Machines over taking the workplace

[gunslinger6792]

I just read an article on AOL about robots being used to make food over in China and touchscreen menus putting cashiers out of work in Europe.(I live in the United States in a rural area.) This got me to thinking if machines in the near future can start taking over minimum wage jobs where does it stop? Robotics is already taking a huge chunk of manufacturing jobs and theres talk of using machines in retail stores. At best this could wipe out many jobs that only require unskilled workers. At worst you're possibly looking at massive unemployment. This forces more and more people to get higher education when many people just aren't cut out for that. Without going into massive detail I'm afraid you'd begin to see a domino effect where jobs are continuously replaced by machines so that companies can cut costs. Companies that don't cut jobs and replace them with machines may not be able to survive. So do you all think this scenario is possible? Do governments worldwide need to pass laws mandating that companies/stores can't use machines to replace people? Or do countries switch to massive welfare systems because people can't get work?

 

heres a link to the article. http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2013/07/17/robots-fast-food-jobs/?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000058

[JimboUK]

We had this debate many years ago at school, the argument back then was that computers would cause mass unemployment and while some people were put out of work huge numbers of jobs were also created in what now is the computer industry. These new industries will also create new jobs, the jobs change but there'll still be tasks that require human beings. Machines are cheaper than people but they're nowhere near as capable, you and I will be long gone by the time they come anywhere near humans. I'm glad you mentioned checkouts, we have two in a supermarket near us, both have a person supervising them because they rarely get through a transaction without something going wrong, you also have a large number of customers who just refuse to use them. Governments can help by providing education and retraining, massive welfare programs need paying for and if there aren't enough people earning then there won't be the money to pay for it, laws forbidding the use of machines would see companies move to countries where they don't have those laws.

[Vindekarr]

Gunslinger-I'm an engineer, and where I work, almost everything is done by machines. Am I out of work? no. It's simply changed the nature of my job. Machines are not autonomous by any stretch of the imagination. They need constant tending, maintenance, repairs, and guidance. Will machines replace some jobs? yes. They already have. But think about the fact that someone will then have to build, fix, clean, and operate the machines.

 

Take for example, the Carbon Kiln. It's the size of a two-story house, and it's the most autonomous machine we have. It's essentially a giant oven + pressure-chamber that is used to produce Carbon Fibre, an ultra-strong ultra-light structural material. It needs constant maintenance, three people to work it, and another five to haul the massive carbon dies in and out. Yes, it's a vast machine that replaced several jobs, but those exact same people were re-trained, given a pay-rise to match their new specialization, and now they operate the vast machine, while slave-teams of interns labour to haul the massive dies, all under the watchful gaze of their machine-operating overlords.

[TRoaches]

Do governments worldwide need to pass laws mandating that companies/stores can't use machines to replace people?

No. Imagine if they had done this in the mid 1800's by passing legislation against the advances in manufacturing made during that period and requiring that all consumer goods continue to be made by hand. The same argument could have been made back then by, for example, the textile weavers that were reduced and eventually replaced by automated machinery. People are perfectly capable of adapting.

[Vagrant0]

Gunslinger-I'm an engineer, and where I work, almost everything is done by machines.

The issue here is not related to machines taking over specialized jobs that require some deal of training or flexibility, but rather machines taking jobs from those things that usually require unskilled labor, run by companies who care about little more than their bottom line. You can already see the effect of this in many retail chains with self-checkout or automatic checkout. While on the face these things might seemingly allow the company to end up pushing those cashiers to the sales floor or to help with restocking, the reality is that those companies just simply reduce their workforce over time so that those jobs are essentially lost. Sure, they may still have one person watching a bank of 4-6 machines, but that is essentially 5 jobs lost among the lower tier workforce. Combined with the fact that many companies seemingly only keep a very minimal staffing in their stores, the end result is fewer jobs available for those just entering the workforce, or those who don't have the education to get those jobs and subsequently turning them into unhirable individuals since they never get that work experience.

[Vindekarr]

Well said, I guess I misunderstood the issue. That's not a change I've really seen in Australia yet, here all checkouts are still operated by overweight acne'd orangutans for who's contribution to lost groceries, mispacked goods and broken eggs our minimum wage(which is miles higher than that of the US) seems an unfairly rich reward.

[gunslinger6792]

 

Do governments worldwide need to pass laws mandating that companies/stores can't use machines to replace people?

No. Imagine if they had done this in the mid 1800's by passing legislation against the advances in manufacturing made during that period and requiring that all consumer goods continue to be made by hand. The same argument could have been made back then by, for example, the textile weavers that were reduced and eventually replaced by automated machinery. People are perfectly capable of adapting.

 

I should have specified. Laws stating that machines can't take away from x number of jobs. Hopefully that way you protect the workforce without killing off innovation. As stated by someone else not every country will abide by those laws and producers or companies will just go there. Without going through and quoting everyone many of you have brought up issues with what I stated. That was pretty much the line I was going down. Welfare doesn't work (atleast as well as it could) because not enough people would be able to pay into it. I think its possible that job world gets to the point where you have to have a college degree just to get a decent job. I know we see this in the states where a BA degree hardly counts for anything because so many people have it.

 

I could be wrong on all of this, hell I hope I'm wrong. Maybe as technological innovation increases more jobs will be created. I fear though that what we're more likely to see is for every 4 new jobs we make we cut 15. Thats not growth thats borderline Orwellian but instead of 3 mega countries ruling the world its corporations. I should mention I'm a history major in college not an economist. While I've taken a few classes in economics I'm sure my understanding of how the economy works is elementary at best.

[JimboUK]

Machines have been replacing people since the industrial revolution, people adapt and learn new skills. There can be painful periods of transition but they pass. As for corporations ruling the world, they already do, those corporations are banks.

 

"He who controls the money supply of a nation controls the nation." - James A. Garfield

[TRoaches]

Laws stating that machines can't take away from x number of jobs. Hopefully that way you protect the workforce without killing off innovation.

I don't think that such laws could exist without at least infringing on innovation. Going back to the textile weavers of the 1800's, if such a law had been passed to protect their jobs it would have certainly slowed the development of textile machinery. No technology is developed independent of other technology, so that hindered development would have hindered all other technological development as well. The demand for better textile machinery likely contributed to advancements in metallurgy, precision machining, lubricants, electrical systems, safety protocols, quality control, and so on. Each of those sub-fields that contributed to the advancement of textile machinery also led to further developments, such as the need to improve quality control leading to improved methods of measurement with lower error margins, which itself leads to more advanced industrial applications of mathematics. Stifling the demand for those textile machines would have also stifled all of those advancements to some unknowable extent.

 

When considering any technological advancement there is always going to be some good and some bad that comes from it. War is an awful thing, but perhaps humanity's greatest benefit from war has been advancements in the medical treatment of physical trauma. If a farm worker suffered a traumatic amputation while operating farm equipment 200 years ago they were almost certain to die. Now they can be airlifted from the most remote area to a hospital with a trauma center and will not only be likely to survive, but rehabilitated to the point that they could possibly continue their work on the farm or at the very least maintain a decent quality of life. This is only possible because of the medical knowledge gained from treating battle wounds, since every step of their treatment was developed for and applied to a war zone before it was ever applied to civilian life. There are certainly some modern people who have survived extreme physical trauma partially because of the information gathered from the deaths of their ancestors. Likewise, there are certainly some current engineering students studying one or more of the above mentioned industrial fields who are descendents of textile workers forced out of their jobs by automation. I doubt any of them wish they were sewing garments instead of attending university.

 

@jim_uk: Here's another good quote that is very similar, but attributed to a much scarier source:

 

"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws."

-Mayer Amschel Rothschild, founding father of international finance and patriarch of perhaps the wealthiest family business dynasty in the world

Edited July 18, 2013 by TRoaches

[Marxist ßastard]

"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws."

-Mayer Amschel Rothschild, founding father of international finance and patriarch of perhaps the wealthiest family business dynasty in the world

Can you find a single source for that quote which isn't a goldbug/white supremacist forum?