The Robots are Coming!

[Mister Agenda]

The world is already awash in a sea of low-skilled labor, making low wages the norm. But at least we don't have robots that can replace generalized human labor (front-line management and pilots/drivers are probably in more immediate danger of becoming obsolete). They are, however, coming. When a company can replace a janitor or carpenter's assistant with a $10,000 robot that can do the same job with no days off or wages, those jobs will be going away. And I am having trouble seeing what will replace them: I know some low-wage laborers have the potential to do more with their lives, but frankly, most of them are intellectually average or lower, it's why they aren't lawyers or dentists or cops in the first place. So a future where robots do all the drudge work and the millions of workers they replace devise an artistic utopia of leisure seems a bit far-fetched to me. Part of me says always bet on technology to take things in a direction I'm not currently anticipating, part of me says we better get ready to put a hell of a lot of people on welfare in the next 20 to 30 years.

It's going to be great if you're retired: I'll be quick to to get one of the 2nd or 3rd generation home assistant personal robots to help keep my home and yard and clothes neat and clean for way less than it would cost to employ a maid for a year. But if you're in your twenties and not college material, what job will you be able to get that a robot can't do as well or better?

[thesummerqueen]

I'm having visions of people waving Ayn Rand's "Anthem" around in the air.

[RW_9]

most of them are intellectually average or lower

Intelligence does not equal education. Don't be a douche.

[thesummerqueen]

Intelligence does not equal job acceptance. I do my job quite well. I make less than someone who doesn't because I don't have a piece of paper stating that I went to some boozy 4 year college or other.

[Anomalocaris]

The world is already awash in a sea of low-skilled labor, making low wages the norm. But at least we don't have robots that can replace generalized human labor (front-line management and pilots/drivers are probably in more immediate danger of becoming obsolete). They are, however, coming. When a company can replace a janitor or carpenter's assistant with a $10,000 robot that can do the same job with no days off or wages, those jobs will be going away. And I am having trouble seeing what will replace them: I know some low-wage laborers have the potential to do more with their lives, but frankly, most of them are intellectually average or lower, it's why they aren't lawyers or dentists or cops in the first place. So a future where robots do all the drudge work and the millions of workers they replace devise an artistic utopia of leisure seems a bit far-fetched to me. Part of me says always bet on technology to take things in a direction I'm not currently anticipating, part of me says we better get ready to put a hell of a lot of people on welfare in the next 20 to 30 years.

It's going to be great if you're retired: I'll be quick to to get one of the 2nd or 3rd generation home assistant personal robots to help keep my home and yard and clothes neat and clean for way less than it would cost to employ a maid for a year. But if you're in your twenties and not college material, what job will you be able to get that a robot can't do as well or better?

I think one might take a page out of history of late Roman Republic and first half of the Epire to see what happens when a large block of population becomes unable to make a living by their own competitive productivity, and has realistic way to change that in the short run, and yet has the power to make or break governments.

Basically society plod on for a while, with power becoming increasingly concentrated in the hands of those who seems to be able to ensure the economic security of those who are not economically competitive, until eventually the society becomes a unstable, popularist dictatorship. Acute violent class struggle, transfer of power from the old power center which now must provide for those whose productivity can't compete, to new ones where they can.

[Doubting Thomas]

It's going to be great if you're retired: I'll be quick to to get one of the 2nd or 3rd generation home assistant personal robots to help keep my home and yard and clothes neat and clean for way less than it would cost to employ a maid for a year.

[Mister Agenda]

most of them are intellectually average or lower

Intelligence does not equal education. Don't be a douche.

Logically, 50% of the population has an IQ of 100 or less. Do you think it's likely that they are under-represented in low wage labor positions? I did not equate intelligence and education. Do you maintain that there is no connection at all between intelligence and likeliness of attaining a college degree? I acknowledge I may have been insenstive in my phrasing, but I am trying to be accurate, not PC. And in the interest of accuracy, please interpret 'most' as more than half. I have no idea of the actual proportions, but the alternative would be that intelligence has no impact on attainment whatsoever and that it's 50% on either side of the 100 IQ mark no matter what economic class you're in. That seems implausible. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that 40% of people doing unskilled labor are on the bright side though, people aren't obliged to seek high-paying jobs and luck in circumstances has a big impact. That still leaves my concern that a lot of people aren't going to be able to find jobs if unskilled labor is automated jusified.

---

Intelligence does not equal job acceptance. I do my job quite well. I make less than someone who doesn't because I don't have a piece of paper stating that I went to some boozy 4 year college or other.

In the USA there is an unfortunate tendency to make formal educational attainment artificially valuable. I recall losing the fight against favoring data entry operators with a college degree because we were on a government contract that incentivized us to hire as many college graduates as possible. I confess, I never actually weighted college experience in selecting an applicant, I don't consider it indicative of how good a job they would do. I'm sure other departments made up the difference.

I'm reminded of the quote from Dash in The Incredibles: 'When everyone is special, no one is.' Being awash in diplomas doesn't give us a better work force, it just cheapens the diplomas so people are investing ever more in higher education and getting less out of it, except for professions where formal education is really needed.

I've found many managers regard a degree as valuable only in that it shows the applicant has a little ambition and can finish something they start. I think holding down a previous job is just as useful a gauge.

---

Back to robots: I expect my department to be obsolete in it's current form about the time I qualify for early retirement (convenient, that). Advances in optical character recognition and reasonable expectations that more people use the web to submit documents rather than sending in paper make difficult for me to anticipate still needing 20 full-time operators. Granted, the department will probably be re-named and absorb new duties or whatever remaining tasks will be absorbed into another department; but keyer/operators are becoming obsolete. They will be followed by phone service operators as computer personas with advanced voice recognition and melodic tones take on more and more of the calls. It won't be that long before one person can do the work that it takes ten to do now: it already only takes one person to do the work ten did on phone service 20 years ago.

I see how a lot of my functions could be automated as well, so that one manager could run five departments with the workstations automatically tracking hours, performance, attendance, ratings, and even disciplinary actions; leaving the manager's main duties as special projects and walking around making sure everyone feels like there's a human in charge. I'm not down about it, I have a lot of options in life. I can see a lot of benefits springing from soaring productivity. I also see the kinds of dangers that Chuck describes. How do we avoid winding up with an unemployed 'underclass' that has to be kept pacified so they can't summon the outrage to fight a system that denies them the opportunity to satisfy ambition or feel like they are providing for their families?

Some technological left-turns might be upgrading their brains, or being amazed at what they can do creatively given laptop AIs and cheap robot labor; but that's not exactly a plan.

[Darth]

They are over represented in politics though, and that's were the money is.

[Mister Agenda]

I concede your point, Stue.

I had a thought about robots and atheism. When people share their homes with humanoid robots who are certain to come to be seen as companions as they'll be designed to take advantage of the human tendency to personify objects (if some of us treat our cars as if they were sentient beings, how many of us will treat something that can walk and talk as a sentient being?). In that situation I think it might be easier for people to come to grips with the idea that if Tobor and Robby don't have eternal spirits and can still seem so human-like, maybe humans don't have them either.

[Darth]

Nah, PETR (the acronym still even sounds the same!) will spoil the fun by throwing bolts n screws on people's clothing which is made in an 'oil-shop' where the workers are mistreated or by suing you for not looking after your car properly, keeping it in an enclosed environment with no stimulation instead of letting it drive free.