SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Despite innovations that make it easier for seniors to keep living on their own rather than moving into special facilities, most elderly people eventually need a hand with chores and other everyday activities.
Friends and relatives often can't do all the work. Growing evidence indicates it's neither sustainable nor healthy for seniors or their loved ones. Yet demand for professional caregivers already far outstrips supply, and experts say this workforce shortage will only get worse.
So how will our society bridge this elder-care gap? In a word, robots.
Just as automation has begun to do jobs previously seen as uniquely suited for humans, like retrieving goods from warehouses, robots will assist your elderly relatives.
Would you entrust grandma to Johnny 5?
(Score: 1, Troll) by crafoo on Tuesday August 29 2017, @12:39PM (5 children)
Now that the Greatest Generation and their children are finished strip-mining the future it's time to put those good for nothing kids to work wiping elder assholes. They should be thankful for the job. Lazy whiner cowards. If they wanted something better they should have worked harder! After all, we did our part. We partied. We sold out the country to jewish corporations. We demoralized the youth, mortgaged their future, and then set up a system of convenient debt-slavery to investment banks! We tried to give corporations complete control with NAFTA and TPP but those little fuckers voted the second time around! I tell you what, that's gratitude for you, you know?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @02:52PM (2 children)
You know, there's no better way to damage a valid argument than throwing in a bit of disproportionate antisemitism into the mix. I mean, if you're going to complain about selling out, shouldn't you have started off with Chinese sweatshops, Japanese automakers, Belgium & other Euro-trash tax evaders, Saudi oil princes, Brazilian drug lords and oil barons, Swiss bankers and so on? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Composition_of_U.S._Long-Term_Treasury_Debt_2000-2014.svg [wikipedia.org]
Really, what you're saying is mostly valid... It's just that you need to get your priorities in order. "jewish corporation" might get an up-vote from some hicks and teens, but it's no better than selling indulgences. It's damaging misinformation that prevents people from identifying and resolving the real issues at hand. Whenever some fool goes around blaming one minority or the next, nothing gets done. Is there something in the law so preferential to Jews or Blacks that it screwed the whole economy? What we have is bought-and-paid-for tax code. Regulation tailored for big corporations. Copyright laws preventing competition. Healthcare that drives you to bankruptcy... Fix all that crap and then we'll evaluate how much minorities are to blame.
(Score: 1) by crafoo on Tuesday August 29 2017, @04:20PM (1 child)
Maybe instead of dismissing it out of hand you should do a bit of research into who owns and controls the majority of investment banks and media corporations.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday August 29 2017, @05:27PM
Generally speaking, the person making the claim is expected to provide evidence for it.
I see that you've already moved the goalposts from "corporations" to "banks and media" but I bet you can't even prove that reduced scope.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @03:20PM
I agree with the other AC. You were going good until you worried only about Jewish corporations. I'm not sure what makes a corporation Jewish to be honest. Corporations are immortal, transnational, incorporeal (can't be jailed), sociopathic legal fictions. Don't just be concerned about the “Jewish” ones. Be concerned about the Christian and Moslem corporations as well. Be concerned about the atheist corporations. Again, I don't know what would make a corporation any of those things. If you have criteria you apply to determine these things, that's great. However, I would encourage you to focus more on the immortal, transnational, incorporeal, and sociopathic aspects of corporations and instead of limiting your vision to only one subset of the problem.
Plus, as the other AC mentioned, people might think you're an anti-Semite, which works against you. Be an anti-corporatite instead.
(Score: 2) by Sulla on Tuesday August 29 2017, @05:44PM
Feels good living in a world with a decreasing standard of living.
Thanks Boomers!
I really wish millennials could pay into social security but not pull from it, end this scourge with our generation taking the largest hit. Rather do that then pass the buck to my kids.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by Valkor on Tuesday August 29 2017, @12:53PM (11 children)
tbh Johnny 5 is the only bot I'd trust with my family.
(Score: 2) by Fnord666 on Tuesday August 29 2017, @01:02PM
What, you don't trust AMEE [imdb.com]?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @01:56PM (3 children)
I'd be willing to trust a robot. However, I would _not_ trust that it's not collecting and sharing data on me. Imagine the privacy and health insurance implications, for starters.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday August 29 2017, @02:05PM (2 children)
Past 80-85, I think you can exclude privacy and health insurance implications as a major concerns.
(a-a-a-aaa... don't go there, you have no argument. At that age, heath insurance does not need to spy on you, the first hospitalization will tell them all they need to take a decision)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 1) by ewk on Wednesday August 30 2017, @12:24PM (1 child)
Call me cynical, but eventually the insurance company will make the trade off between 'care' or 'coffin'...
What better spy for providing the information needed for that decision than the care-bot?
I don't always react, but when I do, I do it on SoylentNews
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday August 30 2017, @01:05PM
Cynical? Don't be offended, but I'd call you naive.
Of course their choice will favour "coffin" and, if the insured is over 80, it's a good bet they'll go for it and deny claims.
For the simple reason that you'll need to win a suit against them to get your money.
Good luck fighting against their lawyers when you need money to pay for your health.
Some examples [abc.net.au] in the part of the world I live
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday August 29 2017, @01:59PM (1 child)
Mmmm... I'm quite afraid all you'll get is an ED-209 (of Robocop fame); extrapolating the way the things progress now, that's likely all your family will be able to afford when you'll be old enough. Even more, it will be on a shared lease, co-contributed by many families - don't worry, even if not cheap it won't be terrible expensive, the lease won't be necessary for longer than few minutes/family.
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday August 29 2017, @03:11PM
Nah, I think they'll have a more pleasant response than that, because it's better for public relations. Something along these lines [youtube.com].
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @02:40PM
Yeah, he at least took the effort to follow our immigration laws and became naturalized.
(Score: 3, Touché) by hoeferbe on Tuesday August 29 2017, @03:16PM (1 child)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:53PM
I saw this the other day and enjoyed it. You beat me to the reference.
(Score: 2) by richtopia on Tuesday August 29 2017, @03:54PM
It depends specifically who in my family we are talking about... but GlaDOS comes to mind as a caretaker.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by soylentnewsfan1 on Tuesday August 29 2017, @02:18PM (2 children)
I won't spoil it, but things go very very wrong.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @03:27PM
Done right (if that's possible), an automated hospital bed could be a useful thing. Our 95 year old friend wound up in the hospital the other day with bronchitis. As expected, the hospital staff are overworked and can't really provide the timely care that would be hoped for. Prompt response to a call for assistance isn't always available, leading to messy accidents.
A smart bed could also provide various kinds of movement, helping to prevent problems. For example, our friend refused a shot of heparin (anti clotting) every day. We asked an older, experienced nurse why the doc tried to give this and the reply was a little scary--we got a very candid two part answer: It's to prevent clots from inactivity, but for most people this is not a big problem for a few days. The hospital gets reimbursed for these shots, so the staff are told to push them on everyone.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday August 29 2017, @05:28PM
Roujin Z: definite classic if you've never seen it!
In fact, I might have to find a copy for a re-watch this weekend.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday August 29 2017, @03:04PM (4 children)
Here's how you correct a shortage of workers in a particular field:
1. Make it better-paying than other kinds of work.
2. Make it possible for people who haven't done it before to get into the field.
3. Make sure that the job is pleasant enough that those who have it stay in the field rather than burning out.
Of course, that would put a dent in the massive profits going to home health care agencies and nursing homes, but it would solve the problem at least as well as robots can. Among other things, care-giving is one of those areas where actual human touch makes a demonstrable difference.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by leftover on Tuesday August 29 2017, @04:05PM
This, exactly! It is "radical" in the sense of being simple, correct, and never to be heard in B-schools or boardrooms. There is really not a shortage of kind and trustworthy people who would do this job if they could make even a modest living at it.
Bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated.
(Score: 2) by choose another one on Tuesday August 29 2017, @04:32PM
It's all relative. If care-giving is one of those areas where actual human touch makes a demonstrable difference then it should, logically, be one of the last occupations to be done by robots, in which case there won't _be_ any other kinds of work, so then (1) applies, (2) applies because there aren't any other fields and (3) applies because there aren't any other fields to leave this one for.
Also not sure about the "massive profits" in care home sector, where I am it is reckoned to be the only industry sector where insolvencies have risen over the past few years (and certainly not a sector I would invest in at the moment - but then most of my investments are duds so what do I know), source: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/05/social-care-crisis-record-number-of-uk-homes-declared-insolvent [theguardian.com]
(Score: 1) by crafoo on Tuesday August 29 2017, @04:46PM
More to the point, correcting the shortage of workers in this field is not something anyone cares about, really. Companies will go bankrupt and fold before they offer higher salaries. The entire industry will collapse and a new, more vile, even more cut-throat system will rise to take its place before wages are allowed to increase. C-levels would rather sacrifice quality of care, average life expectancy, lobby for mandatory EoL killbots, and invest in Soylent factories before increasing wages benefits.
Increasing wages, benefits, and improving work conditions means lower quarterly profits for at least a few quarters. You might as well just ask them to cut off their own balls. Never going to happen. Never ever.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:25PM
That's reasonable, but the better question is what proportion of the labor force are we willing to allocate to elder care? There's a lot of boomers. If we give good care with humans to all of them, how many humans are leftover for everything else?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by donkeyhotay on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:10PM (2 children)
I'm within about 12 years of retirement age. I would actually prefer a robot for a lot of tasks, provided it is reliable. That's the only problem with tech. It seems like everything I encounter is broken or unreliable in some way. For instance, I just installed a couple of z-wave lights about three weeks ago. They frequently lose their pairing with the hub. Getting them re-paired hardly ever works. In desperation I leave them alone, and then sometimes, they just start working again after six or seven hours. Fine, but I would prefer for them to be back online a bit more immediately. The z-wave smoke alarm never re-pairs. I've given up on it altogether. I only have three IOT devices in my home and they are a complete pain in the ass. I can't imagine having a whole house full of these things. The security cameras also seem pretty finicky.
In general, anything tech-related strikes me as unnecessarily unreliable and prone to breakdown. I've watched friends spend over an hour trying to get a bluetooth speaker to connect to a smart phone just to listen to music. Samsung's gaff with their TV's getting bricked after a software update is another recent example.
But if they can make robots that do what they're supposed to do, reliably. I'm all in favor of having one around to do chores.
(Score: 2) by Common Joe on Wednesday August 30 2017, @09:12PM (1 child)
Under the right conditions, I might prefer robots too. On first glance, it seemed like a good idea. Then I think about Internet 2.0, the sad state of GUIs on the major three OSs, IoT being shoved down our throats, monopolistic Internet and cable companies, and so on and so on and so on. A large percent of the articles on Soylent News deal with stupid crap that goes on that shouldn't. Stupid crap that's obvious to us, but not the general public. (And the powers that be don't want to change it.)
Not only are my in-laws are in a home and my folks aren't far away from it, but I get to see it in two different countries. Right now, senior homes in both places suck for all the reasons listed here and more. It's all 100% human and there's a lot of room for improvement. Seniors are routinely ignored and their medications are screwed up. What I'm concerned about is that adding a layer of robots will shove the concerns of seniors more into a hidden area. That will cause their lives to become worse.
As with anything, robots are a tool. They can be good or bad or both. At this point, I'm not in favor of robots simply because when my wife and I had to yell at someone over the poor treatment my in-laws were receiving, we could at least yell at someone and threaten to go to authorities. When robots become fully integrated, we may not have that option anymore. Of course, that won't be a concern for my in-laws because they'll be long gone. But who will be able to yell for us when we need it? Example? Think about automated phone systems when you call up a company for help. Is the automation helpful or a hinderence? Who does it really benefit?
Just something to think about.
(Score: 2) by donkeyhotay on Friday September 01 2017, @07:42PM
Yes, automated phone systems are a perfect example. A friend and I were having a conversation the other day about technology and the subject got to self-driving cars. I made the comment, "self-driving cars will do for our roads what automated phone systems have done for customer service." He accused me of being a get-off-my-lawn old man. Where he sees this utopia of fewer traffic accidents and more productivity, I see being trapped in an uncomfortable box for an extended period of time while ads are being blared at me. There is a negative side to technology, especially any technology that you don't own or have control over.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Bot on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:28PM
and when the robot apocalypse begins, some of you will still have the nerve to ask us WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS?
Account abandoned.