Are robots and technology behind the income gap?

[Woodsman]

Re: Odds of Automating

The Google dog is slightly more terrifying than having this dude chase you down, but same dif.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Odds of Automating

Thanks for taking the time to post this. It appears from your post that you think undoing the FIRE economy and normalizing the distribution of capital will fix the current human condition. I understand I just put words in your mouth that may be entirely incorrect so feel free to correct me but if that is a correct assessment of your position, this is a key point of disagreement. I think the great majority of humanity is screwed and I don't think robotics will create abundance. This technology, computing power, bandwidth, etc. will be used for control. The utter abuse of the commons, Hardin called it the tragedy of the commons, will be the undoing of humanity. I think the canary in the coal mine is the American middle class. This is a dying entity. The earth does not contain the resources to support 10B humans in 50 years, less than one lifetime. My kids and theirs will have to live in this place. The folks that run FIRE get this. They're hording resources to survive and have no intention of giving it back. FIRE is not the problem, it is the evil solution to the problem. This is not the 18th Century. There is no abundance available for anyone not in the top 1%. Robotics will not create abundance, it will make control much easier.
You appear to be more hopeful than I. While I don't think so, I hope you're right.

Not so sure I would say hopeful. Technology per se is no threat, but it is a hammer. The FIRE sector is the anvil. They will design the capital compatible with their needs, which may be analogous to rat traps. The real trick though is the force to maintain it. Will it be truly their own, or will it have the auxiliary/mercenary problem? But again the kernel of the problem is not progress. Its scarcity leading to monopoly. Its the FIRE sector model problem.

I have posted it before, so I will not do so again but Athens , for a time, had no place to "store value" meaning nothing inherently monopolistic. They remained free and very productive. Sparta on the other hand had fertile soil. The "capital" was not of human origin and it was not a free state.


Though in the very long run, a society with a large leisure class and/or one that is wasteful will destroy itself.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Odds of Automating

... a society with a large leisure class and/or one that is wasteful will destroy itself.

That is bad news indeed.
The aim of all societies is to increase leisure time and provide more material goods than are absolutely minimally required.

[flintlock]

Re: Are robots and technology behind the income gap?--Most Definitely!

I agree in principle, but $50/year for an airline check-in clerk? I highly doubt they get paid that much even now.

No but it probably cost the company almost that much. Payroll taxes, benefits, etc.

[flintlock]

Re: Are robots and technology behind the income gap?--Most Definitely!

Some of us are missing the point. Historically, economic growth was limited mostly by labor, both numbers and productivity. Today things like energy and technology have a greater impact. Both have replaced to some degree the need for large numbers of people. What is still needed is highly skilled people. Sorry, we can't grow our way out of this indefinitely. Arguments that you can might make sense in theory but do not work in a welfare state. In theory the population stops growing when it can't feed, house, and clothe itself. But that isn't how it works in reality now is it? If anything it grows out of control. We are ultimately left with two choices. Income inequality or people get paid to do nothing.

[Woodsman]

Re: Are robots and technology behind the income gap?--Most Definitely!

We are ultimately left with two choices. Income inequality or people get paid to do nothing.

Yes, but Congress can only hold about 535 people at a time.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Odds of Automating

That is bad news indeed.
The aim of all societies is to increase leisure time and provide more material goods than are absolutely minimally required.

To illustrate the point. Imagine a society where the land is free , the food is abundant and the weather is good.

http://www.aloha-hawaii.com/kauai/niihau/

Its not perfect since it does not really rain enough but:


"While open to visitors on a limited basis (via helicopter tours), Niihau is a private island that has largely remained unburdened by the influences of the outside world. There are no roads, hotels or restaurants; the 250 residents (mostly of Hawaiian descent) live without electricity."

What threatens them are the same principles under FIRE sector.


http://archives.starbulletin.com/199...ws/story1.html
"For years the Robinsons have
thwarted attempts by the state to
take control of their island"


http://www.islandbreath.org/2005Year...sonlegacy.html

"It has been difficult for the Robinsons to hold onto their land. The failure of the sugar industry in Hawaii, property taxes and other pressures have made them consider even leaving Hawaii entirely."

Property taxes and mortgages and rents are intimately related . It is these that make one "unemployed".


But how does one store wealth in such a place? One could buy land, if made private, or they could retain a favor of the state. Yet as we can see both come from the same place.

But let us suppose we go back to Niihau again. The weather is good, they have a place to live etc. The problem is that it lacks water. Thus we have a scarcity problem. So what happens if someone invents a robot that cleans sea water on Niihau? Unfortunately for the brilliant inventor such a one must put up with the comparable advantage available like fish, coconuts etc. Still as a monopolist one might take debt or perhaps just sell water. The inventor would have something akin to servants or even slaves, fully employed as slaves never want for employment. But what if someone else builds a filtering system and another a solar water system just as fully automated? It would be increasingly difficult to hire anyone......unless the original inventor has debt bondage or the power of the state before the labor killing technology had competition.


But one more comparison is needed. Lets go back to a monopoly owner. We could use a single land owner or a water monopolist on Niihau. Suppose either of them liked pine cones( Consult Maslow's hierarchy for those who have everything aka "self actualization" which is a nice way of saying eccentricity) . Suppose they liked pine cone art. Suddenly pine cones would flow to the island. Suppose a pyramid was to be built. Boats would be made to ship the cones. Warehouses for cones. People would use cones as money, because they are rare, scarce and in demand from the one with all the buying power good enough to pay for access to land or buy water. Debts would be held in pine cones, etc etc.

I have said that if debt is measured in water in a desert, heaven help them if it rains since paradise will wash away the financial system. So too will the pine cone economy go into chaos if the land owners fancy changes or he dies. So too will it die if its a water monopolist if it rains. If it rains in Niihau for a decade pine cones will become worthless and all debts in them will be canceled in real terms with only a nominal shame.

That is why FIRE sector economies are so dangerous. The value system is distorted by the unstable marginal demand of a few, the financial system measured in their favors and fancy, a pyramid built on nothing. Yet it can persist for a 100 years because an importer of pine cones is happy, and even happier when more and more people become slaves to the master with the pine cone fetish. If the master with the pine cone fetish has 10 slaves , the buying power of 10 only. However if master of 90% of the island then the buying power rises as do my pine cone "profits".

The problem isn't fiat money. its fiat power and fiat assets backed by some force . Force is all it ever is.


So ultimately productivity with competition has no effect on liberty or way of life. In fact it my even threaten the establishment. Scarcity, natural(no water) or social(I own the land) is what is fundamental to the problem.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Are robots and technology behind the income gap?--Most Definitely!

Some of us are missing the point. Historically, economic growth was limited mostly by labor, both numbers and productivity.

Today things like energy and technology have a greater impact. Both have replaced to some degree the need for large numbers of people. What is still needed is highly skilled people. Sorry, we can't grow our way out of this indefinitely. Arguments that you can might make sense in theory but do not work in a welfare state. In theory the population stops growing when it can't feed, house, and clothe itself. But that isn't how it works in reality now is it? If anything it grows out of control. We are ultimately left with two choices. Income inequality or people get paid to do nothing.

What is the reason to "pay them"? We don't pay for any resident on Niihau. If I claimed ownership of the island and demanded rent, then someone would need to pay them. And then to get to the point. Are you paying them or are you paying me? If I charged rent above their subsistence causing them to sue for welfare, you are paying me welfare. And in that case you are paying people to do nothing AND having income inequality all in one.

Ever notice that the more of a welfare state we become the more unequal it is? Perhaps we have it backwards. That is why welfare or any social policy that lowers the subsistence level comes to naught. Its just turned into more rent. I would not be a good slum lord not to raise rents when people use more welfare money to bid for my apartments.

[jiimbergin]

Re: Are robots and technology behind the income gap?--Most Definitely!

Yes, but Congress can only hold about 535 people at a time.

[vt]

Re: Technology vs employment

Eight ways robots stole our jobs in 2013

• BY LYDIA DEPILLIS
  
  
• December 23 at 10:01 am
  
  

If we talked about nothing else in 2013 -- and, all right, 2012, too -- we talked about the question of whether technology is going to take all our jobs. Thislatest surge of the age-old debate seems to have abated, for now, with the anti-robot contingent in America somewhat mollified by the promise that additional automation may be the one advance that allows for manufacturing jobs to return from overseas and relieves humans of the most dangerous and unpleasant tasks. Theoretically, the robotic gospel goes, that talent is then freed up for more fulfilling and productive work. (Hint: The more "creative" and "social" you are, the more likely you are to survive.)
Either way, it's worth looking at the different ways automation began rendering new classes of jobs obsolete this year.
Amazon's new robots don't go on strike. (Kiva Systems)

1. The people who mail stuff
Back in 2012, Amazon acquired Kiva Systems, a maker of robots that can be programmed to pick up online orders in a warehouse and shuttle them to their departure points. The company now has 1,382 of the machines in three fulfillment centers, which means it eventually may not even have to hire the tens of thousands of temp workers it brings on for the busy holiday season. And if you had any doubts that Amazon could eventually do the same with flying drones, well, let this be a lesson. (Amazon chief executive Jeffrey P. Bezos owns The Washington Post.)
Burger to go, no human needed. (Momentum Machines)

2. The people who reheat pre-cooked food
The nationwide fast-food strikes brought dire warnings from restaurant industry-backed researchers that if line cooks cost too much, they could easily be replaced by robots. That hasn't quite happened yet, but at least one company is working diligently to make it possible. It's reasonable to believe that McDonalds -- which is already replacing cashiers with touch screens in Europe -- would jump at the chance.
American Giant's offerings, available on a website near you. (American Giant)

3. The people who sell clothes
E-commerce has been steadily eating away at brick-and-mortar stores for years now, but what's been cropping up more recently is a breed of business that sees taking retail out of the picture as a point of pride. American Giant, for example: The purveyor of basic, high-quality clothing makes its stuff just outside San Francisco, which it can do affordably because it sells to in-the-know urban sophisticates purely online, skipping the American Apparel-style marketing blitz altogether. That may mean you can get a high-quality, U.S.-made hoodie for a competitive price. It also means that the people who might otherwise have sold it to you don't have jobs.
4. The people who stock shelves and return shopping carts
Not all labor-saving innovations are high-tech. The discount supermarket Aldi -- which is owned by the same corporate parent as the more bourgeois Trader Joe's -- keeps payroll down by requiring a 25-cent deposit for shopping carts so employees don't have to return them, and stocking shelves with boxes full of goods rather than placing the individual items in neat rows. Again, great for shoppers on a budget -- at the cost of employment.
5. People who drive trucks
Autonomous vehicle technology is accelerating, and for now, is focused on passenger vehicles. But the real labor shortage is in long-haul trucking, and as my colleague Brian Fung pointed out, that's a job that might be more safely filled by a remotely-controlled robot that never gets tired or lost. Which just means that the 5.7 million people who do the job now will have to find a new way to make a living.
The human-less tractor. (Autonomous Tractor Company)

6. People who operate farm equipment
The history of agriculture has been one long tale of automation, to the point wherealmost nobody works on farms in America anymore. The exception was supposed to be people who operated the machines that replaced people who tilled the soil and harvested the crops by hand. But even they're not safe anymore, with the advent of tractors that can be piloted around the fields by computer or even programmed with the right coordinates and set loose, like a gigantic dirt-treading Roomba.
7. The people who make iProducts
After years of close scrutiny for the working conditions in its factories, Foxconn -- which makes most of Apple's computers, phones, and tablets -- decided to swap people out for machines as much as possible. The process hasn't been as quick or as easy as anticipated, but with wages rising in China, Foxconn has little choice but to keep cranking out the one-million-strong army of "Foxbots" it promised back in 2010.
8. The people who do low-level lab work
In North Carolina's Research Triangle Park, a company called LabCorp is hard at workdeveloping machines to sort and split blood samples, which is just one of hundreds of thousands of menial laboratory jobs that pay decent money but could more efficiently be done by robots.
We may be able to add bartenders next year, but at this point, it still seems that man has an advantage over machines in making a decent Manhattan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/23/eight-ways-robots-stole-our-jobs-in-2013/

[Polish_Silver]

Re: Odds of Automating

The ranking of the insurance underwriters is interesting. At least one company have done away with underwriting! They take the agent's word that what is on the application is correct. Then after the fact, they check the agents block of business and find the agents that don't know what they are doing or even more often crooked. The agent then is usually fired and the manager above him is reprimanded or if there are many agents under him/her that have a bad record,
is also fired. I find this a bit odd based on my 32 years in various insurance companies (life and health and annuities, not casualty). I know the loss ratio has gotten much higher, but they must believe it is offset by the reduction in cost of underwriting.

This is comparable to the "auto check out" at home depot. My father said when he bought
his Studdebaker in the 1950's, the insurance guy came out to his house to photograph the car.

Quite different from now, when they take your word over the phone. Part of this is that computers have made paper trails and digital information easier to verify.

But you still have to wonder if we aren't asking for fraud.

[Polish_Silver]

Re: Technology vs employment

Eight ways robots stole our jobs in 2013

If we talked about nothing else in 2013 -- and, all right, 2012, too -- we talked about the question of whether technology is going to take all our jobs.

6. People who operate farm equipment
\

7. The people who make iProducts
After years of close scrutiny for the working conditions in its factories, Foxconn -- which makes most of Apple's computers, phones, and tablets -- decided to swap people out for machines as much as possible. The process hasn't been as quick or as easy as anticipated, but with wages rising in China, Foxconn has little choice but to keep cranking out the one-million-strong army of "Foxbots" it promised back in 2010.
8. The people who do low-level lab work
In North Carolina's Research Triangle Park, a company called LabCorp is hard at workdeveloping machines to sort and split blood samples, which is just one of hundreds of thousands of menial laboratory jobs that pay decent money but could more efficiently be done by robots.
We may be able to add bartenders next year, but at this point, it still seems that man has an advantage over machines in making a decent Manhattan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/23/eight-ways-robots-stole-our-jobs-in-2013/