growth" under the current social paradigm.

 

[Reuenthal]

I mean it is kind of mind blowing but we are now interacting in something as incredible as the Internet that has various jobs related to it about gaming which is played on computers and tablets and mobile phones.

Technology and scientific growth that is coming is making me excited to be frank.

Also, where is Gaborn to talk about the Green revolution that happened?

Where is Gaborn by the way?

-- I sincerely doubt there will be any correlation to increases in unemployment/underemployment and "scientific growth" under the current social paradigm.

Well what you quote says: The scientific growth from humanity gaining much more advanced robots is probably very hard to predict.

I do think that scientific growth is related to quality of work we will do and hours of work we will do, yes. You won't see any correlation with unemployment increase is also pretty big claim.

 

[BadAss2961]

I'm in tears.



My ribs hurt from laughing, I can't stop...

It took some practice, but that thing became a hero.

 

[Zaptruder]

I see mostly benefits from technological progress until we reach robots that are very human like and cheaper to make than humans of same skill and quality.

But then again if humanity possess such power, the humanity of that time can try and adjust to the circumstances and try to implement a solution to its issues. It is not as if fewer work hours for people is the end of the world. We don't need to retain current work hours so a future where humanity is sufficiently productive with people needing less work is not necessarily bad. Yes I do think a future where people will have less work to do is kind of inevitable but I am more optimistic and not seeing doom and gloom about that.

Better quality of life and reduced work hours is absolutely compatible with one another.

Indeed, they're pretty much synergistic.

Except when reduced work hours means a reduced share of any production because of the system of capitalism, where few owns the increasingly non-human means of production.

The beneficial synergy between the work force... and the capital is the the decade longs process of fracturing, splintering and shattering completely. When that happens... the world will be forced to change, for better or for worse.

 

[Zaptruder]

It took some practice, but that thing became a hero.

That's an amazing gif... especially the 'Fries & potential'motivation poster in the background.

 

[sans_pants]

such is the free market. overabundance in an industry means that they'll be able to pay lawyers less since there are so many of them.

some of those lawyers should have chosen to be something else. it'll be the same when there's an "overflow" of fast food workers once these machines start getting pumped out.

http://singularityhub.com/2011/07/04/lawyers-object-as-computer-program-does-job-better/

E-discovery is just the latest technology to threaten the workforce by automating tasks historically performed by humans. Electronic design automation software took over the design of printed circuit boards and integrated circuits previously done by hand. Automation software is also lightening the workload for loan and mortgage officers and tax accountants. Even scientific investigation is being automated. Computers can scan the genome, come up with their own hypotheses as to what particular genes might do, and then perform experiments to test those hypotheses. This will, of course, inevitably lead to a dispute between the computer and the gene sequencer as to who should be first-author.

 

[SkyOdin]

The only real solution is population control, I guess. Companies will jump at the chance to not hire people and use robots. If we control how many children are born and to whom, and euthanize people once they hit a certain age we should be okay. I've been pushing this plan for years and now hopefully people will see that it's needed, instead of dismissing it as lunacy. Fact is, we have too many people and not enough jobs. It's time to start correcting that.

I...

I really, really hope you are joking about the euthanizing old people thing.

Anyways, why the heck would modernized societies need to institute population controls? One of the largest social problems facing first-world countries these days is declining birth rates. Populations in developed countries are already on track to shrink, particularly in Japan and various European countries. For those countries, they could be facing a significant lack of people entering the work force, even as societal costs rise due to an aging population. Even in the United States, birth rates are pretty low, only offset by factors such as immigration.

The idea of needing strict population control feels rather out-dated.