Smart robots will take over a third of jobs by 2025, Gartner says

Smart robots will take over a third of jobs by 2025, Gartner says

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/smart-robots-will-take-third-jobs-2025-gartner-says/

I fear that this kondratiev wave will be a very bad winter for ordinary young people - especially Generation Y or millennials.

Peak Debt - Peak Jobs - Peak Civilization ?

Please excuse my rant.

Or have I read too much fear porn - especially from zero hedge, peak prosperity, taki magazine, infowars

What are we to become unless eaters and be culled to the Georgia Guide Stones 500 million.

What are serious thinkers on this forum ponder about this problem.

I cannot believe that all these jobs will be replaced. The intelligence bell curve has a big middle and lower end, what the hell are we all going to do?

Go on the dole? Nope. Peak Debt.

How the hell will people live? Go back and be Elboan Farmers like the Dilbert Comic?

I despise those machines at Supermarkets and always use a person. I can believe other people would chose convenience over somebody else having a job.

At this rate I not do want to buy a house and save - but how the hell can one save and leave money in the bank when inflation just eats it away.

It is not like I have access to insider trading like the political and banking class.

And honestly how the hell can twitter be listed on the Stock Exchange? What does it even produce?

It is obvious to me that the immigration crisis in North America is being set up to merge Mexico and the United States into the North American Union.

I feel like the couple at the start of the movie the idiocracy. Ugh...

Toxic Thoughts are not needed in life. :|

Be good to hear from anybody else.

 

Its all about maximising profit and cutting costs. Nearly everyone hates those self-checkouts most of time unless you've got 1 or 2 items.

People don't choose these over somebody having a job, we are often forced to use them because the supermarket management has sacked many of the checkout people.

 

I'm looking forward to more robots!

Ever since I saw Cherry 2000

From 25 seconds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kckEEQKXaCU

 

When the robot overlords come to take you away, the last words you will hear are "unexpected item in bagging area".

 

As a shareholder in Woolworths, I do my bit and use the self-serve checkout whenever possible. It's a hell of lot quicker even with the odd bagging area error than standing behind half a dozen blue rinsers on pension day or when you get someone disputing 20 cents for an item on special and wait for someone to go and check the price only to find it is the correct price.

 

I tend to line up for the old lady working the checkout so she's not forced onto the pension.

Related video work looking at (there's a shorter version if you're ADD) -
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SuGRgdJA_c[/youtube]

 

I'm pretty sure there have been quite a few threads about this, you might like to do a search on them.

Suffice to say, no, robots are not about to bring about the end of civilization.

Yes, they will take many jobs as machines have been doing for over 100 years.

Yes, it will make average joe's life better and give him more leisure time than before, just as it has been for the last 100 years.

No, we will not all lose our jobs, but it is highly likely we will all need to do less work and less strenuous work.

Yes, mainstream economists are leading us all down the garden path with all their rubbish. Economies are stagnating because of their debt loads, not because machines are stealing all our jobs. It's because we are all in massive debt to the banks and wall street types who have been enabled by government and it's false economic theories.

Any questions?

 

Jobs are disappearing faster than new opportunities are appearing.

The pace of improvements in automation technologies is accelerating and we are seeing clear evidence now that workers are being replaced by technology faster than new opportunities are created.

It is possible to do more with less workers across a large and growing spectrum of industries.

This chart show the gap starting to diverge:

 

Productivity as a measure of efficiency, or the ratio of output to input, can be both good and bad. Concern over potentially large shifts in employment are not anti-technology, anti-progress or anti-productivity. It's a concern over what we are actually going to be doing in the future to earn a living. Will new opportunities arise? Will we be able to adapt fast enough? Will a living wage be introduced? Will there be massive social unrest? That sort of thing.

BTW: Massive improvements to the ratio of output to input are not always beneficial if you are on the wrong side of the equation:

 

Alot of big questions we will all have to face in the future.
I have worked as an electrician on big resource projects, some of my favourite affirmations are.

Efficiency = Redunduncy
More delay more pay.

 

This has been going on for decades . I remember in the 80's My mate who owns a labour hire company got me into BHP for the xmas shutdown refurb as an engineer/fitter (im a builder) lol & the inefficiencies of the ticketed BHP engineers was woeful . After a few days of working with the neanderthals i was suggesting easier ways to do things more efficiently & pointing out their mistakes to one of the head engineers & promptly got shitcanned into the baghouse changing camlocks on the dustbags hahaha .That'll teach me to try to help :lol:

Oh well i didnt give a shit i still got the big money to help pay my mortgage at the time

They do things at a snails pace to ensure their positions dont become redundant & get rid of anyone who makes them look slow . You cant blame companies for automating things when you have people like that . What can be automated will be .

 

But they do have the right to work.... (not necessarily the right to a job I think):

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Adopted by the UN General Assembly

Article 23.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

 

And this is why businesses will always take robots over people.

Plus, once you've built a computer/robot/other to do a job, it can almost always do it better than a human. Even if it never pays off the cost in saved wages, increased productivity can still make it worthwhile.

Maybe a little simplistic, but if you don't want to be replaced by a robot, don't chose a job that a mindless machine can do better.

 

I had a friend who went to work at Department of Defense in clerical. After about 12 months she gave her 'manager' a list of improvements that could be made and efficiencies that could be improved. (She had broached the question with him - 'would you like my observations after 12 months here').

He was apparently surprised to see her return with her list and leaned back in his chair and said words to the effect: " People like you often come in and think of things to improve the place but we have our way of doing things. I suggest you just go along." He also mentioned that promotions came to people who stayed on and didn't rock the boat.

She decided to not rock the boat and spent most of her day on personal business and surfing the internet. She was promoted about 6 months later for being so efficient (as she put it, the job took 2 days and I had to be there for 5 days). Now she is sitting at the former manager's desk, no doubt organising our defense against terrorists - and squashing other 'work' initiatives.

/sarcasm button
/irony button
/anger button

 

Governments interference, especially on response to lobbying, is substantial but sometimes can be beaten. For example:

 

The whole machines will take our jobs/it's different this time thing has repeatedly cropped up ever since the agriculture revolution began and has been consistently proven wrong.

In the late 1700's, machines such as the loom and the spinning jenny were about to bring the end of the world upon us. Edward Baines, the historian, writing in 1834, made the following comment about these predictions:

- "At the accession of George III (1760), the manufacture of cotton supported hardly more than 40,000 persons; but since machines have been invented by means of which one worker can produce as much yarn as 200 or 300 persons could at that time, and one person can print as much material as could 100 persons at that time, 1,500,000 or 37 times as many as formerly can now earn their bread...

- "Any yet there are still many, even scholars and members of Parliament, who are so ignorant or so blinded by prejudice as to raise a pathetic lament over the increase and spread of the manufacturing system... there are persons who regard it as a great disaster when they hear that 150,000 persons in our spinning works now produce as much yarn as could hardly be spun with the little handwheel by 40,000,000."

In the 1870's and 1880's, the spread of mechanization showed that the end was in sight. David Ames Wells, writing on Recent Economic Changes in 1889, reported that:

The report of the United States Commissioner of Labor for 1886 furnishes the following additional illustrations:

Annual productivity growth is only 1-3 per cent at the moment. This is far, far less than what was being experienced in the past and yet this time it's different is the oft repeated mantra. It's all bullshit. Society gets richer as a result of productivity. Poverty is lessened not exacerbated. More jobs exist today than ever existed at any time in our history. The number of jobs has grown, not declined or even remained static.