patrick.net

Rin says

Strategist says

The drones will deliver them in 10 min

No tip required.

They also have technology where everything in a cart can be priced all at once.

Ok, so there you have it, even more efficient than an old fashion store. It's wholesale to customer direct.

So where will the jobs be?

Strategist says

So where will the jobs be?

Read all about it on my thread here ...

/?p=1243034

Millennials will be the 1st generation to see the end of work

The primary thing which defines the WWII & Boomers was that they were the generations which had actually experienced an era where one's labor was of value to society. And this, coupled with a proliferation of infrastructure and widespread use of technologies, gave them the greatest opportunities in life.

Then, something changed ... the development of information technologies and the automation of work. In the beginning, it was small stuff like calculators replacing slide rulers but then, it had expanded all over the place. Today, Gen X, as it's entering full adulthood, will be seeing many jobs disappear by retirement. In fact, I'm convinced that if one doesn't make money in the next 20 to 30 years, it's game over.

Thus, Millenials despite all their adoration for smart phones and automation tools, will see that their actual work is of no value. A certain percent of them, like 1% to 3%, will be architects of high end robots/AI tools but a vast majority, will be getting laid off, in place of automated systems, which can do former white collar tasks like market analysis and portfolio management.

My hope is that I'm safely tucked away in some New England town, with robot sentries, guarding my residence. I suspect that Millenials will be wanting to rob me, since it'll be clear to them, that I'm one of those, who'd survived the age of automation to retire comfortably.

dodgerfanjohn says

Downtown LA parking attendents must know what the dinosaurs felt like. Two years ago there were hundreds of em. Now there's just a handful and a plethora of automated machines. All those jobs...poof.

Yay! Growing population, less jobs, and resistance to basic income. Sounds like a recipe for happiness and the greatest good.

Strategist says: The drones will deliver them in 10 min
Ever been hit by a six pack dropped from 400 feet? I have more faith that they'll be delivered by an autonomous, driveless vehicle on the roads.

Rin says

Ok, so there you have it, even more efficient than an old fashion store. It's wholesale to customer direct.

Yeah, and it cuts out the union thugs that currently do the deliveries!

In other (completely unrelated) news, Homeland Security places an order for 1.6 billion rounds of .40 caliber bullets.

zzyzzx says

Rin says

Ok, so there you have it, even more efficient than an old fashion store. It's wholesale to customer direct.

Yeah, and it cuts out the union thugs that currently do the deliveries!

UPS workers are union?

Rin says

My hope is that I'm safely tucked away in some New England town, with robot sentries, guarding my residence. I suspect that Millenials will be wanting to rob me, since it'll be clear to them, that I'm one of those, who'd survived the age of automation to retire comfortably.

I just want to make sure my kids are OK.

EBGuy says

Strategist says: The drones will deliver them in 10 min

Ever been hit by a six pack dropped from 400 feet? I have more faith that they'll be delivered by an autonomous, driveless vehicle on the roads.

ha ha ha. Back to the drawing board.
How bout a little parachute?

If something is not done soon, from a political action p.o.v., we will have a complete dystopia come 2040.

My sentries will have to open fire on intruders or at least taser them.

I keep thinking of that scene from Aliens where the remote machine gun runs out of Ammo. Hunger makes people go apeshit. On the other hand, I guess they'll keep the food stamps.

Rin says

If something is not done soon, from a political action p.o.v., we will have a complete dystopia come 2040.

My sentries will have to open fire on intruders or at least taser them.

If the milleniums can penetrate national defenses, they can easily penetrate yours. Your sentries could turn against you.
Hope you have a plan B.

Bubbabear says

Robots Replacing Warehouse Workers And Fast Food Employees

Yes, and in the no-so-distant future, the masses will be able to buy robotic food preparers and no one will have to go to McDonald's again for fast food, or better yet, real food.

Technology available to corporations today will be available to consumers tomorrow.

Rin says

If something is not done soon, from a political action p.o.v., we will have a complete dystopia come 2040.

My sentries will have to open fire on intruders or at least taser them.

The politicians are the ones creating the dystopia.

Rin says

dublin hillz says

Stock market has a dichotomy - it cheers on an idividual company basis when company lays people off but also cheers when the economy adds jobs in aggregate.

Yes, a lay off is interpreted as a lean & mean company, a microeconomics perspective of efficiency and productivity.

Aggregate job loss, however, is the macroeconomics of an overall contracting market.

It sounds a lot like Keynes' paradox of thrift. An individual company that cuts staff without losing productivity is a virtue. A whole economy of them and there's trouble.

Strategist says

Rin says

If something is not done soon, from a political action p.o.v., we will have a complete dystopia come 2040.

My sentries will have to open fire on intruders or at least taser them.

If the milleniums can penetrate national defenses, they can easily penetrate yours. Your sentries could turn against you.

Hope you have a plan B.

I agree. Hacktivists, not activists, are the real hope for the 21st century. For me, this is where the Millennial's promise shines through.

thunderlips11 says

He also doesn't make a commission

That's my point. If people want better wages, they need to move on from the McDo's burger clerking job--or accept that they are not capable/don't want to. Just asking for a 40% pay raise doesn't mean you are going to get it.

You might have been surprised how many slackers I worked that first high school job with. Even on commission they hung out in the stockroom for their min wage draw until they got canned for "performance". They had no more fire than that Coffee Bean slinger does today. Wages and productivity are a two-way street.

Philistine says

They had no more fire than that Coffee Bean slinger does today.

A 12oz package of coffee can easily last me for 2 weeks. Why the heck would I pay the "slinger's" company a hefty premium to make it for me when all I gotta do is brew it for a few minutes in french press and transfer it to reusable container on my way out in the morning?

Philistine says

That's my point. If people want better wages, they need to move on from the McDo's burger clerking job--or accept that they are not capable/don't want to. Just asking for a 40% pay raise doesn't mean you are going to get it.

I hear you. My point is that there's very few commission-based jobs available, and certainly not enough based on the population.

We're still laboring under a 1950s regime that says if you pick up a few courses at night school, keep your feodora clean, and go to the boss ready to do a fair day's work, the sky's the limit. We simply aren't creating enough middle class jobs for those who are keeping their fedora clean.

We're already at the point where jobs that were open to the barely literate 30-40 years ago, like answering phone calls or selling used cars, are now demanding Bachelor's degrees. Our own commitment to education has resulted in the educated becoming less valuable due to supply outmatching demand.

Rin says

Huh? Peer pressure, this is corporate America, not the hallway in some high school.

Call it peer pressure, or political pressure or PR even. It's sort of like the pressure that companies feel not to cheat around EPA regulations in ways that would be devastating to the environment (just because it would be profitable), but also devastating to their reputation if they got caught, for example dumping toxic waste in a local clean river or lake.

Once it's understood that decreasing employment is bad for the economy, corporations will feel obliged to do their part. Not hiring as charity, but simply not going to the extreme with automation.

Strategist says

You forget....profits come first, not charity.

I addressed this above.

But the other thing that will happen is that companies will often choose people to the extent that they need to for their business. For example the degree to which corporate operators have been replaced by automated systems and menus has already reached it's peak.

When I call in to a company for whatever, I often want to speak to a person, to discuss my very specific issue, and not wade through 7 layer of menus to not even get my question or issue death with. IT's inefficient.

People like dealing with people for many things, especially services that are complicated and or that require individualized attention.

dublin hillz says

Philistine says

They had no more fire than that Coffee Bean slinger does today.

A 12oz package of coffee can easily last me for 2 weeks. Why the heck would I pay the "slinger's" company a hefty premium to make it for me when all I gotta do is brew it for a few minutes in french press and transfer it to reusable container on my way out in the morning?

Ya, the way that people "save time" by spending fifteen minutes at Starbucks each morning instead of taking three to brew their own, and pay so much more, just makes me scratch my head.
I get a perfectly great cup of coffee by pouring grounds into the k-cup thing and pressing "start." Add milk and some stevia and hit the road!

Quigley says

Ya, the way that people "save time" by spending fifteen minutes at Starbucks each morning instead of taking three to brew their own, and pay so much more, just makes me scratch my head.

I've got you all beat, I wake up, pop a NoDoz, do a few pushups, shower, and head for the office.

Got my caffeine ingestion down to 2-3 sec.

marcus says

For example the degree to which corporate operators have been replaced by automated systems and menus has already reached it's peak.

We're still living in a pre-strong AI world and thus, most technologies will have a present day saturation point.

The IBM Watson server, applied to let's say actuarial support, will be a starting point towards the tipping point where you don't need most ppl in white collar types of occupations.

Eventually, via analyzing the conversations of hundreds of millions of calls, from the database of recordings which are being formed today, it'll learn how to solve 99% of ppl's requests, w/o needing to transfer to a live person. That phenomena is only some 15 to 20 years away.

Rin says

The IBM Watson server, applied to let's say actuarial support, will be a starting point towards the tipping point where you don't need most ppl in white collar types of occupations.

I don't question whether it will become technologically possible to replace most white collar jobs with computers, and profitably (in the short term).

What I'm thinking is that somehow, this may become taboo in a sense, right around the time of that tipping point, or shortly before. One way this could occur would be if people choose to do business with companies simply because they use people. Even to pay a premium for that.

Even companies that mostly do business with other companies, if they know that ultimately demand can be traced down to the human level, and if they know that demand is needed for the economy to function, then they can agree in much the same way that people agree that polluting the local water supply is not cool, to use people even when automation is cheaper.

Who knows. Maybe it will even need to become law, as bizarre as that sounds. Everyone does their share to keep the people employed. It will be seen as better (and cheaper) than paying taxes to put everyone on the dole. Especially since without demand, they can't even make the money to pay those taxes.

The alternative would be to let the government solve the problem by having a sufficient number of government jobs to pick up the slack. I'm working under the assumption that the corporations might be able to make better use of the people. That assumption may be wrong.

Rin says

Then, something changed ... the development of information technologies and the automation of work. In the beginning, it was small stuff like calculators replacing slide rulers but then, it had expanded all over the place. Today, Gen X, as it's entering full adulthood, will be seeing many jobs disappear by retirement. In fact, I'm convinced that if one doesn't make money in the next 20 to 30 years, it's game over.

Changing technology has been with us ever since they invented the wheel. Workers in dying technologies will always be susceptible to being laid off, retraining and retirement. New generations come in and learn new skill and get jobs that never existed before. The real PROBLEM from my POV is the speed at which new technologies displace old ones. If the speed is slow enough or new skills are easily learnt the damage is contained. If not, we as a society are in trouble. We need an emphasis in job retraining, cutting back the work week and early retirement as they do in Europe to provide more opportunities to more people.

Strategist says

cutting back the work week and early retirement as they do in Europe to provide
more opportunities to more people.

That would require that pensions in the private sector return. However, currently only 18% of private sector employees have one. 401Ks are not even eligible to be withdrawn without penalty b4 age 59.5 so they are at best a bridge until social security for the early retirement purposes.

marcus says

Who knows. Maybe it will even need to become law, as bizarre as that sounds.

I think in this case, the law will be a usage, ala CPU/bandwidth index, value added tax. In other words, the stronger the AI, the more its consumption, in terms of processing power and network bandwidth. This is something that corporations will pay, so that the govt can provide some level of support for the displaced workers.

marcus says

What I'm thinking is that somehow, this may become taboo in a sense, right around the time of that tipping point, or shortly before.

Right now, it's almost taboo, not to have some affinity for an electronic device or two. If I told you back in 2000, that you'd be walking around streets and malls in the year 2015, and 1/2 to 2/3s of the ppl will be engrossed with some smart device or tablet, you'd think I was grossly exaggerating. Yet somehow, it's happened. Now, add a digital personal assistant software or two, currently in Beta state, to these devices. Ppl will soon be having conversations with their computers, more often than with other persons, on the other side of the IM.

Now, the tipping point, as we've hinted, is no longer a simple target, like a Black Friday or the Day that Hong Kong was handed over from the British. It's a continuous sliding cascade of days, months, and years, where more and more of our actual culture & society, start to discover that they can't live without their mobile expert systems. And this may also include virtual reality relationships as well, given the fact that ppl are under so much stress and now, really don't get a chance to meet someone, since everyone's plugged in, and not relaxing in a town center.

Strategist says

If not, we as a society are in trouble.

Yes, we are.

Strategist says

Changing technology has been with us ever since they invented the wheel. Workers in dying technologies will always be susceptible to being laid off, retraining and retirement. New generations come in and learn new skill and get jobs that never existed before.

Until now, most new technology were about doing faster and better things that were already done before. Planting food, extracting ore, producing metals, assembling stuff. The "new" jobs were evolutions of the old ones even if sometime radically changed.

At some point we will see technologies that simply don't require *any* humans. It's not even a question of speed. It will be an integrated self-maintaining machine from ore to recycling.

Heraclitusstudent says

Strategist says

Changing technology has been with us ever since they invented the wheel. Workers in dying technologies will always be susceptible to being laid off, retraining and retirement. New generations come in and learn new skill and get jobs that never existed before.

Until now, most new technology were about doing faster and better things that were already done before. Planting food, extracting ore, producing metals, assembling stuff. The "new" jobs were evolutions of the old ones even if sometime radically changed.

At some point we will see technologies that simply don't require *any* humans. It's not even a question of speed. It will be an integrated self-maintaining machine from ore to recycling.

At that point the robots are the slaves, we are the masters. Let them do the work, we can pursue hobbies. I will require a beautiful female robot to feed me grapes in an island in the Caribbean.

marcus says

One way this could occur would be if people choose to do business with companies simply because they use people. Even to pay a premium for that.

Current people and companies would never do these societal changes: they go to what benefits them. i.e. the cheaper alternative. Even if they understand that demand come from employees, they hope employees of other companies will provide that demand. This is already the case now: some rich corporations could give larger salaries to generate end-demand, the way Ford did. But this is not happening.

Another way that things could balance out would be that as automation ends a lot of white collar jobs, it also eventually creates as many new jobs, related to new products and services that people want that new technologies make possible.

But if that's not the case, then there are basically 3 possibilities:

1) Corporations choose or are in some way nearly forced to create enough jobs as I described above

2) Government play this role, putting people to productive tasks and compensates them for this.

3) A lot of people are on the dole, without having to do anything for that support.

Option 3 isn't even good for the people receiving the support, so I doubt it goes that way.

Heraclitusstudent says

marcus says

One way this could occur would be if people choose to do business with companies simply because they use people. Even to pay a premium for that.

Current people and companies would never do these societal changes

I like electronic devices for some things. E.g. I will go to an ATM over a teller(just to get cash), because it's more efficient.

But if I have a question that has details and nuance to it, I'd MUCH MUCH
rather deal with a person. In fact there are no computers at present that can do this.

All I was saying was that when it gets to the point where a computer can answer my questions as well as a qualified person, but no better, then I probably would choose talking to a person. Especially if I also thought that it was what was best for the world. I might even pay a slight premium for dealing with a real qualified human rather than a computer.

marcus says

But if I have a question that has details and nuance to it, I'd MUCH MUCH

rather deal with a person. In fact there are no computers at present that can do this.

If you recall Terminator II, well over 20+ years ago... when the kid John Connor was beginning to bond with Arnold, Sara Connor/Linda Hamilton was astonished.

Because although she hated AI, she knew that this machine would forever be patient, loyal, and protective of her son over every potential step dad she'd met along her path. And thus, she had a change of heart whereas earlier, she was constantly dour & pessimistic about everything. Of course her final change occurred shortly afterwards but that was a major observation on her part.

In essence, that's the problem you're facing. You see, people tend to not be patient with each other. You can almost tell, when a telephone attendant or a store clerk, is miffed and just wants the interaction to be over. With strong AI, it'll have all the patience in the world with even the most sulking customers. I believe what'll happen is exactly what happened in T2, ppl will bond with their electronic therapist, client relations support, and so forth. In fact, they'd probably have even more electronic friends/acquaintances, esp once they leave college or high school.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/technology-destroying-jobs-135027783.html

BlackRock's Fink says, “In the United States, we've been living with technology transforming the workforce, and most of developed countries have been living with a transformational technology (of) the workforce for many years,” Fink said on Wednesday at the Deutsche Bank Global Financial Services conference. “But what is going on in the developing world that we don't spend enough time (focusing) on: technology's now gutting jobs just as fast in the developing world.”

Thus, even my own overlords are worried about a peasant uprising.

This sort of article is a staple of bad economic times, along with the "today's kids will not attain the living standard of their parents" articles.

I know for sure that there were such articles in the 1930s - kind of obvious time to say such things - and '89-'92 was a banner time for this sort of writing. Titles like "In 20 years, a job may become a status symbol."

I remember wondering 20 years ago that if the ideal company has no employees, and all companies were ideal, who would buy any products?

So far, the working population has endured multiple waves of innovation during which whole categories of work ceased to exist.

Not to say it won't all come true at some point: look at the basic blue-collar workers, who are doing god-knows-what these days. For the types of people who drive trucks or work on assembly lines, how many decent jobs are left?

Iosef V HydroCabron says

So far, the working population has endured multiple waves of innovation during which whole categories of work ceased to exist.

The difference, which started in the late 80s/early 90s is that executives all decided that cutting jobs, was usually the best way to improve the balance sheet and add productivity.

Before then, cutting jobs was mainly based upon genuine business losses, it was not a cavalier management strategy.

Today, I'm always hearing from exec types and yes, anything to let go of 1% to 10% is always on the table. If IBM Watson or *nextgen supercomputing machine algo* whatever, can clear out a room of 25 actuaries and deliver the same results as having two actuarial fellows on full time W-2s, execs will gladly sign up for $500K/yr in licensing fees to save on $6M of salaries.

Iosef V HydroCabron says

if the ideal company has no employees, and all companies were ideal, who would buy any products?

The point is that most execs don't care about the above. For them, worrying about the long term macroeconomic indications for AI is for politicians.

Yet despite all this talk of automation replacing human workers you can still walk into just about any pharmacy in America and have your prescription filled by a human staff. The technology to replace these workers already exists, the human workers command high salaries, the need for 24/7/365 mistake free, high security performance high, yet still there are very few robot pharmacists out there.

WTF?

New Renter says

The technology to replace these workers already exists, the human workers command high salaries, the need for 24/7/365 mistake free, high security performance high, yet still there are very few robot pharmacists out there.

WTF?

At the moment, heath care is not about tech but about licensing and regulation. The pharmacist is the legal intermediary between the customer and the Oxycontin. Thus, each pharmacy will have at least one PharmD there, at any time, for legal reasons.

Likewise, at a clinic, the day when a nurse or a PA can do 100% of an internal medicine doctor's job, with a handheld Watson MD tablet, the GP role will role down to exactly one physician, the one who'll rubberstamp each referral to a specialist or declare that a cold is a cold & send the guy home. Today, when you see your GP for 5-10 mins, in the future, it'll be 20 seconds over a telescreen. His only purpose is so that a clinic doesn't get shutdown for not having one generalist MD on staff.

Understood but the banking industry must have faced similar security issues in the 80s when ATMs were on the table.

A human pharmacist does not provide any added security, indeed less as a human can be robbed easier than a robot.

As to providing the right medication to a customer a pharmacist knows only what is faxed over by the prescribing physician. No human added value there.

USF already has a robot pharmacict so the legal issues may not be as insurmountable as all that.

New Renter says

Understood but the banking industry must have faced similar security issues in the 80s when ATMs were on the table.

Different strokes, it's not the actual security of protecting the Oxycontin from the junkies but the fact that there's an APA, who's given a pharmacist the gatekeeper status.

For the bank, their issue is more business than anything else. If ATMs were continually hacked then customers would stop signing up for ATM cards and would only conduct business at the counter with a Driver's License and a live teller.

New Renter says

USF already has a robot pharmacict so the legal issues may not be as insurmountable as all that.

Yes, but I believe that all university hospitals have a staff PharmD, just in case. You see, that's just the whole point. That single staff member covers the legal requirements, even if he doesn't have a real job.