patrick.net

TwoScoopsMcGee says

Automation is a boogeyman, and if it's cost effective it would happen even if the minimum wage was a $1 and had no border controls at all.

Yes, but a LOT more automation is cost effective at $30/hour labor rate than $1/hour labor rate.

I'm not advocating a race to the bottom to avoid automation, it's coming regardless. But I'm also not pretending that immigration is the cause of the unemployment problem.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

I'd rather have Robots than young Guatemalan Males, anyway. Robots don't join MS/18.

Non-sequitur.

I think automation has to be coupled with AI to really begin wholesale replacement of the real work force. There are just too many variables to program a reliable apple picking robot or a reliable maid for your housekeeping needs.

These are jobs requiring simple easy skills for human beings to learn, but that’s because the skills are being overlaid on an already developed intelligence!

Putting the skills into an unintelligent robot only works until a situation arises the programmers didn’t foresee. Or until a human comes along and fucks with it. Also, the programming of such a robot is both difficult and time intensive, requiring too much in terms of time and capital to produce.

But...

Couple an Artificial Intelligence to your robot, and it will program itself, adapting to changes in the situation on the fly, just like a human would do.
This is why the AI Revolution is really the thing to watch. If done right, and accompanied by the appropriate political and economic changes, it will usher in a utopia that has never before been remotely possible. If done wrong, we may all be nuked by Skynet.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

Robots also:

* Don't fall off Roofs and become the responsibility of the local government paying the Hospital Bill
* Don't have children who demand Citizenship because they were brought in from another country but grew up here.
* Don't require 15 years of instruction, with extra costs because they speak a foreign language at home and don't know English.
* Don't compete for affordable housing
* Don't vote and it would be hard to rig an election with 2XL or C3PO.

Is someone arguing that immigrants are better than robots?

HappyGilmore says

Non-sequitur.

It absolutely Follows.

Robots have a great deal of advantages over immigrants. I went on to list them.

The nation is FAR better off with robot dishwashers than immigrants, as far as I can tell.

Thought of another one:
Unskilled Wage Crushing immigrants don't create or push forward entire new high tech fields. Expanded deployment of robots will.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

It absolutely Follows.

Robots have a great deal of advantages over immigrants. I went on to list them.

lol--but it doesn't follow the discussion. We were talking about how higher wages will lead to more automation.

HappyGilmore says

lol--but it doesn't follow the discussion. We were talking about how higher wages will lead to more automation.

And I'm explaining how if automation is a tradeoff for restricting immigration, it's a better deal than immigration itself.

HappyGilmore says

Is someone arguing that immigrants are better than robots?

You proposed that if we restrict immigration, we'll get more automation.

I'm saying if that is going to happen, let's still restrict immigration, since automation is better than immigration.

Quigley says

I think automation has to be coupled with AI to really begin wholesale replacement of the real work force. There are just too many variables to program a reliable apple picking robot or a reliable maid for your housekeeping needs.

www.youtube.com/embed/mS0coCmXiYU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaL3UxUclKY
This is just the beginning. Computers now beat humans at perception tasks in a limited domain.
Anything that is repetitive within a fixed framework of what can happen is fair game for automation.

NuttBoxer says

The garbage passed off as normal in this consumerist/debt driven society is sickening.

NuttBoxer says


Like actually having a place to live and a job. Sickening!
There should be some space between glorified bum and debt driven consumerism.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

I'm saying if that is going to happen, let's still restrict immigration, since automation is better than immigration.

The real question is: if we get AI and robots, and productivity goes through the roof, will our elites still be keen to take in all the refugees of the earth.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

You proposed that if we restrict immigration, we'll get more automation.

I'm saying if that is going to happen, let's still restrict immigration, since automation is better than immigration.

I didn't say that at all actually. I don't think immigration is the main cause for wage decline--it's been automation all along.

Immigration is simply a tool Trump uses to fire up the base--and it works.

Quigley says

If done wrong, we may all be nuked by Skynet.

Or end up in a police state dictatorship run by a NSA director.

HappyGilmore says

I didn't say that at all actually. I don't think immigration is the main cause for wage decline--it's been automation all along.

This is a fake rational that our elite spread widely at every opportunity, because Americans find it hard to be mad at modernity.
- But this is disproved by the productivity numbers. If automation was rampant, productivity would accelerate, instead it is low and slowing. How do you explain that?
- You also apparently believe that adding a huge supply on a market (the labor market) doesn't depress prices. Tens of millions of workers desperate to do any job for a low wage is of course going to lower prices for the jobs they are doing, and other jobs as people change occupation.

Automation so far was only a factor in manufacturing, now a small share of the US economy.
But this is about to change.

Heraclitusstudent says

The real question is: if we get AI and robots, and productivity goes through the roof, will our elites still be keen to take in all the refugees of the earth.

I assume so, since rental income will still be a thing.

Heraclitusstudent says

But this is about to change.

Unless oil goes to $100+/barrel. Those who push automation think we are on the verge of AI revolution but seem to forget we're not on the verge of Cold Fusion.

The problem with Robots is getting them to interpret their environment. Unlike seeing eye dogs or human toddlers who seem to be wired to grasp it genetically, programmers are having a very hard time getting robots to recognize not just what but where.

Top notch, bleeding edge universities and corporate R&D still struggle to build a robot that can identify a door and figure out how to manipulate the simplest of latches (ie the push down kind, not even the knob kind ye

Imagine the complexity of having a burger flipping robot realize when it needs to get frozen patties from the back freezer, and then obtaining some that weren't perfectly pre-positioned by the robot building team. IE the delivery guy just threw it in the backroom. A human could be like "Asshole threw the box in the corner. Let me pick it up." A robot would be "Missing Patties. Not on appropriate tray holding area. Reorder." Next day asshole driver comes back and throws another box of 100 patties into the walk-in without carefully positioning it on the clearly marked "Pattie receiption tray holding area". Robot orders ANOTHER 100 patties while auto-cashier says "No hamburgers" to all customers for the second day in a row when there are 200 patties in the freezer.


Not trying to be obstructionist, I just don't think the thinking about AI - much less the processing power - is there yet. I remember getting a brain teaser lesson in school "How to explain making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich to an alien" that forever colored my thinking on this.

We'll make an enhancement or even a minor breakthrough, but I think Automation powered by AI is still decades away. I'm skeptical about these things, remembering in the 50s they thought driverless cars and totally automated "Jetson-style" kitchens were literally just a few years away.

Living here in Florida, here is another skeptical thought.

How many people's sole contact with humanity is cashiers and waitresses and the UPS guy?

What happens when those are removed?

Something to consider.

Heraclitusstudent says

Automation so far was only a factor in manufacturing, now a small share of the US economy.
But this is about to change.

Hogwash. How many secretary's and operators were replaced by automated call attendants? How many managers have secretaries now after the computer age?

How many bank tellers have been replaced by ATMs?

How many checkers have been replace by auto-checkout terminals at big box stores?

I could go on and on. Manufacturing, service, you name it. Automation is everywhere.

Heraclitusstudent says

This is a fake rational that our elite spread widely at every opportunity, because Americans find it hard to be mad at modernity.
- But this is disproved by the productivity numbers. If automation was rampant, productivity would accelerate, instead it is low and slowing. How do you explain that?
- You also apparently believe that adding a huge supply on a market (the labor market) doesn't depress prices. Tens of millions of workers desperate to do any job for a low wage is of course going to lower prices for the jobs they are doing, and other jobs as people change occupation.

Easily explained. Just like anything, automation goes first into the areas where it will have the biggest bang or the buck so the productivity increases will be greatest at the beginning of the automation wave. As additional areas are automated, the productivity gains will be smaller and smaller.

Adding a huge supply of labor will obviously depress prices. I'm just saying that automation has done more to reduce wages and increase unemployment than immigration has.

No, productivity has been low for a long time , and wages have been flat also during that time.
Productivity: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MPU4910063
The only sector in which automation makes a big difference today is manufacturing, which is less than 10% of the workers.

So why are wages low outside manufacturing?

Heraclitusstudent says

Or end up in a police state dictatorship run by a NSA director.

Can’t happen anymore, not since technology has made everyone so powerful in relationship to our environment and social structure. What’s MORE likely is that an overreaching government would be ignored by the populace and starved of taxes and legitimacy until it largely disappeared. And is replaced by thousands of techno-fiefdoms enforcing their borders and protecting their citizens like city-states. You’d have to buy into membership of these exclusive communities, with the poorer members of society relegated to lawless unclaimed lands ruled by gangs and fast food corporations.

Heraclitusstudent says

No, productivity has been low for a long time , and wages have been flat also during that time.

Not sure what you are arguing. Did immigration only begin in 2013? That's when productivity dropped.

Wage growth hasn't been great, but it's not flat either.

Heraclitusstudent says

he only sector in which automation makes a big difference today is manufacturing, which is less than 10% of the workers.

Again--I can rattle off a lot of service folks who would beg to differ after their jobs were automated away.

Quigley says

and an economy that is positively ripping along!

Except for the bankruptcy...

HappyGilmore says

How about we stop in 1950s America and not go all the way to Venezuela?

People tend to romanticize the past, so present examples are best. But you could go back to 1930's America. I think we had the last of the Communist planks implemented by good old FDR.

anon_d418a says

There should be some space between glorified bum and debt driven consumerism.

Didn't understand the first part, but sounds like you're listing synonyms here.

anon_3b28c says

Again--I can rattle off a lot of service folks who would beg to differ after their jobs were automated away.

What service jobs were automated?

Quigley says

Can’t happen anymore, not since technology has made everyone so powerful in relationship to our environment and social structure. What’s MORE likely is that an overreaching government would be ignored by the populace and starved of taxes and legitimacy until it largely disappeared.

Really?
So the NSA can listen to conversations in your living room and the militarized police can show up at your door, but you feel technology has made everyone powerful?

NuttBoxer says

People tend to romanticize the past, so present examples are best. But you could go back to 1930's America. I think we had the last of the Communist planks implemented by good old FDR.

I'm not romanticizing anything. I can post a bunch of data showing that the US economy was much, much healthier in the 1950s when unions were strong.

Unions lead to higher productivity:
http://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_20070620/
Most highly unionized countries = happiest countries:
http://lawofwork.ca/?p=6881
So, the current examples would be Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Iceland.

Heraclitusstudent says

What service jobs were automated?

anon_3b28c says

Hogwash. How many secretary's and operators were replaced by automated call attendants? How many managers have secretaries now after the computer age?

How many bank tellers have been replaced by ATMs?

How many checkers have been replace by auto-checkout terminals at big box stores?

I could go on and on. Manufacturing, service, you name it. Automation is everywhere.

HappyGilmore says

Unions lead to higher productivity:
http://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_20070620/

Interesting you reference an article written by a guy who's never held a real job in his life, and has certainly benefited from having large useless organizations in place to give him said "jobs".

I was in a union once. Selling souvenirs at Qualcomm stadium when I was in college. I asked if I could not be in the union when I signed up for the job, and was told that wasn't an option. It wasn't a bad job, but never did figure out what that $4 a paycheck was doing for me that I couldn't have done for myself.

NuttBoxer says

Interesting you reference an article written by a guy who's never held a real job in his life, and has certainly benefited from having large useless organizations in place to give him said jobs.

I was in a union once. Selling souvenirs at Qualcomm stadium when I was in college. I asked if I could not be in the union when I signed up for the job, and was told that wasn't an option. It wasn't a bad job, but never did figure out what that $4 a paycheck was doing for me that I couldn't have done for myself.

So, I'm assuming you are implying that this guy, having not been in a union, is drawing bad conclusions? If so, please detail where he is incorrect.

What the union does is use the bargaining power of many to negotiate better pay and benefits than any individual would be able to do on their own.

HappyGilmore says

http://lawofwork.ca/?p=6881
So, the current examples would be Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Iceland.

And the author of this study appears to have spent some years as legal counsel for... a union! Clearly an unbiased source if there ever was one. Interestingly, Venezuela and Zimbabwe, the countries I mentioned, both have unions. So happy and unhappy countries can have unions?

NuttBoxer says

And the author of this study appears to have spent some years as legal counsel for... a union! Clearly an unbiased source if there ever was one. Interestingly, Venezuela and Zimbabwe, the countries I mentioned, both have unions. So happy and unhappy countries can have unions?

Great---should be easy for you to point out his inaccuracies then. I'm sure his bias is clear and you can detail his incorrect conclusions then.

HappyGilmore says

you are implying that this guy, having not been in a union, is drawing bad conclusions?

I'm saying a guy who has never had to work a day in his life at anything most of us would recognize as real work is only going to bring highly abstracted "theoretical" knowledge to the table. It always sounds good, but is rarely proven out in real life.

HappyGilmore says

What the union does is use the bargaining power of many to negotiate better pay and benefits than any individual would be able to do on their own.

Yes, socialism. It brings even the most capable man down to the level of the lowliest, most timid employee. Claiming to benefit mankind, but helping no actual individual man.

HappyGilmore says

should be easy for you to point out his inaccuracies then.

NuttBoxer says

Venezuela and Zimbabwe, the countries I mentioned, both have unions.

Did you not see this? Or are you under the impression that people are very happy in Venezuela right now?

NuttBoxer says

I'm saying a guy who has never had to work a day in his life at anything most of us would recognize as real work is only going to bring highly abstracted "theoretical" knowledge to the table. It always sounds good, but is rarely proven out in real life.

Good, please point out where his lack of experience has allowed him to draw poor conclusions then.

NuttBoxer says

Yes, socialism. It brings even the most capable man down to the level of the lowliest, most timid employee. Claiming to benefit mankind, but helping no actual individual man.

No, nothing like socialism. Unions lessen the inherent advantage businesses have over employees during compensation negotiations. It's actually nothing like socialism at all.

Unfortunately, many unions did use their negotiating power to force management to make decisions based solely on seniority--but this was due to management's abuse of their power. If management hadn't abused their power, unions wouldn't have wasted their power in such a way.

Unions were a GREAT help to all men actually. You can thank them for the 40 hour work week, holidays, overtime pay, etc. etc.

HappyGilmore says

Unions lead to higher productivity:
http://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_20070620/

"There is a common myth that unions hurt productivity, supposedly because they impose work rules that make their employers less efficient. The evidence from industrial relations studies does not support this myth."

We all know how the unions destroyed Hostess-Twinkies with their silly unproductive rules.

Strategist says

We all know how the unions destroyed Hostess-Twinkies with their silly unproductive rules.

Actually you think that because of the propaganda that you read. But the truth is much more interesting. I encourage you to dig a little deeper. (truth is the company was purposely killed by Mitt Romney hedge fund types)

Unions probably played a very small part (if any) in Hostess-Twinkies demise.

Heraclitusstudent says

You also apparently believe that adding a huge supply on a market (the labor market) doesn't depress prices.

I agree with that because everything is based on leverage and there is no free market, or not so far, prices can only stay the same or go up. The golden key is to get into the system and restrict choice.

The example of real estate rental for instance. Police exist to make sure landlords and stores prosper unhindered by local outrage and that neither of those 2 groups of local big shots has to pay for the police services. So the typical solution is to make their avoiding landlords illegal and clear them out.

Despite mounting pressures – including a nationwide crackdown on vehicle-dwelling – America’s modern-day nomads show great resilience. But how much of that toughness should our culture require for basic membership? And when do all the impossible choices start to tear people – a society – apart? The growing ranks of folks living on the road suggest the answer might be: much sooner than we think.

Illegal immigration can be solved in one day if their employers were prosecuted but local big shots are in control and ensure they prosper from hiring laborers that have no recourse and little choice. MAGA

We now have a prison industry, the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution permits slavery of prisoners, so the local big shots in control can now profit from forcing people into fewer harsher choices all the way up to prison life working at gunpoint until a slippery slope to death with plausible deniability if possible.

HappyGilmore says

Strategist says

We all know how the unions destroyed Hostess-Twinkies with their silly unproductive rules.

Actually you think that because of the propaganda that you read. But the truth is much more interesting. I encourage you to dig a little deeper. (truth is the company was purposely killed by Mitt Romney hedge fund types)

Unions probably played a very small part (if any) in Hostess-Twinkies demise.

Unions were the only reason the company went broke. If you know something others don't, please tell us.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

Robots have a great deal of advantages over immigrants.

Will robots stick black tar heroine capsules up their asses? I think not