We have a new update on The Future of the Penny Arcade Forums.

Robots, Automation and Basic Income: Big 21st Century Problems

145791017

Posts

  • MillMill Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    Mill wrote: »
    The thing is technology really isn't making more jobs than it replaces.

    Sure it is. They're just being filled by people who are willing to work longer hours for lower pay. Or as PantsB put it:
    PantsB wrote: »
    The global unemployment rate is near a historic low and the global labor participation rate is largely unchanged over the last 30 years.

    Disagree. Automation does a great job reducing the number of workers needed. Sure people can create BS busywork, but that is different from technology creating new jobs (it does, but I'm not convinced it's doing so at a point, where it's keeping up with or outpacing automation's ability to reduce jobs). That said, I think we both can probably agree that technological changes have made it harder for individuals to gain entry level employment, since we already see that most companies are loath to pay for training, yet still expect people get the training by some other means.

    Unemployment and shit wages being political, distributive problems, is exactly why automation is becoming a problem not that it's really started getting to a point where it can maximize the productivity of a single employee and eliminate the number of workers needed. The wealthy elite that currently have a disproportionate amount of influence, aren't buying up viable forms of automation for their business because they think it's shitty to force people to work jobs that makes them miserable. They invest in viable automation because they feel it allows them to increase their profits, by hiring less people.

  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    Mill wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Mill wrote: »
    The thing is technology really isn't making more jobs than it replaces.

    Sure it is. They're just being filled by people who are willing to work longer hours for lower pay. Or as PantsB put it:
    PantsB wrote: »
    The global unemployment rate is near a historic low and the global labor participation rate is largely unchanged over the last 30 years.

    Disagree. Automation does a great job reducing the number of workers needed. Sure people can create BS busywork, but that is different from technology creating new jobs (it does, but I'm not convinced it's doing so at a point, where it's keeping up with or outpacing automation's ability to reduce jobs). That said, I think we both can probably agree that technological changes have made it harder for individuals to gain entry level employment, since we already see that most companies are loath to pay for training, yet still expect people get the training by some other means.

    Disagree based on what? Your gut feeling? We've already established that global employment is high. It wouldn't be high without the communications and transportation technologies that enable globalization.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited May 2015
    Oh, so if you're making a chair, the corporation running the forestry operation gets taxed a bit on the lumber, and then the sawmill gets a small amount of tax per board, and then the furniture factory gets taxed on the furniture, and then it all gets passed on to the consumer instead of a sales tax. That sounds...different. How do you stop companies from just importing parts and doing the assembly in one step? Do you add the tax on imports? We'd have to get rid of our free trade for that.

    VAT is added on imports, yeah. That doesn't really get rid of free trade. It isn't a tariff. Tariffs put an extra tax burden on imports that aren't present on domestic goods; a VAT just taxes both equally.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    Oh, so if you're making a chair, the corporation running the forestry operation gets taxed a bit on the lumber, and then the sawmill gets a small amount of tax per board, and then the furniture factory gets taxed on the furniture, and then it all gets passed on to the consumer instead of a sales tax. That sounds...different. How do you stop companies from just importing parts and doing the assembly in one step? Do you add the tax on imports? We'd have to get rid of our free trade for that.

    VAT is added on imports, yeah. That doesn't really get rid of free trade. It isn't a tariff. Tariffs put an extra tax burden on imports that aren't present on domestic goods; a VAT just taxes both equally.

    It's still regressive taxation, though.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    Oh, so if you're making a chair, the corporation running the forestry operation gets taxed a bit on the lumber, and then the sawmill gets a small amount of tax per board, and then the furniture factory gets taxed on the furniture, and then it all gets passed on to the consumer instead of a sales tax. That sounds...different. How do you stop companies from just importing parts and doing the assembly in one step? Do you add the tax on imports? We'd have to get rid of our free trade for that.

    VAT is added on imports, yeah. That doesn't really get rid of free trade. It isn't a tariff. Tariffs put an extra tax burden on imports that aren't present on domestic goods; a VAT just taxes both equally.

    It's still regressive taxation, though.

    Oh, no argument there.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Rhan9Rhan9 Registered User regular
    Oh, so if you're making a chair, the corporation running the forestry operation gets taxed a bit on the lumber, and then the sawmill gets a small amount of tax per board, and then the furniture factory gets taxed on the furniture, and then it all gets passed on to the consumer instead of a sales tax. That sounds...different. How do you stop companies from just importing parts and doing the assembly in one step? Do you add the tax on imports? We'd have to get rid of our free trade for that.

    VAT gets slapped on imports, yeah. Otherwise imports would beat domestic goods in price, always, as regardless of competitiveness they'd still be more expensive by the amount of the tax.

  • Captain MarcusCaptain Marcus now arrives the hour of actionRegistered User regular
    It's still regressive taxation, though.

    In the sense that it's a sales tax, and those always hit the poor harder than the well-off?

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    It's still regressive taxation, though.

    In the sense that it's a sales tax, and those always hit the poor harder than the well-off?

    Yes, since that is the definition of regressive in the context of taxation (as opposed to progressive taxation, which strives for equal impact to individuals.)

    And that's the problem with the VAT - you're starting from a bad model. The nicest thing that can be said is that countries that use the VAT then plow the income into progressive policies - which is more than a bit problematic.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • zakkielzakkiel Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    Mill wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Mill wrote: »
    The thing is technology really isn't making more jobs than it replaces.

    Sure it is. They're just being filled by people who are willing to work longer hours for lower pay. Or as PantsB put it:
    PantsB wrote: »
    The global unemployment rate is near a historic low and the global labor participation rate is largely unchanged over the last 30 years.

    Disagree. Automation does a great job reducing the number of workers needed. Sure people can create BS busywork, but that is different from technology creating new jobs (it does, but I'm not convinced it's doing so at a point, where it's keeping up with or outpacing automation's ability to reduce jobs). That said, I think we both can probably agree that technological changes have made it harder for individuals to gain entry level employment, since we already see that most companies are loath to pay for training, yet still expect people get the training by some other means.

    Disagree based on what? Your gut feeling? We've already established that global employment is high. It wouldn't be high without the communications and transportation technologies that enable globalization.

    World bank data says global labor participation rates have declined from a peak in 2005. In any case, WTF does a measure that groups completely undeveloped countries with the fully developed have to do with automation replacing jobs? Of course robots aren't going to replace workers being paid $1.50 a day. If you actually want to know what the effects of automation are on employment, you look at labor participation and wages in countries where automation is cost effective. There's no doubt what the story is there.

    Account not recoverable. So long.
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited May 2015
    To bring the thread back to the original topic:
    Scalpers take things a step further and steal the truck delivering Splatoon Amiibos to GAME

    Amiibos are already pretty fucking hard to get hold of. Guess they're gonna be kinda impossible to get hold of now. :I

    This comes back to a point that needs to be made in the automation thread - those self driving Freightliners are going to be manned for a number of reasons, the biggest being that an unmanned autonomous freight truck is going to be seen by a sizable population as nothing more than an 18 wheeled loot piñata.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • davidsdurionsdavidsdurions Your Trusty Meatshield Panhandle NebraskaRegistered User regular
    To bring the thread back to the original topic:
    Scalpers take things a step further and steal the truck delivering Splatoon Amiibos to GAME

    Amiibos are already pretty fucking hard to get hold of. Guess they're gonna be kinda impossible to get hold of now. :I

    This comes back to a point that needs to be made in the automation thread - those self driving Freightliners are going to be manned for a number of reasons, the biggest being that an unmanned autonomous freight truck is going to be seen by a sizable population as nothing more than an 18 wheeled loot piñata.

    I don't think the presence of one or two human drivers is what is preventing the "18 wheeled loot piñata" from occurring currently.

  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    To bring the thread back to the original topic:
    Scalpers take things a step further and steal the truck delivering Splatoon Amiibos to GAME

    Amiibos are already pretty fucking hard to get hold of. Guess they're gonna be kinda impossible to get hold of now. :I

    This comes back to a point that needs to be made in the automation thread - those self driving Freightliners are going to be manned for a number of reasons, the biggest being that an unmanned autonomous freight truck is going to be seen by a sizable population as nothing more than an 18 wheeled loot piñata.

    I don't think the presence of one or two human drivers is what is preventing the "18 wheeled loot piñata" from occurring currently.

    See also: guards in armored vans aren't actually there to protect the money.

  • programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular
    To bring the thread back to the original topic:
    Scalpers take things a step further and steal the truck delivering Splatoon Amiibos to GAME

    Amiibos are already pretty fucking hard to get hold of. Guess they're gonna be kinda impossible to get hold of now. :I

    This comes back to a point that needs to be made in the automation thread - those self driving Freightliners are going to be manned for a number of reasons, the biggest being that an unmanned autonomous freight truck is going to be seen by a sizable population as nothing more than an 18 wheeled loot piñata.

    Probably not. The US isn't some Mad Max hellscape where people drive directly up to moving robot freighters and cut the locks of the back at 65 mph to get at the sweet loot, and importantly, most freighters don't have anything worth stealing.

  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    zakkiel wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Mill wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Mill wrote: »
    The thing is technology really isn't making more jobs than it replaces.

    Sure it is. They're just being filled by people who are willing to work longer hours for lower pay. Or as PantsB put it:
    PantsB wrote: »
    The global unemployment rate is near a historic low and the global labor participation rate is largely unchanged over the last 30 years.

    Disagree. Automation does a great job reducing the number of workers needed. Sure people can create BS busywork, but that is different from technology creating new jobs (it does, but I'm not convinced it's doing so at a point, where it's keeping up with or outpacing automation's ability to reduce jobs). That said, I think we both can probably agree that technological changes have made it harder for individuals to gain entry level employment, since we already see that most companies are loath to pay for training, yet still expect people get the training by some other means.

    Disagree based on what? Your gut feeling? We've already established that global employment is high. It wouldn't be high without the communications and transportation technologies that enable globalization.

    World bank data says global labor participation rates have declined from a peak in 2005. In any case, WTF does a measure that groups completely undeveloped countries with the fully developed have to do with automation replacing jobs? Of course robots aren't going to replace workers being paid $1.50 a day. If you actually want to know what the effects of automation are on employment, you look at labor participation and wages in countries where automation is cost effective. There's no doubt what the story is there.

    And yet you're not citing anything. If there was no doubt there should be clear demonstration that automation reduces the number of jobs.

    First world labor utilization is not on some long term down slope. To the extent that it is (marginally) down in the United States in the short term, demographics explain a vast majority of the difference, bolstered by increased disability claims and longer periods of education (so 18-25 labor participation is down) explain more than the entire drop. Increased automation allows this to be offset in large part by increased labor participation in 50+ age groups, since fewer jobs require manual labor.
    furman%20fig2_3%2018%20aug.png
    And over the history of automation, where manufacturing has been exported to cheaper countries, participation is well up.
    furman%20fig1%2018%20aug.png

    Similarly, there is no clear downward trend across Europe or Canada. If automation was the cause we should see it across the board in developed nations.

    Automation reducing jobs is not reflected in actual facts or history of economics. Industrialization is "automation". It had a bit of an impact on world economics. And there were certain groups that said it was going to do away with all the jobs. They were so wrong that the most famous group's name now means anyone who foolishly opposes technology, especially industrialization and automation that performs tasks more efficiently. This Luddite position is not well respected in actual economic thought.

    Fair trade vs Free Trade is a reasonable argument in regard to whether it actually helps or hurts. Whether automation and industrialization increases or decreases the number of jobs is not generally an open question.

    If there is "no doubt what the story is there" then its that the fundamental argument is baseless.

    Extremely few people who actually study economics believe automation is eliminating jobs and that we just don't have enough to do in modern society to employ people. The idea that work is unnecessary and disconnected from production and prosperity is frankly so shortsighted as to not being worth engaging in, before we get into whether or not work has benefits beyond what the work actually does.





    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    To bring the thread back to the original topic:
    Scalpers take things a step further and steal the truck delivering Splatoon Amiibos to GAME

    Amiibos are already pretty fucking hard to get hold of. Guess they're gonna be kinda impossible to get hold of now. :I

    This comes back to a point that needs to be made in the automation thread - those self driving Freightliners are going to be manned for a number of reasons, the biggest being that an unmanned autonomous freight truck is going to be seen by a sizable population as nothing more than an 18 wheeled loot piñata.

    Probably not. The US isn't some Mad Max hellscape where people drive directly up to moving robot freighters and cut the locks of the back at 65 mph to get at the sweet loot, and importantly, most freighters don't have anything worth stealing.

    The actual challenge might be what if someone figures out how to hack the guidance system and just has it drive itself to an abandoned lot somewhere.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    Automation reducing jobs is not reflected in actual facts or history of economics. Industrialization is "automation". It had a bit of an impact on world economics. And there were certain groups that said it was going to do away with all the jobs. They were so wrong that the most famous group's name now means anyone who foolishly opposes technology, especially industrialization and automation that performs tasks more efficiently. This Luddite position is not well respected in actual economic thought.

    It would be nice if, after several centuries of misinformation, we could actually stop misrepresenting the Luddite movement.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Emissary42Emissary42 Registered User regular
    Saw this paper - The Future of Employment: How Susceptible are Jobs to Computerisation? - and thought it was relevant to toss in here (TL;DR - 47% of employment in the US is at high risk over the next 20 years, much of it being in the service industry). Also, this fun little NPR link that runs off the data in said paper.

  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    To bring the thread back to the original topic:
    Scalpers take things a step further and steal the truck delivering Splatoon Amiibos to GAME

    Amiibos are already pretty fucking hard to get hold of. Guess they're gonna be kinda impossible to get hold of now. :I

    This comes back to a point that needs to be made in the automation thread - those self driving Freightliners are going to be manned for a number of reasons, the biggest being that an unmanned autonomous freight truck is going to be seen by a sizable population as nothing more than an 18 wheeled loot piñata.

    If you're looking to prove unmanned trucks as being easy targets for theft, a normally manned truck being stolen probably isn't the best example.

    Also most of the instances of theft I'm randomly pulling up show people stealing from or stealing the trucks while they're parked and not moving for a few hours. There isn't some Fast and the Furious crime ring hijacking freight mid shipment.

  • Mr KhanMr Khan Not Everyone WAHHHRegistered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    Oh, so if you're making a chair, the corporation running the forestry operation gets taxed a bit on the lumber, and then the sawmill gets a small amount of tax per board, and then the furniture factory gets taxed on the furniture, and then it all gets passed on to the consumer instead of a sales tax. That sounds...different. How do you stop companies from just importing parts and doing the assembly in one step? Do you add the tax on imports? We'd have to get rid of our free trade for that.

    VAT is added on imports, yeah. That doesn't really get rid of free trade. It isn't a tariff. Tariffs put an extra tax burden on imports that aren't present on domestic goods; a VAT just taxes both equally.

    It's still regressive taxation, though.

    The original point is that corporate income taxes get passed on as well, making a progressive tax into a regressive one. In my perfect world, the VAT rate would be set at a level that reflects the general cost of business taxation in the CPI, or be designed to make the same revenue from domestic taxpayers (adding in revenue from foreign companies and tax-dodgers).

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    To bring the thread back to the original topic:
    Scalpers take things a step further and steal the truck delivering Splatoon Amiibos to GAME

    Amiibos are already pretty fucking hard to get hold of. Guess they're gonna be kinda impossible to get hold of now. :I

    This comes back to a point that needs to be made in the automation thread - those self driving Freightliners are going to be manned for a number of reasons, the biggest being that an unmanned autonomous freight truck is going to be seen by a sizable population as nothing more than an 18 wheeled loot piñata.

    I don't think the presence of one or two human drivers is what is preventing the "18 wheeled loot piñata" from occurring currently.

    See also: guards in armored vans aren't actually there to protect the money.

    ????

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    zakkiel wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Mill wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Mill wrote: »
    The thing is technology really isn't making more jobs than it replaces.

    Sure it is. They're just being filled by people who are willing to work longer hours for lower pay. Or as PantsB put it:
    PantsB wrote: »
    The global unemployment rate is near a historic low and the global labor participation rate is largely unchanged over the last 30 years.

    Disagree. Automation does a great job reducing the number of workers needed. Sure people can create BS busywork, but that is different from technology creating new jobs (it does, but I'm not convinced it's doing so at a point, where it's keeping up with or outpacing automation's ability to reduce jobs). That said, I think we both can probably agree that technological changes have made it harder for individuals to gain entry level employment, since we already see that most companies are loath to pay for training, yet still expect people get the training by some other means.

    Disagree based on what? Your gut feeling? We've already established that global employment is high. It wouldn't be high without the communications and transportation technologies that enable globalization.

    World bank data says global labor participation rates have declined from a peak in 2005. In any case, WTF does a measure that groups completely undeveloped countries with the fully developed have to do with automation replacing jobs? Of course robots aren't going to replace workers being paid $1.50 a day. If you actually want to know what the effects of automation are on employment, you look at labor participation and wages in countries where automation is cost effective. There's no doubt what the story is there.

    And yet you're not citing anything. If there was no doubt there should be clear demonstration that automation reduces the number of jobs.

    First world labor utilization is not on some long term down slope. To the extent that it is (marginally) down in the United States in the short term, demographics explain a vast majority of the difference, bolstered by increased disability claims and longer periods of education (so 18-25 labor participation is down) explain more than the entire drop. Increased automation allows this to be offset in large part by increased labor participation in 50+ age groups, since fewer jobs require manual labor.
    furman%20fig2_3%2018%20aug.png
    And over the history of automation, where manufacturing has been exported to cheaper countries, participation is well up.
    furman%20fig1%2018%20aug.png

    Similarly, there is no clear downward trend across Europe or Canada. If automation was the cause we should see it across the board in developed nations.

    Automation reducing jobs is not reflected in actual facts or history of economics. Industrialization is "automation". It had a bit of an impact on world economics. And there were certain groups that said it was going to do away with all the jobs. They were so wrong that the most famous group's name now means anyone who foolishly opposes technology, especially industrialization and automation that performs tasks more efficiently. This Luddite position is not well respected in actual economic thought.

    Fair trade vs Free Trade is a reasonable argument in regard to whether it actually helps or hurts. Whether automation and industrialization increases or decreases the number of jobs is not generally an open question.

    If there is "no doubt what the story is there" then its that the fundamental argument is baseless.

    Extremely few people who actually study economics believe automation is eliminating jobs and that we just don't have enough to do in modern society to employ people. The idea that work is unnecessary and disconnected from production and prosperity is frankly so shortsighted as to not being worth engaging in, before we get into whether or not work has benefits beyond what the work actually does.

    That doesn't track if the type of job has changed though.

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited May 2015
    Labor participation seems to be a rather poor way reflect the worsening situation for workers. Worker surplus benefits the employer in negotiations, allowing them to compensate workers low enough that automation remains more expensive. The federal minimum wage in the US is disgustingly low, and major employers such as Walmart are periodically caught getting free labor from their employees. Participation is also going to go up when spouses and children must seek work because the single-income family is becoming mythical. Underemployment is also a thing, and I wonder how these graphs track people with three jobs. There's also the factor of required education to participate in the labor pool - a million people with jobs and a million people with jobs and a lifetime of debt are very different things.

    That said, it's not that automation is bad in any way shape or form. It's that our social systems are built around cooperation by necessity more than out of concern for human welfare, and automation decreases the necessity of human workers.

    Incenjucar on
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited May 2015
    Yeah if we had similar income distribution to fifty years ago cashiers would be making about 20 bucks an hour. Something that would make things like self check out all the more enticing to store owners.

    Quid on
  • zakkielzakkiel Registered User regular
    edited May 2015
    PantsB wrote: »
    zakkiel wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Mill wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Mill wrote: »
    The thing is technology really isn't making more jobs than it replaces.

    Sure it is. They're just being filled by people who are willing to work longer hours for lower pay. Or as PantsB put it:
    PantsB wrote: »
    The global unemployment rate is near a historic low and the global labor participation rate is largely unchanged over the last 30 years.

    Disagree. Automation does a great job reducing the number of workers needed. Sure people can create BS busywork, but that is different from technology creating new jobs (it does, but I'm not convinced it's doing so at a point, where it's keeping up with or outpacing automation's ability to reduce jobs). That said, I think we both can probably agree that technological changes have made it harder for individuals to gain entry level employment, since we already see that most companies are loath to pay for training, yet still expect people get the training by some other means.

    Disagree based on what? Your gut feeling? We've already established that global employment is high. It wouldn't be high without the communications and transportation technologies that enable globalization.

    World bank data says global labor participation rates have declined from a peak in 2005. In any case, WTF does a measure that groups completely undeveloped countries with the fully developed have to do with automation replacing jobs? Of course robots aren't going to replace workers being paid $1.50 a day. If you actually want to know what the effects of automation are on employment, you look at labor participation and wages in countries where automation is cost effective. There's no doubt what the story is there.

    And yet you're not citing anything. If there was no doubt there should be clear demonstration that automation reduces the number of jobs.

    http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.TLF.CACT.ZS/countries/XD?display=graph
    First world labor utilization is not on some long term down slope. To the extent that it is (marginally) down in the United States in the short term, demographics explain a vast majority of the difference, bolstered by increased disability claims and longer periods of education (so 18-25 labor participation is down) explain more than the entire drop. Increased automation allows this to be offset in large part by increased labor participation in 50+ age groups, since fewer jobs require manual labor.
    furman%20fig2_3%2018%20aug.png
    And over the history of automation, where manufacturing has been exported to cheaper countries, participation is well up.
    furman%20fig1%2018%20aug.png

    Similarly, there is no clear downward trend across Europe or Canada. If automation was the cause we should see it across the board in developed nations.
    The bolded is flatly false. Japan and Canada both have downward trends. Europe does not, but Europe's utilization is so far below everyone else's that it's difficult to draw conclusions.
    Automation reducing jobs is not reflected in actual facts or history of economics. Industrialization is "automation". It had a bit of an impact on world economics. And there were certain groups that said it was going to do away with all the jobs. They were so wrong that the most famous group's name now means anyone who foolishly opposes technology, especially industrialization and automation that performs tasks more efficiently. This Luddite position is not well respected in actual economic thought.
    We already had this discussion in the previous thread on this subject, and I don't really feel up to repeating the whole thing. The condensed version is: the history of economics is the history of respected economists repeatedly being proven spectacularly wrong in the predictions they make from history. Arguing that the labor conditions prevailing for 2.5 centuries of human history will continue indefinitely is as ridiculous as Malthus's predictions. More, because Malthus had no way of knowing about the Green Revolution but we certainly do know about automation.
    Fair trade vs Free Trade is a reasonable argument in regard to whether it actually helps or hurts. Whether automation and industrialization increases or decreases the number of jobs is not generally an open question.
    This is ironic. Economists overwhelmingly supported free trade for decades. Disagreeing was heresy.
    If there is "no doubt what the story is there" then its that the fundamental argument is baseless.

    Extremely few people who actually study economics believe automation is eliminating jobs and that we just don't have enough to do in modern society to employ people. The idea that work is unnecessary and disconnected from production and prosperity is frankly so shortsighted as to not being worth engaging in, before we get into whether or not work has benefits beyond what the work actually does.

    Yeah, that may once have been true.

    zakkiel on
    Account not recoverable. So long.
  • davidsdurionsdavidsdurions Your Trusty Meatshield Panhandle NebraskaRegistered User regular
    More interesting work being done in artificial intelligence learning.
    With this approach, when given the relevant coordinates for the beginning and end of the task, the PR2 could master a typical assignment in about 10 minutes. When the robot is not given the location for the objects in the scene and needs to learn vision and control together, the learning process takes about three hours.

    http://youtu.be/JeVppkoloXs

  • CalicaCalica Registered User regular
    Every time the issue of self-driving trucks/cars comes up, I wonder about the snow issue. Self-driving vehicles work great in the dry, sunny Southwest. The vast majority of the country experiences weather that AI can't handle for anywhere from 4 to 6 months out of the year. Humans are still going to need to do a lot of the driving in winter, which means the support systems for humans will still need to be there, including mandatory driving time limits and rest periods. The rippling delays (and staffing needs) caused by that would mean, among other things, that shipping to most of the country would be both slower and more costly during the holidays, when volume is highest.

  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    I don't see how snow is a problem.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • davidsdurionsdavidsdurions Your Trusty Meatshield Panhandle NebraskaRegistered User regular
    Yeah, in my experience, automated driving controls are going to perform better in adverse weather conditions. Plus it's one less human making terrible decisions and getting injured/dying in the 40-vehicle pile up.

  • surrealitychecksurrealitycheck lonely, but not unloved dreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    I don't see how snow is a problem.

    its snow problem

    3fpohw4n01yj.png
  • CalicaCalica Registered User regular
    edited May 2015
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    I don't see how snow is a problem.

    Snow hides features of the road that self-driving vehicles' cameras need to see, and also has a tendency to continuously set off proximity sensor systems (radar, LIDAR, ultrasound, whatever).

    Google Says Snow More of Self-Driving Car Snag Than NHTSA
    This Is How Bad Self-Driving Cars Suck In The Rain
    The cold, hard truth about autonomous vehicles and weather

    Calica on
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    Yeah weather is going to be a pretty major problem for any of that tech. Keep in mind the primary development environment is California in a major drought. Especially where you have a road that has by convention shrunk lanes during the winter and all you have to go by are a pair of tire tracks

  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Calica wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    I don't see how snow is a problem.

    Snow hides features of the road that self-driving vehicles' cameras need to see, and also has a tendency to continuously set off proximity sensor systems (radar, LIDAR, ultrasound, whatever).

    Google Says Snow More of Self-Driving Car Snag Than NHTSA
    This Is How Bad Self-Driving Cars Suck In The Rain
    The cold, hard truth about autonomous vehicles and weather

    According to your first article the expected time line for solving the issue is 2-5 years. Not exactly a far off future.

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited May 2015
    The same concerns had to be addressed with manned vehicles. They would just start where it's easier and have contigencies for bad weather, such as seasonal drivers, while the technology improved.

    Incenjucar on
  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    zakkiel wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    Similarly, there is no clear downward trend across Europe or Canada. If automation was the cause we should see it across the board in developed nations.
    The bolded is flatly false. Japan and Canada both have downward trends. Europe does not, but Europe's utilization is so far below everyone else's that it's difficult to draw conclusions.
    You're still making claims that are untrue and not basing it on anything. Cite.

    Here's a link to Canadian labor participation. From 1976 to now, the highest ever is 67.7% the low is 61.4%. It is currently 65.8%

    Here's the Japan, Canada and the EU, labor participation rate age 15+ from the World Bank. Spot this automation labor participation free fall.

    zakkiel wrote: »
    Automation reducing jobs is not reflected in actual facts or history of economics. Industrialization is "automation". It had a bit of an impact on world economics. And there were certain groups that said it was going to do away with all the jobs. They were so wrong that the most famous group's name now means anyone who foolishly opposes technology, especially industrialization and automation that performs tasks more efficiently. This Luddite position is not well respected in actual economic thought.
    We already had this discussion in the previous thread on this subject, and I don't really feel up to repeating the whole thing. The condensed version is: the history of economics is the history of respected economists repeatedly being proven spectacularly wrong in the predictions they make from history. Arguing that the labor conditions prevailing for 2.5 centuries of human history will continue indefinitely is as ridiculous as Malthus's predictions. More, because Malthus had no way of knowing about the Green Revolution but we certainly do know about automation.
    Fair trade vs Free Trade is a reasonable argument in regard to whether it actually helps or hurts. Whether automation and industrialization increases or decreases the number of jobs is not generally an open question.
    This is ironic. Economists overwhelmingly supported free trade for decades. Disagreeing was heresy.
    If there is "no doubt what the story is there" then its that the fundamental argument is baseless.

    Extremely few people who actually study economics believe automation is eliminating jobs and that we just don't have enough to do in modern society to employ people. The idea that work is unnecessary and disconnected from production and prosperity is frankly so shortsighted as to not being worth engaging in, before we get into whether or not work has benefits beyond what the work actually does.

    Yeah, that may once have been true.

    Saying "People have been wrong in the past" doesn't suggest you are correct in your assertions. Indeed saying citing Malthus while claiming the inevitable destruction of jobs suggests a supreme lack of self-awareness.

    From the link that supposedly bolsters that its reasonable to posit that automation will cause some kind of massive job reduction - which even it was true wouldn't suggest its likely -
    Key themes: reasons to be hopeful

    Advances in technology may displace certain types of work, but historically they have been a net creator of jobs.

    We will adapt to these changes by inventing entirely new types of work, and by taking advantage of uniquely human capabilities.

    But the article admits this survey isn't representative. Let's look at who they cite for each side

    Automation won't decrease the number of jobs

    Vint Cerf, vice president and chief Internet evangelist for Google, Turing Award Winner, PhD
    Jonathan Grudin, principal researcher for Microsoft, PhD
    Michael Kende, the economist for a major Internet-oriented nonprofit organization (the Internet Society, former FCC big wig, MIT Phd)
    Fred Baker, Internet pioneer, longtime leader in the IETF and Cisco Systems Fellow PhD
    Ben Shneiderman, professor of computer science at the University of Maryland, PhD
    Amy Webb, CEO of strategy firm Webbmedia Group, Visiting Fellow at Harvard, Professor at Columbia
    John Markoff, senior writer for the Science section of the New York Times, famous for covering hackers from Morris to Mitnick, Pulitzer Prize winner
    Marjory Blumenthal, Executive Director of PCAST, Office of Science and Technology Policy, The White House, former Associate Provost at Georgetown University
    David Hughes, an early Internet researcher in the DoD, and activist for rural connectivity
    Pamela Rutledge, PhD and director of the Media Psychology Research Center
    Michael Glassman, associate Professor tOSU, PhD
    David Clark, a senior research scientist at MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory PhD
    Jari Arkko, Internet expert for Ericsson and chair of the Internet Engineering Task Force (Licentiate degree, which is between a Masters and a PhD)
    Christopher Wilkinson, Masters, former Visiting Fellow at Harvard and EU big wig

    (Then some that say they won't because of legal restrictions that I'll leave out)

    Intellectual heavyweights for the most part. Professors and famous intellectuals and the like, most in relevant fields. Now the opposite

    Jerry Michalski, A consultant that advises companies on how to deal with the changes coming. A MBA
    Mike Roberts, a former ICANN member. A MBA
    Robert Cannon, Internet law and policy expert, JD
    Tom Standage, journalist and author for the Economist, BS
    Mark Nall, former Project manager at NASA, MS
    Justin Reich, Visiting Fellow at Harvard for Education EdD
    Stowe Boyd, MS
    Nilofer Merchant MBA
    Alex Howard editor Huffington Post

    MBAs < PhDs. Consultants < Economists.

    You are making the assertion that automation is going to lead to a elimination of jobs. This is an incredibly controversial and unsupported statement even by this link where "experts" is defined loosely and everyone gets a vote. If you believe the fundamental structure of Western economics is going to be overturned, how bout we get something more than "Oh we already decided this before."



    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    Calica wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    I don't see how snow is a problem.

    Snow hides features of the road that self-driving vehicles' cameras need to see, and also has a tendency to continuously set off proximity sensor systems (radar, LIDAR, ultrasound, whatever).

    Google Says Snow More of Self-Driving Car Snag Than NHTSA
    This Is How Bad Self-Driving Cars Suck In The Rain
    The cold, hard truth about autonomous vehicles and weather

    This stuff is incredibly hard. Tech writers who are vaguely near it think its going to happen any time now. Readers are big more skeptical. People actually trying to do this stuff are like "This isn't the next facebook app jesus."

    Its extremely hard stuff

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • That_GuyThat_Guy I don't wanna be that guy Registered User regular
    Also, I wouldn't expect to see fully unmanned vehicles on the road for, like 10 years. Any autonomous vehicle is going to require a licensed operator until than. The first place I would expect to start seeing fully unmanned operation is in long haul trucking. By design, long haul truck routes are as simple and easy to navigate as possible. Often times times, hubs have their own dedicated interstate highway exits. It's going to be interesting to see how that industry is affected. A large number of truckers own their own rigs. I wonder if truckers will start "renting out" their self driving rigs instead of hauling the cargo themselves.

  • Mr KhanMr Khan Not Everyone WAHHHRegistered User regular
    That will definitely be a speedbump to slow adoption outside of the southwest, but that's all it's going to do.

  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    edited May 2015
    Quid wrote: »
    Calica wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    I don't see how snow is a problem.

    Snow hides features of the road that self-driving vehicles' cameras need to see, and also has a tendency to continuously set off proximity sensor systems (radar, LIDAR, ultrasound, whatever).

    Google Says Snow More of Self-Driving Car Snag Than NHTSA
    This Is How Bad Self-Driving Cars Suck In The Rain
    The cold, hard truth about autonomous vehicles and weather

    According to your first article the expected time line for solving the issue is 2-5 years. Not exactly a far off future.

    The expected timeline for these things is always 5 years if we think we can do it, 10 if it's theoretically possible and 20 if it's AI. I would say 5 years to a prototype that mostly works, in non-severe weather conditions

    Phyphor on
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Also, driverless vehicles only have to be better than the average American driver.

    I know large segments of the public will likely freak out any time one has any sort of accident but nuts to them. They're awful drivers anyway.

  • That_GuyThat_Guy I don't wanna be that guy Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Also, driverless vehicles only have to be better than the average American driver.

    I know large segments of the public will likely freak out any time one has any sort of accident but nuts to them. They're awful drivers anyway.

    Yeah, the bar for "better than a human driver" is pretty low when you look at the stats.

Sign In or Register to comment.