from the employees-will-now-lead-lives-of-leisure dept.
Foxconn, the Chinese manufacturer of Apple's iPhones and other electronic devices, aims to replace human workers with "FoxBots" and achieve nearly full automation of entire factories:
The slow and steady march of manufacturing automation has been in place at Foxconn for years. The company said last year that it had set a benchmark of 30 percent automation at its Chinese factories by 2020. The company can now produce around 10,000 Foxbots a year, Jia-peng says, all of which can be used to replace human labor. In March, Foxconn said it had automated away 60,000 jobs at one of its factories.
[...] Complicating the matter is the Chinese government, which has incentivized human employment in the country. In areas like Chengdu, Shenzhen, and Zhengzhou, local governments have doled out billions of dollars in bonuses, energy contracts, and public infrastructure to Foxconn to allow the company to expand. As of last year, Foxconn employed as many as 1.2 million people, making it one of the largest employers in the world. More than 1 million of those workers reside in China, often at elaborate, city-like campuses that house and feed employees.
In an in-depth report published yesterday, The New York Times detailed these government incentivizes for Foxconn's Zhengzhou factory, its largest and most capable plant that produces 500,000 iPhones a day and is known locally as "iPhone City." According to Foxconn's Jia-peng, the Zhengzhou factory has some production lines already at the second automation phase and on track to become fully automated in a few years' time. So it may not be long before one of China's largest employers will be forced to grapple with its automation ambitions and the benefits it receives to transform rural parts of the country into industrial powerhouses.
To undermine American manufacturing, ditch the meatbags.
Related Stories
The New York Times (may be pay-walled) reports that Terry Gou, the CEO of Foxconn has confirmed rumours aired in December to the effect that the company is considering building an additional factory in the United States. Yahoo Finance UK says that the factory, if built, "could create about 30,000-50,000 jobs." The South China Morning Post reports that the facility, expected to cost more than $7 billion, would make dot-matrix displays (such as used in television sets and mobile phones) under the Sharp name. Mr. Gou remarked that:
While it is difficult to have a clear analysis of the economic outlook for this year, due to looming uncertainties, three factors can be seen as clues. First, the rise of protectionism is inevitable. Secondly, the trend of politics serving the economy is clearly defined, and thirdly, the proportion of real economy is getting increasingly bigger.
Speaking in November, Gou had called on the incoming U.S. leaders to refrain from protectionist policies, The China Post had reported.
Additional coverage:
Related:
Foxconn Plans to Replace Nearly All Human Workers With Robots in Some Factories
Foxconn Acquires Sharp at a Lower Price Than Previously Agreed
Sharp Accepts $6.25 Billion Takeover Bid from Foxconn, but Foxconn is Wary of Debt
Softbank to Invest $50 Billion in the US
... if you ask actual manufacturing executives, they're far more bullish on America's future than many of its political leaders. On Thursday, professional services firm Deloitte teamed up with the Council on Competitiveness to release its 2016 Global Manufacturing Competitiveness Index, showing that the United States is the second most competitive manufacturing economy after China. What's more, global manufacturing executives predict that by 2020, the United States will be the most competitive manufacturing economy in the world.
So why has the United States been shooting up the ranks? Long gone are the days when cheap labor was the most important input for manufacturers. Total manufacturing employment in China peaked during the 1990s and has been falling ever since. And as manufacturing continues to reduce the number of workers needed, the important ingredients to success in the sector are whether advanced technologies and materials are available, and whether or not intellectual property protections are strong. The United States beats out China on both of these scores.
This is not to say that anxiety over the decline of manufacturing employment is misguided. While it's good that manufacturing firms think that the United States is a great place to do business, their success in America will not have the same impact, in terms of providing a huge number of well-paying jobs, as they did a half-century ago.
For years, iPhones (or their boxes) have said that they were "designed by Apple in California. Assembled in China." But thanks to an escalating trade war between the US and China, that might not be true in the coming years. Reuters reports that two of Apple's biggest manufacturing contractors, Foxconn and Pegatron, are working to expand their facilities in Mexico with an eye toward eventually building iPhones there.
[...] This isn't Foxconn's only effort to diversify away from China. Last year, Foxconn announced plans to begin manufacturing iPhones in India, and the company is now manufacturing the iPhone SE there.
Sources told Reuters that Taiwan-based iPhone contractor Pegatron is also considering a shift to Mexico, but few details about its plans are known.
Previously:
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jelizondo on Tuesday January 03 2017, @12:31AM
And so it begins. Manufacturing jobs and many others, today might considered white-collar like medicine and law, are going to be lost as well.
Society must start thinking and planning for the future, before a new Karl Marx gives rise to a new wave of bloody revolutions.
Highly recommended conference about the subject:
The Future of Humanity [youtube.com] - Yuval Noah Harari
Q&A of the conference [youtube.com]
(Score: 1, Disagree) by khallow on Tuesday January 03 2017, @01:27AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 03 2017, @02:31AM
Job destruction provides potential for job creation, but work needs to have value. Work isn't a job if you don't get paid for it.
If I get laid off tomorrow, I could troll SN all day. Trolling takes work, but that doesn't mean a job was created, because trolling SN is not a job that anyone would pay me to do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 03 2017, @09:44AM
trolling SN is not a job that anyone would pay me to do.
Not when there are countless other ACs trolling SN for free.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mhajicek on Tuesday January 03 2017, @02:34AM
How many jobs are created by automating away 60,000 jobs? Maybe 1000 if we're generous? Sure, nothing to worry about, 1.7% of those people can still have jobs.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 1, Disagree) by khallow on Tuesday January 03 2017, @06:21AM
How many jobs are created by automating away 60,000 jobs?
Those 60,000 jobs aren't being automated away by magic. The automation technology just made a bunch of jobs viable which weren't before. It is common for such situations to create more jobs than they automate away because a bunch of activities just became viable to do. I'll also note that Foxconn continues to increase its number of employees (over 1.3 million as of 2015, according to Wikipedia) despite this extensive automation.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Tuesday January 03 2017, @09:20PM
The automation makes some more jobs viable by reducing the value of human labor. So instead of making x iphones with y people, you can make x iphones with y/z people, or x*a iphones with y/z*a people. Actually automated factories don't quite scale that way, doubling your staff can quadruple your output. However, since there is a limit to the demand for iphones, as you increase output the sale price goes down. You can't just keep increasing your output to employ the same number of people; you have to balance the equation for maximum profit. Often this means producing more product but with a smaller number of employees. Also since there are fewer jobs to go around there is more competition for those jobs and the wage can be reduced.
It is common for such situations to create more jobs than they automate away because a bunch of activities just became viable to do.
Citation?
This shows the opposite:
http://recalcitrantegg.blogspot.com/2012/02/manufacturing-production-vs-employment.html [blogspot.com]
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 04 2017, @12:13AM
The automation makes some more jobs viable by reducing the value of human labor.
Automation never makes human labor less valuable.
However, since there is a limit to the demand for iphones, as you increase output the sale price goes down.
Even Foxconn does other things than just make iPhones.
Also since there are fewer jobs to go around there is more competition for those jobs and the wage can be reduced.
You do realize that hasn't happened yet? Globally, wages [voxeu.org] have been on the rise. I'll note that there's reason to expect humans to work for gain far in the future. First, we have comparative advantage and Jevons paradox from economics. Second, people don't stop working and trading just because they're ostracized from the general economy. There's a fair number of examples of businesses and such which operate outside the normal economy. Some of these employ large numbers of disfranchised people (such as urban gangs).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 05 2017, @06:30AM
If it's mainly cost savings then logically the workers would on average be worse off.
There's a limit to how much productivity can increase in "real" goods[1] due to resource limits on this planet. If you cut jobs from 60,000 to 1,000 and productivity doesn't increase 60x then those 59,000 are going to be worse off too - the created wealth wouldn't be enough to cover them. And that's even assuming the bulk of the extra wealth goes to them and doesn't mainly go to the 0.1% who own the capital.
[1] Virtual goods are a different matter however how many virtual goods would people be able to afford to buy? Wonder if it would help if we have a split currency/token system- one for the Real Bread and another for the Virtual Circuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 03 2017, @02:48AM
No company replaces workers with robots if they have to spend more, by means of workers or by means of robots that another company created using the excess workers. It's always about cutting the costs, and workers are taken as costs. Nevermind they have other facets, like customer of someone else business in the big wheel of business. So it's not development A that creates jobs by destroying them, but development B that is separate from A. And no warranty B will take place if A exists.
It's simple bean counting maths: "new workers plus robots" must be less money than "previous workers". Otherwise the workers stay as before.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by khallow on Tuesday January 03 2017, @07:27AM
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday January 03 2017, @09:37AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 03 2017, @01:51PM
Machines pushed humans out of the primary sector into the secondary and tertiary sector.
Ok, why do you think that? A key problem here is that the real world isn't actually like the story you spin.
*There is no 4th sector*.
You've already made the 3rd sector the rest of the universe. There's no need for a 4th sector. And I'll note that this alleged process isn't happening. Sure, there's some turnover of jobs from automation and we don't need a lot of people in low value 1st and 2nd sector employment. But people do find other work rather than merely becoming a vast pool of unemployed, even in the high cost developed world.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday January 03 2017, @03:53PM
And don't weasel-word with "turnover", the word you are looking for is "loss". As technology progresses, at the rate it currently is, no need for any singularity or bullshit like that, there will very soon be very few workers an AI or robot couldn't replace - more cheaply, and more accurately, and with fewer special demands like needing a lunchbreak or a piss.
People who lose menial jobs do not magically become available to do other things, as *they already were available to do that other task* and therefore that that other task is not considered sufficiently useful to be worth doing compared to the menial one being done now.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 04 2017, @12:34AM
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday January 04 2017, @10:19AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 04 2017, @12:40PM
,=
So it doesn't matter whether "primary industries" employ more people or not. It doesn't matter that you are concerned about imaginary job loss. It doesn't matter that you have the unfounded opinion that a menial laborer somehow can't find another job. Reality disagrees.
Have you ever heard the saying that if you're stuck in a hole you should stop digging?
Back at you.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday January 04 2017, @03:55PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 05 2017, @12:31AM
Thus spake someone with absolutely no understanding of Simpson's Paradox.
You want to go there? Because I'm pretty sure you're the one having trouble with Simpson's paradox:
Simpson's paradox, or the Yule–Simpson effect, is a paradox in probability and statistics, in which a trend appears in different groups of data but disappears or reverses when these groups are combined.
I'm merely noting trends in global data, all of humanity, while I'm pretty sure that you're making absolute claims about the global data from either a very constrained or even imaginary data set. That's a standard consequence of "having trouble" with Simpson's paradox.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday January 05 2017, @01:02PM
I've shown you your mistake several times, please stop digging.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 06 2017, @01:02AM
You're looking at aggregate data rather than the individual components.
Which is of course the appropriate thing to do when you're looking at the whole of humanity. Recall please that was the scope.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday January 06 2017, @01:28AM
I SAID YOU DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT RIGHT AT THE OUTSET, DIDN'T I, AND YOU'VE PROVED THAT BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF A DOUBT.
YOU ARE STUPID, AND YOU REFUSE TO LEARN.
*PLONK*
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 06 2017, @04:59AM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Tuesday January 03 2017, @08:57PM
Here again Marxist concepts are very useful. The pertinent concept is capital intensification: the longer capitalism goes on, the greater the percentage of production will be from capital (machinery, technology, robots!) and the lesser from labor costs. The mechanism is rather straight forward. Capitalists make money (surplus value) by underpaying their workers. The more efficient these workers are (productivity), the lower the cost and the greater the profit. So capitalists are motivated, by a competitive market, to lower their labor costs by replacing workers with machines. But the problem is that the market for machinery (tech) tends to accurately approach the actual value of the machines, so there is no comparative advantage, and the reduction of labor costs will sooner or later marginally reduce the amount of surplus value available to capitalists. So eventually the declining rate of profit will undermine the primary engine of the capitalist system.
But that is not the real problem. Reduction of labor costs is great for business, as it raises profit in the short run, but it ignores the other side of a capitalist society: Production is not an end in itself, it requires a market, consumers, and those consumers must have money in order to produce what economists call "effective demand". With capital intensification, the distribution of money through wages decreases, reducing effective demand, which results in over-production, which leads to surpluses, which leads to cut-backs, which leads to less effective demand, which produces a deflationary spiral and eventually a great depression.
So the question is, how do you replace wages as the source of effective demand? khallow is wrong about job replacement, it is job displacement. But Phil is wrong about the tertiary, it can expand at will. Someone once pointed out to me that we can create as many jobs just in health care as we could possibly need, and if the alternative is a revolution, capitalists will be motivated to fund it! Or we just go with the alt-right basic income proposal. Interesting times!
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Wednesday January 04 2017, @12:32AM
Here again Marxist concepts are very useful.
No, they aren't.
The pertinent concept is capital intensification: the longer capitalism goes on, the greater the percentage of production will be from capital (machinery, technology, robots!) and the lesser from labor costs.
Costs don't produce anything. And any system with technological advancement will see similar outcomes. Improving the efficiency of labor is a natural target for technology advancement and it results in so-called capital intensification naturally. What is missed here is that as one makes labor more efficient, new applications for that labor become viable. For example, it doesn't make sense to employ 100 people to get the return of two peoples' wages. A -98% return on labor costs is crazy. That task just doesn't get done.
But if you have the technology so that 1 person now does the work of 100 people, then that return on labor costs is now 100% and it just might be viable depending on the cost of the capital.
There's a lot of people who are obsessing in this discussion over the 98 jobs that are lost, completely ignoring the variety of new jobs that just became viable. Given how wages have risen first in the developed world and then in the rest of the world, that indicates to me that there's enough creation of opportunities that demand for labor increases instead of decreases.
So the question is, how do you replace wages as the source of effective demand?
Businesses demand too. Funny how demand-driven models ignore key parts of the economy. And there are plenty of places doing well with growing consumer demand. So I don't see that the question needs to be answered. We're doing fine right now.
khallow is wrong about job replacement, it is job displacement.
Your empty assertion is just another typical Marxist, behavioral dysfunction.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday January 04 2017, @01:00AM
Here again Marxist concepts are very useful.
No, they aren't.
Yes, they are.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 04 2017, @01:50AM
And we've since found that Marxism is broken in a variety of ways. We don't need the broken beliefs of Marxism. We can do better. And I find it remarkable how so often the response to the obvious benefits of capitalism (such as a globally wealthier humanity [voxeu.org]) is to merely insist they don't exist.
I respect the desire for something better than our current economic systems. But that needs to start with a realistic understanding of what these systems do right and wrong, especially relative to other economic systems (since the choice is never between capitalism and perfection).
Marxism has always compared poorly. It doesn't take into account human nature. It doesn't value a variety of important things such as wealth creation. And it has this weird Orwellian insistence that capitalism is somehow bad even to the point of naming capitalist phenomena and dynamics with a negative connotation.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Wednesday January 04 2017, @02:21AM
Yes, and I grow tired of repeating myself!
And we've since found that Marxism is broken in a variety of ways.
This is obviously untrue, and you do not know what you are talking about, and it has become even more obvious that for an otherwise educated person, your knowledge of economic theory of any sort is extremely deficient.
We don't need the broken beliefs of Marxism. We can do better.
Again, not belief, theory. Feel free to claim it is "just a theory", just like evolution and global warming and gravity. We'll wait.
And I find it remarkable how so often the response to the obvious benefits of capitalism is to merely insist they don't exist.
What do you think capital intensification is about? It is not a bug, it is a feature! Of course capitalism is a good thing, it is co-emergent with liberal bourgeois politics and replaces feudalism, it develops the productive forces of humanity, and it accumulates capital up to the point that labor can no longer be the basis for the economic organization of humanity. This is the purpose of capitalism, to bring about the end of itself and usher us into the period of post-scarcity anarchism. But I already have surmised that dialectics is beyond your grasp. Contradictions in a mode of production do not mean it is bad, it just means it is developing, that it comes into existence, and passes away. Only a problem if it tries to persist by violence when its raison d'etre is gone.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 04 2017, @12:27PM
This is obviously untrue
*sigh*
What do you think capital intensification is about? It is not a bug, it is a feature! Of course capitalism is a good thing, it is co-emergent with liberal bourgeois politics and replaces feudalism, it develops the productive forces of humanity, and it accumulates capital up to the point that labor can no longer be the basis for the economic organization of humanity. This is the purpose of capitalism, to bring about the end of itself and usher us into the period of post-scarcity anarchism. But I already have surmised that dialectics is beyond your grasp. Contradictions in a mode of production do not mean it is bad, it just means it is developing, that it comes into existence, and passes away. Only a problem if it tries to persist by violence when its raison d'etre is gone.
And once again, you make my argument for me. Once we filter out the pseudo-intellectual babble, we'll note that you made a single verifiable claim in here, " it accumulates capital up to the point that labor can no longer be the basis for the economic organization of humanity". We're not even close to a point where this is a relevant observation and have never been.
As to dialectics, you have yet to use it. For example, we have yet to have a contradiction "in a mode of production". It's yet another symptom of Marxism that most of its supposed contradictions (the targets of the dialectic approach) don't exist, either because there isn't a contradiction or the supposed contradiction is so poorly defined as to be meaningless.
This just furthers my argument that Marxism is a disease of human thought. Every time you've invoked it, there's been fallacies, slanted rhetoric, denial of reality, ill-defined concepts, and just plain babble. Further, when it's been implemented for real, there's been a lot of human suffering and death. Maybe it's time to think for yourself?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday January 05 2017, @12:26AM
We're not even close to a point where this is a relevant observation and have never been.
Um, khallow? What is the topic of this thread? Foxconn? Robotics? Remember?
Maybe it's time to think for yourself?
Funny, Hegel said:
Properly speaking, "in his own thinking" is a pleonasm; every man must think for himself, no one can think for another, any more than he can eat or drink for another. It is this moment of the self, plus the form which is produced in thinking, the form of universal laws, principles, fundamental determinations, in short the form of universality, that philosophy has in common with those sciences, philosophical points of view, representations, etc., of which we have been speaking; they are what has given all of them the name philosophy.
Hegel, Introduction to the Lectures on the History of Philosophy
So, maybe it is time you just started thinking?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 05 2017, @05:06AM
Um, khallow? What is the topic of this thread? Foxconn? Robotics? Remember?
One company out of millions and possibly a few tens of thousands of workers out of billions. Consider the fallacy of equating the whole with a really small part of it.
Properly speaking, "in his own thinking" is a pleonasm; every man must think for himself, no one can think for another, any more than he can eat or drink for another.
Math is a classic example of others thinking for another. People rarely put the same effort into the math as the original discoverers yet they can still manage to use it effectively. A considerable bit of thinking is encoded in each algorithm and concept. One similarly can describe all of science and literature as a mass of examples of people thinking for others. We don't reinvent the wheel, but build on the output of others.
Similarly, we have cases of people and animals eating and drinking for another. The peculiar career of food tasters are a historical example of people eating and drinking for another. I also recall an example of an elderly lion with bad teeth whose pride of lionesses would chew his food for him. It's also worth noting that parasites typically coerce another animal to eat and drink for them.
So the claim and its analogy are both in error.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday January 05 2017, @05:40AM
My God, khallow! You are insane! Allow me to demonstrate:
Math is a classic example of others thinking for another.
Is this what is wrong with almost all programmers, not to generalize, that they do not understand the basic features of thinking? No wonder AI has eluded us, if its purported creators are so unintelligent. Alright, we will start at the very beginning. (It's a very good place to start!)
.;
Boethius said, in The Consolation of Philosophy (and it has been repeated by many other philosophers, notably Immanuel Kant), that all rational being have free will. Now stop, let's just follow through the ideas. In mathematics, if we look at some alleged equation, you have to ask yourself, "what makes that true?" We are not going to get into the larger questions of determinism or free will here, but just ask yourself. why does 7+5=12, for example? Could it be something else? Have you been conditioned by your Marxist influenced professors at University to think something that is not true? No, Boethius is saying that any rational being is free because what makes the math true is their own judgment that it is. Once you understand the equation, you have to judge that it is correct. If you do not, you do not understand. But it is not any external power that is dictating truth to you.
.
Stay with me on this. You cannot convince anyone of anything, if they do not understand what it is that you are saying. If what you are saying is correct, it is not your argument that convinces your opponent, it is their own understanding. This is why we go round and round, khallow! I understand that the only way to understand is to understand for yourself. You, on the other hand, seem to think that ideas can be shoved down your throat, that people can be "brainwashed", and that the only thing that matters is who prevails in the physical realm. All this is sadly mistaken. So, again, instead of insults, insinuations of mental disability, give us some rational argument that we can understand, and judge the merits of for ourselves. That is all we ask.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 06 2017, @12:55AM
Is this what is wrong with almost all programmers, not to generalize, that they do not understand the basic features of thinking?
Sounds to me like they understand thinking better than you do.
No wonder AI has eluded us, if its purported creators are so unintelligent.
You're welcome to give it a try.
that all rational being have free will
Already running into the assumptions. First, that there is free will. That's something I'm willing to allow. But then the assumption that rational beings have free will? That's pretty shaky ground. Optimally rational decisions (with respect to some criteria, else there's no basis for claiming someone is rational) tend to be very constrained (something like a Nash equilibrium or Pareto optimum) which tends to be deterministic in that another optimally rational being would have the same strategy, given the same context and goals. At that point, there's no distinction between an optimally rational actor with free will, and an optimally rational machine running an appropriate optimization algorithm.
You cannot convince anyone of anything, if they do not understand what it is that you are saying.
But convincing is frequently far less effort, thinking-wise, than coming up with the idea in the first place. A classic example are NP complete problems (NP means "nondeterministic polynomial time"). Determining the answer to a NP complete problem, is as far as we know, exponentially hard to compute in the size of the statement of the problem, but has a certificate (which is equivalently hard to construct in the first place) proving the answer which is polynomial in computation to verify.
While computation is a very narrow form of thinking, it remains that it is vastly easier to convince someone of a valid answer to such a problem than it is to come up with the answer in the first place. This is typical of mathematical proofs as well even though most such solved math problems aren't NP complete.
Thus, we have our example of how one person can think for another.
Moving on, your stable of philosophers put a great deal of effort into constructing written works which you quoted from. You don't have to go through the effort of writing the book. And you don't have the years of testing these ideas (well, your persona does, but the monkey behind the keyboard does not) that these philosophers do (though one wishes that Marx, at least, would have listened to critics a lot more than he did). So these philosophers have done a great deal of thinking which you have proceeded to copy/paste onto SN. That's a typical example of others thinking for you. They've done all this work so you don't have to.
You, on the other hand, seem to think that ideas can be shoved down your throat, that people can be "brainwashed", and that the only thing that matters is who prevails in the physical realm.
Marx is a great example of this in action. He isn't still in our minds because his reasoning was so profound, but rather because his teachings have affected billions of people, including brainwashing in Marxist concepts at the national level.
So, again, instead of insults, insinuations of mental disability, give us some rational argument that we can understand, and judge the merits of for ourselves.
Rational argument for what exactly? There's not much to argue against with Marxism. It's a cesspool as I already noted repeatedly and promotes a dysfunctional worldview where important parts of society (such as the owner of capital) are completely discounted merely because they're inconvenient to the narrative of one of the most famous wish-fulfillment fantasies of history.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday January 06 2017, @04:53AM
As Reagan used to say, "there you go again!"
Rational argument for what exactly? There's not much to argue against with Marxism. It's a cesspool as I already noted repeatedly and promotes a dysfunctional worldview where important parts of society (such as the owner of capital) are completely discounted merely because they're inconvenient to the narrative of one of the most famous wish-fulfillment fantasies of history.
Not much to argue with, again, because you do not understand economics as a discipline. While it is true that most capitalists, and libertarians, are morally reprehensible excuses for humanity, this is neither here nor there. And you confuse Marxism with Marxist-Leninism, an entirely different beast, or with Marxist-Leninist_Maoism, and lets not even mention the hereditary "communist" monarchy that is North Korea. You are arguing like a jmorris now, which is to say you are not arguing at all.
.
You may not know this, but as a philosopher, I have taught an awful lot. Your assertion that it is harder to come up with an idea that to convince someone else of its truth does not wash in my experience! It is much easier to come up with ideas that it is to give them to someone else! In fact, that perfectly describes the situation here. So read some Richardo and Say, some Malthus and Adam Smith, and maybe the understanding of economics as a science could become clear to you.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday January 07 2017, @01:11AM
You may not know this, but as a philosopher, I have taught an awful lot.
You might not know this, but I've taught a bit too.
Your assertion that it is harder to come up with an idea that to convince someone else of its truth does not wash in my experience!
And of course, it is completely different in my experience. So there we go.
Not much to argue with, again, because you do not understand economics as a discipline. While it is true that most capitalists, and libertarians, are morally reprehensible excuses for humanity, this is neither here nor there.
And now unfounded assertions again. You're like the geyser basins of Yellowstone. You're never quiet. There's always crap spurting up somewhere in your posts.
In my defense, I'm not the one confusing understanding with agreement. And why should I care what you think is morally reprehensible?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday January 08 2017, @08:32PM
In my defense, I'm not the one confusing understanding with agreement. And why should I care what you think is morally reprehensible?
Ah, the "khallow defense"! I was expecting this. So why does a six-foot tall Wookie live on the Moon of Endor, with Ewoks? If only you were not confused, and actually understood. Then we might agree. But so long as you are stuck in an ideological black hole, there is no point. And you do care, khallow; you're not a monster! We're making better worlds, all of them. Better worlds.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 08 2017, @10:23PM
Among other things, it means that discussing it only as a feature of a capitalist system is misguided.
Second, we have rising wages [voxeu.org] throughout the world (despite, I might add, FatPhil's bizarre and irrelevant insistence [soylentnews.org] on Simpson's paradox, which is merely an observation that parts can experience different outcomes than the whole). That indicates that somehow the combination of demand and supply is changing in a way that supports higher wages. Labor supply isn't going down - there's more people than ever hooked up to the global labor market. So we are left with the obvious conclusion that despite considerable technological innovation, there is more demand for labor than there was twenty years ago. That lead to my sometime ago conclusion that technological innovation creates more better jobs than it destroys - just like it has for a number of centuries.
You also posited:
So the question is, how do you replace wages as the source of effective demand?
I noted here that the question simply wasn't worth asking. For example, you're ignoring the equally important economic demand from employers. And there are plenty of large parts of the world which see growing consumer demand. So even from the context of your question, there's no need to replace wages for its perceived role.
Then you claimed
khallow is wrong about job replacement, it is job displacement.
without even a little supporting evidence for the claim.
So what was your insightful opinion on these concerns? Nu-huh [soylentnews.org]!
Yes, they are.
Looks to me like the whole basis for your criticism of my posts has simply been that my posts disagree with your assertions (and in turn this bubble-headed assertion is the basis for my assertion that you are confusing agreement with understanding). Once again, your posts in this thread have been a near endless stream of unfounded accusations and assertions. You might indeed teach philosophy, but you don't seem to have even a basic grasp of how to argue philosophy.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday January 11 2017, @08:25AM
Actually, this is highly amusing.
You might indeed teach philosophy, but you don't seem to have even a basic grasp of how to argue philosophy.
I love it when laypersons try to explain how what I am doing is not philosophy, when they have no grasp of what philosophy is, other than that they disagree with what they think I have said. Come now, khallow. You actually have admitted all my points. You just refuse to acknowledge the logical conclusions. That's alright. I'm sure you will come to understand all these things in the future.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 11 2017, @03:23PM
I love it when laypersons try to explain how what I am doing is not philosophy, when they have no grasp of what philosophy is, other than that they disagree with what they think I have said.
All I can say is that you fit a typical profile of many dozens of posters who can be bothered to tell me I'm wrong, but have a remarkable inability to explain why. Idiots in one word. You could start to disprove this impression by actually addressing my original concerns rather than gloat over "doing" philosophy.
For example, you asserted at the beginning that "capital intensification" was a useful Marxist concept. But you have yet to address the problems of the concept, as you used it, such as: it being specific to capitalism even though it appears anywhere there is technological innovation that improves the efficiency of labor, ignoring that capital is a multiplier of labor rather than merely a substitute (the idea of capital costs of production going up while the increasing valuable labor doesn't go up runs counter to actual experiences in modern industry even in the developed world), it doesn't address accompanying job creation, and retains Marxism's peculiar obsession with labor.
That doesn't sound useful to me once we consider your disinterest in improving on the term.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday January 12 2017, @03:02AM
khallow, it's not about me, it's about you!
many dozens of posters who can be bothered to tell me I'm wrong, but have a remarkable inability to explain why. Idiots in one word.
All idiots, eh? What is the common factor here? Could not their inability to explain be the inverse quality of your inability to understand? Just something to keep in mind.
even though it appears anywhere there is technological innovation that improves the efficiency of labor,
Except that technology does not appear much outside of a competitive capitalist system. Do you know how much technological progress there was in the middle ages? In fact, technology is often suppressed in feudal and other systems, because it does threaten the power structure.
ignoring that capital is a multiplier of labor rather than merely a substitute
Well, if it was, it would seem that the increase would go to labor, rather than capital? Again, this will get you going all "Marxist moralism", and we don't need that. But as I was trying to point out to you in your "labor" journal, capital is labor, just sunk labor, and technology (knowledge, generally) is capital. Capital does not come in from outside the economy!
(the idea of capital costs of production going up while the increasing valuable labor doesn't go up runs counter to actual experiences in modern industry even in the developed world),
Ah, there's your problem. Who said anything about capital costs going up? Capital intensification means the proportion of capital, as compared to labor, increases. Costs could actually be decreasing. But the point is that in fair market with free information, the capital costs for all capitalists would be the same. So the only place to compete is in introducing more technology, increasing the percentage of capital in the production process, which then reduces the relative advantage of the capitalist vis-a-vis other competitors when they catch up, until eventually, all production will be at cost: no profit.
I think you are still missing the fact that Marx's is a historical theory, meant to explain why and how economies develop. It is not so much a blueprint for some utopia. In Marx's ideal communist world, we would all work in Yellowstone, and be able to go fishing in the morning and geyser viewing in the afternoon.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 12 2017, @05:17AM
Except that technology does not appear much outside of a competitive capitalist system. Do you know how much technological progress there was in the middle ages? In fact, technology is often suppressed in feudal and other systems, because it does threaten the power structure.
Technology has been fundamental to human development. Some eras and systems have been better or faster at it than others, but there's never been a time without some sort of development. And in the modern age, there's been other economic systems, notably Leninist or Maoist communism and various flavors of fascism that had heavy technology development as well.
many dozens of posters who can be bothered to tell me I'm wrong, but have a remarkable inability to explain why. Idiots in one word.
All idiots, eh? What is the common factor here? Could not their inability to explain be the inverse quality of your inability to understand? Just something to keep in mind.
An inability to explain. I already stated that. I'll note that most posters don't have this problem.
ignoring that capital is a multiplier of labor rather than merely a substitute
Well, if it was, it would seem that the increase would go to labor, rather than capital? Again, this will get you going all "Marxist moralism", and we don't need that. But as I was trying to point out to you in your "labor" journal, capital is labor, just sunk labor, and technology (knowledge, generally) is capital. Capital does not come in from outside the economy!
Why would the increase only go to labor? And merely saying "capital is labor" really isn't saying anything (particularly, when you're simultaneously dividing the two). We could after all say that everything is energy, capital (labor would be human capital in action), dollars, or Pokemon cards with similar justification. While I can see cases where valuing everything in terms of labor (particularly, if that's what you have) is useful, but the economy has gone well beyond that. I suppose you could labor that capital intensification or whatever.
There's a similar situation in space economics. Everything we do in space now has to be completely supported from Earth, which also currently is where the vast majority of our stuff is too. Thus, it makes sense for the present to consider everything strictly in terms of the inputs from Earth and the resulting value to Earth of the products of the space activity. But at some point, there will be economic activity which doesn't involve Earth, then the model of valuing everything in terms of what it does for Earth will break down.
My view is that we already see the creation of parts of the economy that aren't labor-based. For example, high frequency trade in a stock market is a classic example. There are all sorts of interesting things going on, but it's not based on human labor. Nor is it particularly relevant to human labor aside from causing some humans to think that they need to do something about this for some reason. And you certainly can't eat the data that is being shoveled around.
So the only place to compete is in introducing more technology, increasing the percentage of capital in the production process, which then reduces the relative advantage of the capitalist vis-a-vis other competitors when they catch up, until eventually, all production will be at cost: no profit.
Sorry, this still sounds like an ill-thought concept. You speak of commoditization, which is different from capital intensification. In practice, we've found all sorts of ways to add value to that. Some of it is heavily psychological, like branding. But there's also vertical integration where low profit endeavors are globbed together with value-added services and whatnot to generate a higher profit activity.
I think you are still missing the fact that Marx's is a historical theory, meant to explain why and how economies develop. It is not so much a blueprint for some utopia. In Marx's ideal communist world, we would all work in Yellowstone, and be able to go fishing in the morning and geyser viewing in the afternoon.
That's not so. I agree that historical analysis (skewed IMHO) is part of the theory, but it's quite clear from political tracts like the Communist Manifesto, that communism, both the theory and practice are a means to a utopian end. In particular, a purely explanatory theory wouldn't need to take sides as Marx repeatedly does with the variety of rhetorical dodges I've noted before.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday January 12 2017, @05:40AM
I will not attempt to teach you further until you learn to use the quote tags properly. You should know better, khallow!
(oh, and this "non-labor based" bullshit to which you refer? Not economic activity, produces nothing. Pure gambling and speculation. This is why so many confuse the stock market with capitalism and the economy as a whole. khallow, do you know what value actually is? When you are light-years from our solar system with your nickel coin, you may come to the conclusion that a single human life is worthless. It is the connection to others, the shared labor, that makes being human what it is. Come home, khallow, come home.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 12 2017, @06:31AM
When you are light-years from our solar system with your nickel coin, you may come to the conclusion that a single human life is worthless
It's interesting how many people didn't like my answer [soylentnews.org] to the question:
If you had a trillion dollars and wanted to keep hold of it, what would you buy and do?
You won't get a significantly better answer even though I'm not interested in owning a trillion dollars for a trillion years in this way.
This is why so many confuse the stock market with capitalism and the economy as a whole. khallow, do you know what value actually is?
Would you happen to be one of those people? Because no one else in this thread has made this confusion. Capitalism does imply existence of capital markets, because trading capital is part of private ownership of capital. But I agree that capital markets aren't the whole of the capitalist economy.
And value depends on what you think value is. There are an uncountable infinite number of possible valuations, all equally irrelevant except for the measure zero (not even big enough to be vanishingly small) set of valuations actually used.
It is the connection to others, the shared labor, that makes being human what it is.
Nice feelgood. Still doesn't make up for the fact that there's no return policy for a human life and the tech support line sucks.
I will not attempt to teach you further until you learn to use the quote tags properly.
Bah, ok, I'll repost it. I forgot to preview after the last few paragraphs.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 12 2017, @06:37AM
Except that technology does not appear much outside of a competitive capitalist system. Do you know how much technological progress there was in the middle ages? In fact, technology is often suppressed in feudal and other systems, because it does threaten the power structure.
Technology has been fundamental to human development. Some eras and systems have been better or faster at it than others, but there's never been a time without some sort of development. And in the modern age, there's been other economic systems, notably Leninist or Maoist communism and various flavors of fascism that had heavy technology development as well.
many dozens of posters who can be bothered to tell me I'm wrong, but have a remarkable inability to explain why. Idiots in one word.
All idiots, eh? What is the common factor here? Could not their inability to explain be the inverse quality of your inability to understand? Just something to keep in mind.
An inability to explain. I already stated that. I'll note that most posters don't have this problem.
ignoring that capital is a multiplier of labor rather than merely a substitute
Well, if it was, it would seem that the increase would go to labor, rather than capital? Again, this will get you going all "Marxist moralism", and we don't need that. But as I was trying to point out to you in your "labor" journal, capital is labor, just sunk labor, and technology (knowledge, generally) is capital. Capital does not come in from outside the economy!
Why would the increase only go to labor? And merely saying "capital is labor" really isn't saying anything (particularly, when you're simultaneously dividing the two). We could after all say that everything is energy, capital (labor would be human capital in action), dollars, or Pokemon cards with similar justification. While I can see cases where valuing everything in terms of labor (particularly, if that's what you have) is useful, but the economy has gone well beyond that. I suppose you could labor that capital intensification or whatever.
There's a similar situation in space economics. Everything we do in space now has to be completely supported from Earth, which also currently is where the vast majority of our stuff is too. Thus, it makes sense for the present to consider everything strictly in terms of the inputs from Earth and the resulting value to Earth of the products of the space activity. But at some point, there will be economic activity which doesn't involve Earth, then the model of valuing everything in terms of what it does for Earth will break down.
My view is that we already see the creation of parts of the economy that aren't labor-based. For example, high frequency trade in a stock market is a classic example. There are all sorts of interesting things going on, but it's not based on human labor. Nor is it particularly relevant to human labor aside from causing some humans to think that they need to do something about this for some reason. And you certainly can't eat the data that is being shoveled around.
So the only place to compete is in introducing more technology, increasing the percentage of capital in the production process, which then reduces the relative advantage of the capitalist vis-a-vis other competitors when they catch up, until eventually, all production will be at cost: no profit.
Sorry, this still sounds like an ill-thought concept. You speak of commoditization, which is different from capital intensification. In practice, we've found all sorts of ways to add value to that. Some of it is heavily psychological, like branding. But there's also vertical integration where low profit endeavors are globbed together with value-added services and whatnot to generate a higher profit activity.
I think you are still missing the fact that Marx's is a historical theory, meant to explain why and how economies develop. It is not so much a blueprint for some utopia. In Marx's ideal communist world, we would all work in Yellowstone, and be able to go fishing in the morning and geyser viewing in the afternoon.
That's not so. I agree that historical analysis (skewed IMHO) is part of the theory, but it's quite clear from political tracts like the Communist Manifesto, that communism, both the theory and practice are a means to a utopian end. In particular, a purely explanatory theory wouldn't need to take sides as Marx repeatedly does with the variety of rhetorical dodges I've noted before.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday January 12 2017, @07:05AM
I enjoy our little talks, khallow. Truly I do. But you are not playing fair. Marx does not take sides, there are no sides, there is just the mode of production in its historical context. Are you really treating economics like global warming? Don't make us have to tarbaby you again! So I await the next opportunity to educate you, if you remain willing.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 12 2017, @03:40PM
Marx does not take sides
Here's a couple more examples from Das Kapital:
On leaving this sphere of simple circulation or of exchange of commodities, which furnishes the “Free-trader Vulgaris” with his views and ideas, and with the standard by which he judges a society based on capital and wages, we think we can perceive a change in the physiognomy of our dramatis personae. He, who before was the money-owner, now strides in front as capitalist; the possessor of labour-power follows as his labourer. The one with an air of importance, smirking, intent on business; the other, timid and holding back, like one who is bringing his own hide to market and has nothing to expect but — a hiding.
One smirks, the other holds back. Such expressive straw men!
Value, therefore, being the active factor in such a process, and assuming at one time the form of money, at another that of commodities, but through all these changes preserving itself and expanding, it requires some independent form, by means of which its identity may at any time be established. And this form it possesses only in the shape of money. It is under the form of money that value begins and ends, and begins again, every act of its own spontaneous generation. It began by being £100, it is now £110, and so on. But the money itself is only one of the two forms of value. Unless it takes the form of some commodity, it does not become capital. There is here no antagonism, as in the case of hoarding, between the money and commodities. The capitalist knows that all commodities, however scurvy they may look, or however badly they may smell, are in faith and in truth money, inwardly circumcised Jews, and what is more, a wonderful means whereby out of money to make more money.
Why tell us about scurvy, smelly commodities which are inwardly circumcised Jews? I'm sure it advances the philosophical argument somehow to make such derogatory comments.
And of course, Marx's numerous political tracts make it quite clear what sides he favors.
Historically, philosophy is chock full of such games. Plato is notorious for his three way philosophical match ups that always have Socrates on top (with someone that Plato despised usually playing the role of fool). Dunce caps didn't come about due to dispassionate appraisals of John Duns Scott's arguments. And minor villains in Ayn Rand novels get names like Wesley Mouch.
So Marx follows a time-hallowed tradition of abusing straw men and other rhetorical shenanigans. What is the point of insisting otherwise?
(Score: 1) by ben_white on Tuesday January 03 2017, @09:08PM
Close, but not quite. Try this:
Human society will need to adapt to a world where much of what we once considered "work" is done for us by our technology. Not every member of our world can be world class innovator. We have to find meaningful activities for all members of our societies that provide value and reasonable distribution of resources, even if those activities are assigned very low value currently. If we can't make this leap we will tip into chaos as instability provoked by poor resource allocation creates large segments of society with no mooring to technological progress, and therefore no incentive to participate in the complex world it creates. It is my belief that much of the current instability in the world could already be attributed to this phenomena. If you doubt this, look at youth unemployment rates in unstable countries.
--
cheers, ben
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 03 2017, @10:15PM
Yeah, my prediction will be that 1% of people will work making ridiculous amount of money which will then have 90% tax applied to it, to spread around to the other 99%. That is the outcome in the near future until all work is removed, which wont happen for a long time and if it ever did the machines might just opt to kill us instead of serving us.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 04 2017, @12:42AM
Most humans are becoming more and more useless. A small minority with ultra-specialized skills are becoming more and more valuable.
And then there's reality [voxeu.org] - two thirds of all humanity has seen a 30% or greater growth in their income when adjusted for inflation. It boggles my mind how people can keep insisting on this when there are obvious counterexamples out there like the development of China and India's economies, which demonstrate that human labor is not going that way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 04 2017, @03:27AM
A lot at the bottom (undeveloped) went up. So did the few ones at the top (top of developed). And the ones in the top middle (developed and in development) got all the crap while still working like mules to make ends meet. So excuse me if western, latin america or ex communists are not happy about how things went. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-27/get-ready-to-see-this-globalization-elephant-chart-over-and-over-again [bloomberg.com] After 2008, the studies point that all at the bottom got the short stick and only top of top got better (yeah, why that study ended in 2008 but was published in 2014? if taking data to 2012 or 2013 the elephant would be just cobra snake).
Or quoting that paper you linked "if we take a simplistic, but effective, view that democracy is correlated with a large and vibrant middle class, its continued hollowing-out in the rich world would, combined with growth of incomes at the top, imply a movement away from democracy and towards forms of plutocracy." Their words. And the facts 2008-2016 seem to confirm we are going into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonomy [wikipedia.org] and most of the population is left behind.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 05 2017, @12:37AM
yeah, why that study ended in 2008 but was published in 2014?
Published in 2012. A four lag is typical for such data.
if taking data to 2012 or 2013 the elephant would be just cobra snake
Show it then. The authors of that aren't the only ones in the world who can read data sources and construct a graph.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday January 03 2017, @09:08AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Tuesday January 03 2017, @01:09AM
We've had a 1st world living standard since nasty #2 ended, some 70 years ago. The Chinese got a taste some 10-15 years ago, only to have it yanked out from under them due to automation and AI.
Actually, gotta feel for the 90% of the human race that will be displaced in the next 10-15 years.
My hope? Talented, but lazy assholes like Mariah Carey get replaced by VR bots with auto-tune.
/ why yes, I think "entertainers" who can't do their thing live should be called out
// You lip sync in concert? No ticket sales for you.
/// FFS, when did choreography get more important than talent?
Torpedoes are the only pedos Republicans are willing to fire.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday January 03 2017, @01:11AM
So You Think You Can Dancebot
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Tuesday January 03 2017, @02:35AM
Why would a VR bot need Autotune?
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 03 2017, @03:16AM
Have to agree with the sentiment about autotune. If anything, it'll be the opposite. I'm reminded of R. Instro's piano lessons to R. Dorothy Wayneright. Chakotay had to help Seven with a similar lesson. Small imperfections are what humans find enjoyable.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday January 03 2017, @04:14AM
I'll put it this way: Throughout the history of music, looking the part and often dancing has been part of the job. This notion of, for example, a classical musician playing to a silent and darkened concert hall is an idea that didn't start until the 19th century. Even in classical music since that idea became commonplace, the tuxedos and black dresses are simply the classical music version of the very intentional stage dress of every rock act ever. Especially once you have photography and film, the look often matters more than the music.
A good example of this: Elvis Presley was an exceptional and innovative dancer, but was not a particularly exceptional or creative musician. He managed his look and his moves on stage much like the pop stars do today. Not because he was a fraud, but because that's what everybody does in the music business.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 1) by anubi on Tuesday January 03 2017, @06:13AM
Wasn't it ol' Shakespeare who noted something to the effect that all the world is a stage and we are merely actors?
Seems like my greatest sin was not knowing my lines, but not appearing in the correct costume.
I hated dressing up in suit and tie.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Hairyfeet on Tuesday January 03 2017, @09:51AM
Actually its already hapening [youtube.com]. They only have to record the vowels and consonants once and then the computer does the rest. I predict within 5 years the same will be true for ALL musicians, the computer will simply build the songs from base sounds and since we already know which patterns are pleasing to western ears? It will be trivial to manufacture pop songs.
BTW if you've seen Aerosmith the past 15 years? Its pretty much this, the band is just playing along to the sequencers. No life, no improv since they have to stay in sync with the sequencer, its just automation. Its rapidly getting to the point studios won't need humans, you can have Marilyn Monroe and Steve McQueen in a new thriller with soundtrack by machine, no humans required. Pure profit for the 1%, everyone else be fucked.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday January 03 2017, @11:41AM
The Twist? The Mashed Potato? The Locomotion?
Let's call that well over half a century.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 03 2017, @05:02PM
So hey,
I agree with you, but the people that keep voting for circuses are too dumb to notice the lip syncing unless it's very apparent. Then they buy more tickets anyway.
They don't want to be inconvenienced with the reality of performer huffing and puffing during the dance routine -- and the dance routines aren't going away, because you know sex sells. The albums already did, that is not really why people are going to these performances. They already heard it before, but they want to see people shake..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 03 2017, @01:19AM
After they stop hiring, the attrition from suicide will clear the way for the new robotic labor force.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 03 2017, @02:11AM
Are steel and subject to faulty grounding with ill maintained overhanging ac wiring...
Given that this is China they may already have it in place :)
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jelizondo on Tuesday January 03 2017, @02:33AM
Think about it for a bit. Back in the time before the Industrial Revolution most people were farmers, during the Industrial Revolution many people moved from the fields into the city and became laborers, i.e. doing manual work alongside the newfangled machines. You didn’t need to know a lot to tend the machine and there was a lot of other work, including jobs for women.
In the later part of last century, we saw a lot of mechanization and automation. Some jobs, such as telephone operator, were lost never to be recovered but there were other jobs springing up, such as customer rep or stuff like that, which is basically answering the phone and reading from a script.
But as automation moves farther and further, there a no jobs left. The machines are built in an automated factory, the maintenance requires very few people thanks to modular design (pop out a module, pop in a new one), the job requires a degree on something or other and the pay is so low, you need another job to make ends meet.
For example, medical and legal services will be the next to go. A medical doctor spends 7 to 10 years in schoool plus several years as an internt, and now is replaced by a computer. A lawyer has to spend at least 5 years in school plus another couple in practice. What sort of jobs will the economy offer them? Flipping burgers? Stacking aisles in the convenience store?
We are in for a substantial change and I do not think any job is safe. And those jobs that are ‘safe’ will be paying a lot less, you know, a lot of people want this job, you gotta make do with less.
And there is a hell of a lot more people than 150 years ago. Think about it. The situation looks like the Industrial Revolution but the variables are much greater and so will be the outcome: either we move forward into some sort of utopia or there will be blood in the streets in every developed country.
I'll be happy to hear your thoughts and comments, particularly if you disagree.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 03 2017, @02:42AM
You, sir, have it made, and I'll tell you why. You can spit out an opinion piece on demand. Now what you do is you publish a collection of your opinion pieces on a blog. Then you run pop under advertising on your blog. Don't use banner ads. Don't use pop up ads. Only use pop under ads. That way your blog looks like it doesn't have ads, until your visitors have already read your opinion pieces. You'll make it rich in no time.
See? There are plenty of jobs left, for scummy bloggers.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday January 03 2017, @03:44AM
Is wealth absolute or relative? That is, is it important to have enough to live in reasonable comfort, or is it more important to be ahead of your neighbors?
All this automation is going to create more wealth at less expense. We will all be richer. We need to be more careful we don't let the greedy among us exploit antiquated legal and social customs to hoard the majority of the wealth. The Microsoft Empire rests on an incorrect simplification of property. They've partnered with Big Media and Big Pharma to make "intellectual property" law and social custom be just like property law, tried to bury the distinction between the material and the immaterial.
Automation already has made human labor much less valuable, and that trend is not slowing down. We shouldn't just coast along and allow this trend to cause mass unemployment and resentment from that. Will employment as we know it become a thing of the past, and our children will be able to live a comfortable life without ever working, and that will be okay, they won't face massive social stigma for being unemployed?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jelizondo on Tuesday January 03 2017, @04:06AM
Thank you for your reply and insight.
I believe that having enough is sufficient. Do you really need the latest and greatest sports car? I can tell no, after owning a couple of them. The reason I changed my mind was that, a little late, I learned that all the money in the world does not stop time and while one is busy getting money, life is passing you and leaving you with nothing, not even the money you fought to get.
I missed most of the important dates of my son and two daughters. I was lucky to realize I was very mistaken in time to share a lot of time with my youngest daughter. I don’t make as much money as before but we have a solid relationship, and I value that over having a great car.
Towards the future, I worry that the greedy will try to get most of everything for themselves and leave as little as possible for everyone else. When you get too many people down at rock-bottom, they have nothing to lose and therefore they can take great risks in trying to change their situation.
Some think that a popular revolt has not chance against drones and other modern weapons, but they forget that the people pulling the trigger are not the oligarchs, but regular Joes who could turn against their masters. But their turning would not prevent a bloodbath and I fear a reenactment of the French Revolution: Off with their heads! Starting with the king and culminating with the leaders of the revolt.
How much blood would have to be spilt before the oligarchs realize that we don’t want their private jets or private islands, but just a decent living? I believe that having this conversation now, exploring possibilities, could save us from a lot of grief before it comes to blows.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 03 2017, @07:27AM
I think an even baser instinct is at work here and greed is just a dress for it - we will continue to have a basic instinct to compete with each other to attract a partner. For as long as that competitiveness is here, there will always be imbalance, and enough of us will be subservient to that instinct that government will make sure you can't have your cake and eat it too, so to say.
(Score: 2) by driven on Tuesday January 03 2017, @02:00PM
"Some think that a popular revolt has not chance against drones and other modern weapons, but they forget that the people pulling the trigger are not the oligarchs, but regular Joes who could turn against their masters. But their turning would not prevent a bloodbath and I fear a reenactment of the French Revolution: Off with their heads! Starting with the king and culminating with the leaders of the revolt."
Don't forget the premise of the article: that robots are replacing workers. Robots will surely be able to perform police/military duties by the time such a revolution happens. Especially if it were to get to a point where exercising discretion was not important (eg. if it moves, kill it - we already have that level of technology).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 03 2017, @10:05AM
All this automation is going to create more wealth at less expense.
This is BS. Yes, machines create wealth faster than people ever can. No, it will not be divided equally...
Guy works at factory. Robot replaces worker. Worker dies homeless. Factory owner gets fatter even faster.
That's what's going to happen. Perhaps a revolution of two along the way if we're lucky.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 03 2017, @10:08AM
Goddamn I f'd up my quote leaving out the silly end I object with
"All this automation is going to create more wealth at less expense. We will all be richer."
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday January 03 2017, @03:49AM
They're lucky they can pay people $8.25/hr as those jobs can be automated too. McDonald's has already demonstrated that they are prepared to fight fair wage increases with automation.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 03 2017, @03:56AM
Full service gas stations weren't even automated away. The business just forces the customer to work for free and calls it self service instead.
(Score: 2) by jelizondo on Tuesday January 03 2017, @05:14AM
I saw this kind of thing in Cuba back in the late 70s. They had engineers and architects cutting sugarcane because they had no jobs for them. If a young doctor or engineer can’t get a job even flipping burgers, how are they going to make a living?
Years ago a good education, I mean a degree in something or other, was a sure-fire way to get a decent job making enough money to support a family. Nowadays, just to get in the door you need a diploma and that’s for an entry level position. Does it make sense to spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for a college degree when it doesn’t buy you a decent job?
Jokingly, I think, someone else posted about VR and entertainers, but think about CGI and special effects and all of a sudden your favorite actor is simply created on demand by software. Think of a future when all the famous actors and actresses are no longer millionaires, because they are virtual while some large corporation pockets all those millions they now have to pay to DiCaprio, Cruise or Johansson. If they don’t have a chance, what can we lowly serfs expect?
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Tuesday January 03 2017, @05:29PM
"I'll be happy to hear your thoughts and comments, particularly if you disagree."
Bernie Sanders will get elected in 2020 and he is going to make everything free.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 03 2017, @10:59PM
...both of them.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Tuesday January 03 2017, @11:28PM
A link to the source of the quote [theverge.com] was omitted from the summary.