The consequences of automation

[Open Heart]

I'm not psychic nor a prophet, but I do have enough intelligence and intuition to see the direction things are going. Our society is becoming increasingly automated by robots, machines, computers, and AI. What that means is that jobs are lost. Sure, some new jobs are created, but never, ever the nearly the same number as the jobs that are lost.

It is my intuition that sometime in the next 5-10 years, there will be a great recession. Indeed such a vast number will be out of work, with their jobs obsolete, and the new jobs in such limited demand, that there will be social unrest, even violence.

This poses a moral dilemma of how to deal with the increadible numbers of people who want to work, but can't.

I'm sure there are some of you, perhaps many of you, who think I'm bonkers. That's okay. You don't have to participate in this thread. Or if you want, you can address this as a hypothetical question.

There are those who approach life as if there are two kinds of people: makers and takers, and takers are disgusting people who should be treated with contempt and given nothing. This group will have no insight into the fact that the average person will have no choices left. There will no longer be jobs where you pick vegetables or type a letter or wash dishes or be a cashier or drive a truck or assemble a car. Their mantra will be that the unemployed need to get creative and invent something productive to do. They won't really care that they are starving. You can almost hear them echoing Scrooge's words, "If they are going to die, let them do so quickly, and thus reduce the surplus population."

Then there will be the Robin Hoods. How many of the unemployed could be provided their basic needs if the Bill Gates of the world contributed from their excessive income? Although this seems like an obviously good idea to me, i doubt it will ever come to pass. The wealthy(I'm talking about the top 1%) are the powerful. They will never let go of their money and privilege.

What those out of work will really want is jobs. NOT handouts. But when push comes to shove, they will simply want to continue to live. Preferably not by begging on the streets. They will be desperate enough to take. And there will be enough of them that the problem is not going to go quietly away.

So who is left to take from? What we are talking about is socialism. Those who are left working will have to provide a basic income for those who don't. I've been following this idea of a basic income for a long time. There are places in the world where it is already in place, social democracies. It seems to work.

But obviously those who do work are not going to be overly thrilled to have really high taxes to pay basic incomes to able bodied people who aren't working. They are going to scream. Why should they bother working when they can have a reasonably good life loafing around? The answer is, because loafing around is incredibly boring and unfulfilling. If you want a rich and meaningful life, you want to DO something with your life.

Well those are my comments. It's a pretty awful moral dilemma. The Bible says if you don't work you shouldn't eat. But that was in a world where there WAS work to be had. I think we are moving into an age of liesure, where machines will do most of our work for us. But getting from here to there will be tumultuous.

I have encouraged both my son and my son in law, who are having difficulty finding work, to retrain in automation or robotics.

What are your own thoughts? Seriously, I'd really like input to chew on.

 

[Rachel Rachel]

It is frightening. Watching the new Amazon Go store is just a glimpse of what's to come.
My children are nurses and teachers which seems pretty safe for a while but who knows for how long.
Sounds like you gave your children some good direction.

 

[Kenny'sID]

And it wouldn't be so bad if all the money saved from automation, went back into people and a less tough life for everyone. But at the same time we have every right to profit from our smart/efficient running of a business, and do what we choose with our wealth.

So in the end, it all comes down to the individuals true heart. IOW, automation could work very well if people acted like they were meant to, something I don't see happening, for the most part anyway. People like to stockpile much more money than they will ever need.

 

[timewerx]

Automation will expose the corrupt nature of money and making profit.

Fundamentally, the need to exploit cheaper labor / services from the less fortunate / weak to make a profit. And the need for everyone to be materialistic so they buy stuff to keep the economy afloat.

Some countries are considering the "universal income system" so that people who lost jobs to automation will keep receiving income indefinitely even if they never work just so people will keep buying stuff and keep the economy from crashing.

How absurd is that?

Why not just making products for free if self-maintaining, self-reproducing robots are making our stuff. Fully self-sustaining, self-regulating Robots don't need money to run!

One thing is absurd, it's either extensive automation or the economic system. At least we know that neither existed when God originally created our world. It was man's corrupt nature that brought forth these things.

 

[timewerx]

And it wouldn't be so bad if all the money saved from automation, went back into people and a less tough life for everyone.

Some countries are considering "universal income" for people losing jobs to automation but not all. In fact, there's far fewer countries looking at such system.

For most of us is very dark days. Unless you work in computer programming or robotics, you will be jobless. Admittedly, not many of us is ever going to be good a programming or robotics. So what will be the option? Crime? Prostitution?

I really don't like this scenario, given the eternal greed of man. It will shift the balance of power to much fewer people...

It might turn out better if AI could get a hold of everything so that everyone is treated fairly. I mean getting what we truly deserve

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

Well those are my comments. It's a pretty awful moral dilemma. The Bible says if you don't work you shouldn't eat. But that was in a world where there WAS work to be had. I think we are moving into an age of liesure, where machines will do most of our work for us. But getting from here to there will be tumultuous.

You are so correct. I saw this many years ago. I remember when gas was 25 cents per gallon. There were jobs called service station attendants that pumped your gas, cleaned your windshield, and checked the inflation of your tires, checked your oil all for a quarter. Then the oil embargo happened. They sold us a lie , told us if we pumped our gas ourselves it would keep the gas prices low. So away went service station attendants. They all lost their unskilled jobs.And we know what happened to gas prices. Recently I was at Kroger and the grocery line for the cashiers were getting long. One of the workers tried to direct us to the self checkout machines. I told her no thanks, I would like to give the cashiers a job.

 

[expos4ever]

If we are running out of jobs, we should pay people even if they have no job. I know this seems to be at odds with the "Protestant work ethic", but the day will likely come where there is very little left for many of us to do. But we cannot simply let all these people who are forced out of the job market to remain chronically unemployed with no income (or low, welfare-level income) - that is a recipe for violent revolution.

 

[Open Heart]

You are so correct. I saw this many years ago. I remember when gas was 25 cents per gallon. There were jobs called service station attendants that pumped your gas, cleaned your windshield, and checked the inflation of your tires, checked your oil all for a quarter. Then the oil embargo happened. They sold us a lie , told us if we pumped our gas ourselves it would keep the gas prices low. So away went service station attendants. They all lost their unskilled jobs.And we know what happened to gas prices. Recently I was at Kroger and the grocery line for the cashiers were getting long. One of the workers tried to direct us to the self checkout machines. I told her no thanks, I would like to give the cashiers a job.

Seriously, it was only an hour or so after I penned this thread that I turned on the news and there was a headline about Amazon Go's new grocery store that has no cash registers (not even automated ones). The store has sensors that can tell when you take an item off the shelf, and when you leave the store, it automatically deducts the total from your store card. They've already tested this with a company store.

 

[Open Heart]

Some countries are considering "universal income" for people losing jobs to automation but not all. In fact, there's far fewer countries looking at such system.

Yes. I think this idea has been embraced by forward thinking people since Thomas Paine, but has only recently been seriously embraced by a lot of people since automation has become a serious threat to jobs.

It looks like Germany is going to be THE country that will hash this out first among the strong first world democracies, since the official petition was accepted in 2008. It was closed as "unrealizable," but the issue won't go away. Similarly in other countries it gets brought up and voted down, and keeps rising up again like a game of whackamo. We'll see if it gets voted down as quickly when the rioting starts.

 

[timewerx]

Yes. I think this idea has been embraced by forward thinking people since Thomas Paine, but has only recently been seriously embraced by a lot of people since automation has become a serious threat to jobs.

It looks like Germany is going to be THE country that will hash this out first among the strong first world democracies, since the official petition was accepted in 2008. It was closed as "unrealizable," but the issue won't go away. Similarly in other countries it gets brought up and voted down, and keeps rising up again like a game of whackamo. We'll see if it gets voted down as quickly when the rioting starts.

The reason it's unrealizeable is due to other fundamental issues in our world today.

Even if theres is enough money to make it possible, the anticipated increase in demand of commodities due to higher income, there may not be enough for everyone due to supply not meeting increase in demand.

This would drive the cost of commoditites skywards which would negate the benefits of uni income due to increased cost of living.

We are simply overpopulated to make this possible. We may have gone to the point where the planet can no longer adequately sustain everyone on Earth even if money wasn't a problem.

Lack of sustainable policies and the love of money could end our civilization badly. It might actually be a better outcome if AI could take over.

Jude 1:10
Yet these people slander whatever they do not understand, and the very things they do understand by instinct—as irrational animals do—will destroy them.

It's money!

 

[pat34lee]

If we are running out of jobs, we should pay people even if they have no job. I know this seems to be at odds with the "Protestant work ethic", but the day will likely come where there is very little left for many of us to do. But we cannot simply let all these people who are forced out of the job market to remain chronically unemployed with no income (or low, welfare-level income) - that is a recipe for violent revolution.

How much do the 'do nothings' get paid?

And what happens when the workers decide it's easier
to do nothing and get paid too? Eventually you reach a
point where there is more money paid out to the ones
who do nothing and not enough people paying for it.

We're already reaching that point in America now, and
it's even worse in many countries.

 

[visionary]

The decay of the society rests upon the decay in the minds of men. As our moral and social work decays so also will it translate and filtrate into all aspects of society. From the government down, the standards have dropped and have been exposed for all the world to see in social media, in flagrant disobedience and disrespect of the law. Each of these will contribute to the demise. Automation, IA, etc are nothing more than processes.

 

[visionary]

An example of the decay of morals..
"Given that homosexual advocates are in a full court press to lower the age of consent as low as it can go, and pro-pedophile sitting Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg 's documented advocacy of lowering the age of consent to 12 years old, parents should be horrified that there are so few politicians, like Sen. Santorum, actually defending the family," Timothy Chichester, CFAA president, said April 23.

Chichester was referring to a paper authored by Ginsburg entitled "Sex Bias in the U.S. Code," which was prepared for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in April 1977

 

[Open Heart]

The reason it's unrealizeable is due to other fundamental issues in our world today.

Even if theres is enough money to make it possible, the anticipated increase in demand of commodities due to higher income, there may not be enough for everyone due to supply not meeting increase in demand.

This would drive the cost of commoditites skywards which would negate the benefits of uni income due to increased cost of living.

We are simply overpopulated to make this possible. We may have gone to the point where the planet can no longer adequately sustain everyone on Earth even if money wasn't a problem.

Lack of sustainable policies and the love of money could end our civilization badly. It might actually be a better outcome if AI could take over.

Jude 1:10
Yet these people slander whatever they do not understand, and the very things they do understand by instinct—as irrational animals do—will destroy them.

It's money!

So what is your solution?

 

[Open Heart]

How much do the 'do nothings' get paid?

And what happens when the workers decide it's easier
to do nothing and get paid too? Eventually you reach a
point where there is more money paid out to the ones
who do nothing and not enough people paying for it.

We're already reaching that point in America now, and
it's even worse in many countries.

So, Pat, what is your solution?

 

[timewerx]

So what is your solution?

Universal Basic income can work....However to do that, goverment must take active regulation of market prices to maintain or even reduce the current cost of living.

Demand-driven increase in product must be restricted -- This strategy additionally has the advantage of shifting some of the demand to smaller businesses or conversely, stimulate growth of small and medium businesses. Obviously, this would shift market share away from big businesses to smaller businesses. Money will become less consolidated and more distributed.

This has very good effect to society because the income gap between the rich and poor would be reduced. (crime rates / lawlessness / corruption has been directly linked to high income gap between the rich and poor - many many studies conducted around the world).

And finally, population, reduction. Our planet can no longer sustain our population. We have garbage in the middle of a very large ocean, think about this... We have now crossed the line. If Universal Income can eliminate poverty, this would actually mean higher demand of products and more strain upon non-renewable resources!

We need to actively enforce a one-child policy globally for the next 100 years to reduce our population to more manageable levels. In reality, to maintain healthy balance of ecosystem, the human population must not exceed 10 million worldwide.

10 million people with benefit of advanced technology is enough to run the world. With advanced, self-sustaining technology. It would no longer be needed to maintain an economic system since basically, we could all make our own stuff using self-replicating automation. No more economy, no more need for trading, no more need for money if each people / family becomes fully self-independent using self-managing technology.

In such condition, it will be possible for each person to live in abundance and luxury, owning a huge area of land each. It will be like paradise on Earth. I don't know if this is even possible without eradicating greedy people off this planet.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

And finally, population, reduction. Our planet can no longer sustain our population. We have garbage in the middle of a very large ocean, think about this... We have now crossed the line. If Universal Income can eliminate poverty, this would actually mean higher demand of products and more strain upon non-renewable resources!

We need to actively enforce a one-child policy globally for the next 100 years to reduce our population to more manageable levels. In reality, to maintain healthy balance of ecosystem, the human population must not exceed 10 million worldwide.

10 million people with benefit of advanced technology is enough to run the world. With advanced, self-sustaining technology. It would no longer be needed to maintain an economic system since basically, we could all make our own stuff using self-replicating automation. No more economy, no more need for trading, no more need for money if each people / family becomes fully self-independent using self-managing technology.

In such condition, it will be possible for each person to live in abundance and luxury, owning a huge area of land each. It will be like paradise on Earth. I don't know if this is even possible without eradicating greedy people off this planet.

Those who advocate population control, imho, are not thinking about the command of God to be fruitful and multiply and fill the Earth. And there will always be greedy people looking down on people who have not. Lord Jesus said we will have the poor with us always. I am an idealist too, but I see the wickedness at work in our world. Our infatuation with technology is leading to more pain and suffering for the poor and uneducated. The rich are forever trying to get richer, hoarding wealth and not helping their fellow man. To get the population down to ten million will have to include introduction of devastating plagues, wars, and eugenics. I read a story during the Ebola crises in Africa. There was a village in Africa that barred the WHO from coming into their village because the elders suspected the WHO was bringing Ebola into their village. The Ebola epidemic stopped. If I was president of an African country I would kick the WHO out.

 

[expos4ever]

......and pro-pedophile sitting Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg 's documented advocacy of lowering the age of consent to 12 years old,

Untrue, of course.

And let me spare you some time: she did indeed make remarks that could, if torn from context, be read that way; however, context shows this is clearly not what she was staying.

You are free to try to make this claim of yours stick, but I guarantee that it will not stand up to careful scrutiny.

 

[pat34lee]

So, Pat, what is your solution?

Capitalism is the best solution so far, but without huge corporations.
There was a reason the founders limited large corporations in the
early years of the country. If we get rid of the conglomerates, the
smaller companies can do without so much mechanization.
Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States

 

[visionary]

Untrue, of course.

And let me spare you some time: she did indeed make remarks that could, if torn from context, be read that way; however, context shows this is clearly not what she was staying.

You are free to try to make this claim of yours stick, but I guarantee that it will not stand up to careful scrutiny.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Conservapedia

She has views you need to explore more. The way she views the world is eye opening. Ginsburg, according to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), "said the age of consent for sexual activity for women should be 12.

On p. 102 of Sex Bias in the U.S. Code, under the sub-heading “Recommendations,” Ginsburg and Feigen-Fasteau recommend a revision of 18 U.S.C. §2032 from “carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife who has not attained the age of sixteen years” to “A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person, not his spouse, and . . . the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old“. Below is the pertinent paragraph:

18 U.S.C. §2032 — Eliminate the phrase “carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife who has not attained the age of sixteen years” and substitute a Federal, sex-neutral definition of the offense patterned after S. 1400 §1633: A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person, not his spouse, and (1) compels the other person to participate: (A) by force or (B) by threatening or placing the other person in fear that any person will imminently be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; (2) has substantially impaired the other person’s power to appraise or control the conduct by administering or employing a drug or intoxicant without the knowledge or against the will of such other person, or by other means; or (3) the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old.

Ginsburg (and her co-author) also recommends that the Mann Act be repealed. The Mann Act is a federal law passed in 1910 which makes it a felony to engage in interstate or foreign commerce transport of “any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose”.

Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg favors decriminalizing pedophilia and child sex trafficking