# I, for one, welcome our new robot comrades...



## Thaumiel (Jul 22, 2015)

The other day I went to my local McDonald's in search of junk food only to discover it has been refitted with giant touch screens. The purpose of these? "Why so more orders can be taken with more ease, of course!", in fact it now works very similar to Argos.

While for me, this was great, I loathe and detest having to talk to people to order my food because people tend to irritate me. However, I was a bit disconcerted by the fact the entirety of the interaction I had with any of the staff was having one shout a number at me so I knew my order was ready. Honestly, now I wonder what is the point of the serving staff? I mean they just assemble the orders and shout numbers, a machine could do that as well. Although I wouldn't expect every fast food joint to be fully automated any time soon...

I have three *cough* two questions for the forum just out of interest.

1) Why do you think people can complain that others spend too much time not interacting with other humans, then be happy these machines are about so they don't have to talk to a person behind a counter?

2) If an entire profession is made redundant by automation, why are these people expected to find new professions?
    Better wording may be given by this quote shown to me by a friend on previous discussion.






3) What do you think people would end up doing if most jobs were replaced by machinery? I'm not talking AI level stuff, if the jobs requires a human mind then a human does it and certainly no robot apocalypse.


----------



## Kevin (Jul 22, 2015)

1) Are these the same people? Lacks statistics...
2) Expected by whom? I cannot imagine this issue without cost. That is the only factor driving automation, even on Mars.
3)If no one has a job how will they eat? Lets say the one percent control all this then we go back to a capitalist 'feudal system'. Either that or we get all enlightened and go 'Star Trek: Next generation.'- money/wealth not an issue. I can't see that happening so I think armed conflict-a revolt by the masses is in store. Unless the one percent can figure out how to placate the unemployed masses.


----------



## Thaumiel (Jul 22, 2015)

Kevin said:


> 1) Are these the same people? Lacks statistics...
> 2) Expected by whom? I cannot imagine this issue without cost. That is the only factor driving automation, even on Mars.
> 3)If no one has a job how will they eat? Lets say the one percent control all this then we go back to a capitalist 'feudal system'. Either that or we get all enlightened and go 'Star Trek: Next generation.'- money/wealth not an issue. I can't see that happening so I think armed conflict-a revolt by the masses is in store. Unless the one percent can figure out how to placate the unemployed masses.



Okay 1) is dodgy, I'll strike that through.

As for 2) it's a hypothetical on the cost, I realise it's not realistic in any way.  As for whom, I'll rephrase that.

For your war, say the unemployed won... What would they do? Destroy the machines and go back to pre-automated work? If the idealistic group won and shared wealth equally for people to survive, how long would it be before there is discontent enough for people to start warring again for more? War seems like the most likely result to me, but also an entirely pointless exercise.


----------



## walker (Jul 22, 2015)

Sorry, I'm not with you on this one.

I'd rather talk to a person.


----------



## Terry D (Jul 22, 2015)

There are situations when it is appropriate to replace people with machines: when the work being done is hazardous for humans, when the work requires zero adaptability (which is almost never the case), or when there simply aren't enough people to fill the jobs. Other than that, humans are always the better choice., unless, of course, we want a society which ceases to improve and develop. That's because for improvement to occur someone needs to recognize the need for it, and to have ideas. Ideas come from people, not robots. That's why forward thinking industry leaders like Toyota, are replacing robots with people. People can contribute creativity and flexibility which machines cannot. The greatest limitation to machines is their lack of adaptability.

How will all those people replaced by robots pay for the products and services the robots are providing? A paycheck for doing work is sort of a good thing -- at least it is in my household.


----------



## Thaumiel (Jul 22, 2015)

Terry D said:


> There are situations when it is appropriate to replace people with machines: when the work being done is hazardous for humans, when the work requires zero adaptability (which is almost never the case), or when there simply aren't enough people to fill the jobs. Other than that, humans are always the better choice., unless, of course, we want a society which ceases to improve and develop. That's because for improvement to occur someone needs to recognize the need for it, and to have ideas. Ideas come from people, not robots. That's why forward thinking industry leaders like Toyota, are replacing robots with people. People can contribute creativity and flexibility which machines cannot. The greatest limitation to machines is their lack of adaptability.
> 
> How will all those people replaced by robots pay for the products and services the robots are providing? A paycheck for doing work is sort of a good thing -- at least it is in my household.



Does a high level of automation necessarily mean that innovation will cease though? There'll be plenty of people suddenly with a lot of time on their hands, they'll have to do something, but I see your point.

Kevin also raised the point about food/services, which seems to be the major issue. One which will require a little more thought for me decide what might happen in that respect.


----------



## Terry D (Jul 22, 2015)

James 剣 斧 血 said:


> Does a high level of automation necessarily mean that innovation will cease though? There'll be plenty of people suddenly with a lot of time on their hands, they'll have to do something, but I see your point.



Here's a true story which shows what I mean: A large company that makes toothpaste was having a problem with sending out boxes of toothpaste with no toothpaste inside. It was becoming a customer service problem for the company, so the plant manager put a team of engineers (the 'innovative' guys) together to solve the problem. After much study, they purchased a machine with all sorts of sensors to detect the empty boxes and pick them out of the high speed process. While waiting for delivery of the expensive, automated machine, the plant manager noticed that the empty box issue went away. When he went down to the line to see what was going on, thinking that perhaps the equipment had come in early and been installed, he found that the person working on the existing equipment had placed a fan where it would blow on the line and push off any box that was empty. In my line of work, we call that 'creativity before capital'.

Kevin also raised the point about food/services, which seems to be the major issue. One which will require a little more thought for me decide what might happen in that respect.[/QUOTE]


----------



## KLJo (Jul 22, 2015)

Awesome thread! I'm really enjoying thinking about this.

1. Judge-y people like those who whine about the loss of human interaction, staring at our phones too much, etc. are also the same obnoxious, "How hard is your job?!?!" type when someone perpetrates the unforgivable crime of forgeting their ketchup packet, IME.

I think the two things are not at all mutually exclusive when you consider the ego requirements.

2. I love your quote, and it ties in to my answer for 3. 

3. I think it might be great if we shifted our measure of success from, "income generated" to "level of education". 

I currently live in Northern Minnesota; big mining industry. It is the goal of most able-bodied people to work in that field. This mindset leads to a lot of brain-waste. 

For example, I've lost count of how many people think it is funny to say, "I haven't read a book since school," when they see me reading. Though I've never said this irl, it is kinda gross to be surrounded by people who support each other in that type of thinking, or who brag about their lack of learning.

I can't even imagine what amazing things we'd find if people were expected to obtain real mastery of ideas instead of basic competence under the fairly rigid time constraint of k-12.


----------



## Meteli (Jul 22, 2015)

1. I've seen a claim that some childrens communication skills are underdeveloped, because they more and more learn those from other sources than actual person-to-person face-to-face communications. One thing is that these non- personal communication situations tend to be short and simple and sometimes all fiction. Sorry I cannot direct to that study itself, my memory is not too good to remember names for it. Another thing that I've seen blamed on the new technologies is peoples worsening memory, people needed to remember things like phone numbers before technology advanced to do it for us, its a possibility that remembering things like that is a learned skill as well and also needs use to keep it sharp. 

Interaction with person behind the counter is often very basic and kind of all fiction because the personnel is teached to keep a friendly smile plastered on their face no matter who or what, that is unless it is a cheap place where the employee plans to leave soon anyway, or some rare position, where there is no fear of losing the job for complaints, or you cannot go anywhere else to get the things you came to be in front of the counter for. I do not find the interaction very meaningful in a social way, for all these reasons. I suspect complaining will be made harder with machines, but there is also a fact that some people like to let off steam and when you are dealing with machines only, there is not much impact with those.

2. This happened when large dishwasher machines came everywhere. I've not seen it myself, but I've talked with my older neighbours. Less workhours were needed, so people were out of work. Some found other jobs, some went back to school and learned new professions and some remained unemployed. In my neighbours youth there was no unemployment and you could get job from a bakery or some other place by going in there and asking if they have work for you, or this at least was what happened when the old lady I know finished school, and she has done all her life work in a bakery. She learned her trade in her job. Now you go to school to learn everything of a trade and have no guarantee of getting a job after all that school that may have taken years.

My uncle worked for an abattoir, cutting meat, but it closed down and he was given a chance to move to another city where the owner had another factory, but he refused to leave his home. He did not want to learn another profession either. He has been unemployed until pension. He does not own a car, but goes everywhere he needs to visit on his bike, and he has kept his life simple. He grows some of his food, like potatoes on the childhood homes frontyard, he and his sisters and brothers have kept the house for summer use. Back to roots for him I guess.

3. Machines that create stuff that people love to buy make their owners rich and not as rich people work as trainees for things the machines cannot. They work long hours for fixed trainee pay hoping their talent is spotted for better paying work, or work for no pay for charities or as an hobby to get work experience so they can be trainees. I've done work like this, most of my work experience is actually exactly this. Government sometimes paid for the firm to take in the trainee, but I think they have stopped doing this because they noticed that the firm rather takes in a brand new trainee than hired the old one without the extra money coming in after the training period was officially over. A workmate of mine counted that my workplace really earned money with all bonuses they got for keeping me. When the money stopped flowing in, I was out from there as well.

Back to machines; They are moved out of the country with the factory so the rich people do not have to pay taxes for owning them, so there is less workplaces and also less money to hire trainees. Then the trainees pay is too high, and is taken a notch down, and eventually it is not enough for life expenses. Also the people that have been gaining work experience for working as a hobby have to get money for their life expenses from somewhere else. It was tax money, but there is a problem, as money is coming from nowhere because the people with machines that create things to get money from people that still have money are not in the country anymore. So loans must be taken from the rich people that are not anymore in the country. But they dont want to give, so the country sells things the rich want to buy, and they want to buy land and patents for innovations and other things that could make the country more money in the long run if the country were not in such a pinch. (This is incredibly stupid but it is happening too) Communism has fallen but I think the consumerism we now have will fall hard too. What comes after I do not know. Todays economic system makes only few people very rich, and all others get poor, and that means poor people may need to think alternatives for exhanging goods with the other poor people and only use money for medicine and goverment related needs and DIY everything else, starting with housing and transportation.


----------



## walker (Jul 22, 2015)

KLJo said:


> 1. Judge-y people like those who whine about the loss of human interaction, staring at our phones too much, etc. *are also the same obnoxious*, "How hard is your job?!?!" type when someone perpetrates the unforgivable crime of forgeting their ketchup packet, IME.



Who is like this?

I worked in the service industry for many years (more than 15), beginning in high school. As recently as last year, I worked in two pizza places and a deli to make ends meet. I never met people like this. Looks like we've had different experience.


----------



## KLJo (Jul 22, 2015)

Lol, we're always at odds this week. 

I'm just gonna be blunt, because I think you can handle it...the type of person who complains about human interaction to, for example, their teenage kids, thinks they're too good to interact with an adult working in a pizzeria or a deli. 

Not saying they're right. Just saying I've met many. I really don't think the two points are mutually exclusive.


----------



## Foxee (Jul 22, 2015)

I would suggest working backwards from a result that you want and see what methodology realistically brings about that result. 

The Cheeseburger & fries

The cheeseburger is served to the customer. Prior to that it is assembled, before that cooked, before that transported as ingredients (okay, I'm skipping some prefab steps), before that the ingredients were harvested after being grown/produced.

In order to convert cows (and/or soybeans), wheat, sugar, tomatoes, eggs, potatoes, etc. into the finished product you probably have something like a hundred or more people in the direct supply chain for the food to get to become a cheeseburger meal.

This doesn't count the support and utility jobs that contribute to the direct supply chain, providing energy for transport, conversion of resources, light, etc.

Each of these people pays the others. Each of them takes the money home and uses it to keep their own household working.

So lets remove all these jobs in a blast of robotic goodness. Now, unless all of the people who held those jobs replace the way that they earn a living with a new way of earning a living, no living will be earned. As a result they will not have shelter, water, food, clothes, or other such piffling necessities.

So what would they be doing if all of their jobs were removed and there was no other profession? They'd riot, they'd start a revolution to overthrow the jerk who, when told that people didn't have cheeseburgers said they could just 'eat cake'.

For that you can check out history, even without robots it is a pretty good indicator of what people will do...because they already did.


----------



## Deafmute (Jul 22, 2015)

I am pretty sure the OP is suggesting a non monetary society. I am quite sure the person quoted in his OP is suggesting that ideal. One I would fully support. If it was even remotely feasible.


----------



## walker (Jul 22, 2015)

I'm confused.

I wondered if the "IME" in your post meant that you had actually slung ketchup packets. I guess not.

I posted in this thread that I value human interaction. I also tip at least 20% everywhere I go, even the taco stand, and I never criticize service, even if it's bad. I've been on the other side of the counter. So you can add my data point to your hypothesis that people who "whine" about loss of human interaction are likely to be hyper-critical when ordering food, and suffer from ego problems.

A lot of customers in sit-down pizza places and delis seem to come in exclusively for human interaction. Some of them order nothing, or something small, and want to talk for half an hour. I guess the people who pick up a $5 pizza at Little Caesars (me, sometimes) wouldn't miss the chatter, so it probably depends somewhat on the business model.


----------



## Lewdog (Jul 22, 2015)

James 剣 斧 血 said:


> The other day I went to my local McDonald's in search of junk food only to discover it has been refitted with giant touch screens. The purpose of these? "Why so more orders can be taken with more ease, of course!", in fact it now works very similar to Argos.
> 
> While for me, this was great, I loathe and detest having to talk to people to order my food because people tend to irritate me. However, I was a bit disconcerted by the fact the entirety of the interaction I had with any of the staff was having one shout a number at me so I knew my order was ready. Honestly, now I wonder what is the point of the serving staff? I mean they just assemble the orders and shout numbers, a machine could do that as well. Although I wouldn't expect every fast food joint to be fully automated any time soon...
> 
> ...



I actually so a lady on television one day talking about this very thing, defending President Obama's choice to back automation in factories and other professions.  She said progress does really effect jobs, because it simply creates other job where people have to make the same products that took their jobs.  Fighting against progress has always been a problem but as a race we have evolved and been better for it.  Just look at the history of the Industrial Revolution.


----------



## walker (Jul 22, 2015)

Foxee said:


> For that you can check out history, even without robots it is a pretty good indicator of what people will do...because they already did.



Agreed. Just look at Detroit. Was automation of the automobile industry practiced with the good of the workers and society in mind? Heck, no. They cut and ran, and now they're paying slave wages in Latin America and elsewhere. Nobody in inner-city Detroit is pondering the fine points of philosophy, as a result of the automobile industry's push towards automation. The people were never part of the plan.

If it weren't for labor unions, we'd still be talking about twelve year olds working fourteen hour days in sweatshops in America. It is astonishing that people still ascribe altruistic motives to large corporations.


----------



## escorial (Jul 23, 2015)

going through the train station you are met with a projected figure of a woman behind a solid desk telling you to be careful....the future will probably be amazin but not all i guess


----------



## KLJo (Jul 23, 2015)

Walker said:
			
		

> I also tip at least 20% everywhere I go, even the taco stand, and I never criticize service, even if it's bad.



I love this. I'm the same. Although, I think a living minimum wage with no tipping would be a great future!

Edit: I agree about unions, and to an extent, automation. It seems like there must be some argument made for free-trade though?


----------



## walker (Jul 23, 2015)

KLJo said:


> It seems like there must be some argument made for free-trade though?



Free trade is a little over my head. My crude understanding is that it is not good for either jobs or the environment, at least from an American point of view. As far as jobs go, the kind of higher minimum wage jobs you talk about are replaced by $1/hr. wages south of the border, wherever feasible. Obviously you still need people to serve hamburgers in America, but the Mexican border is now one giant assembly line for American goods. Lines of tractor trailers cross the border from the north, with parts for consumer goods. The goods are assembled in Mexico, by $1/hr. employees, instead of $12/hr employees in Phoenix or $35 an hour employees in Detroit. The automobile industry has invested heavily in this type of "maquiladora" assembly. That's where the Detroit jobs went. The same trucks bring the goods back to the U.S. for sale. Environmental protection falls to the lowest common denominator under free trade. Let's say there are U.S. laws against dirty plastics production. You own a plastics factory in San Jose, and have to install all kinds of expensive equipment to control pollution. South of the border no such laws exist. Prior to free trade agreements, we could refuse to import dirty plastic, protecting our manufacturers. Post free trade, such laws are seen as unfair barriers to free trade. Disputes are arbitrated by a board with an equal number of members from each country. So, free trade has taken a big chunk out of the American manufacturing base. Again, my understanding is superficial, not deep, but that's how I understand the largest dynamics of free trade agreements. Who supports them? Not labor unions. Large corporations do, as well as consumers enamored of cheap goods. But those cheap goods come at a price. It is hard to argue that a service-based economy is healthier than a manufacturing-based economy.


----------



## Kevin (Jul 23, 2015)

At the fill-up they have voices and video telling me all sorts of inane crap. I hate it, make a point of tuning it out. It so... impersonal, and treating me like a sheep. I'm judgy that way.  Same with bad service. I'm judgy all the way. I would never give bad service and I expect not to receive it.

Automation means that eventually, outsourcing is moot. It won't matter where you put the factories as they won't employ anyone anyway. It won't matter that the pay rate is $1 there, $15 here. Security concerns, location to market, those will be the deciding factors. Its all about cost.


----------



## walker (Jul 23, 2015)

Kevin said:


> Automation means that eventually, outsourcing is moot. It won't matter where you put the factories as they won't employ anyone anyway. It won't matter that the pay rate is $1 there, $15 here. Security concerns, location to market, those will be the deciding factors. Its all about cost.



It does matter that the payrate is $1 here, and $15 there; ironically, for reasons of security, among other things. Why do you think that people are crossing the border into the U.S., at risk of dying from dehydration, sexual assault, and worse? Because it's worth the risk, if you make $1 an hour. If you're concerned with illegal immigration, you support a living wage, not in the U.S., but in Mexico. 

I remember arguments of this "it doesn't matter who, when, where, how much, etc." type around the time of the Iraq War. "We're not going there for oil. Oil is a fungible commodity. It enters the global market, and the price adjusts, no matter who produces, it, blah, blah, blah." If that was the case, then why didn't we just gift the Russians with Texas and Alaska? They, in their ignorance, would have done all of the work extracting and refining the oil, and we, the smart ones, would have still been able to buy it at the same price. It didn't matter who controlled the oil or where it was produced, right?

The maquiladoras are pretty close to Phoenix. I wouldn't presume to go down there and tell anybody that it doesn't matter that they are working for $1 an hour.


----------



## Blade (Jul 23, 2015)

KLJo said:


> I currently live in Northern Minnesota; big mining industry. It is the goal of most able-bodied people to work in that field. This mindset leads to a lot of brain-waste.
> 
> For example, I've lost count of how many people think it is funny to say, "I haven't read a book since school," when they see me reading. Though I've never said this irl, it is kinda gross to be surrounded by people who support each other in that type of thinking, or who brag about their lack of learning.



This works fine until the mines run out of ore or the price drops down out of sight. Automation is a threat here as well.



Deafmute said:


> I am pretty sure the OP is suggesting a non monetary society. I am quite sure the person quoted in his OP is suggesting that ideal. One I would fully support. If it was even remotely feasible.



In the not too distant future it is feasible. Increasing automation and productivity will eventually lead to a 'product surplus' reality, at least in juistictions that are techno-advanced.:flower:


----------



## Kevin (Jul 23, 2015)

> It does matter that the payrate is $1 here, and $15 there


 I said : 





> Automation means that *eventually*, outsourcing is moot. It *won't* matter


 Now... for your insubordination, as *future* Master of the Western-Fourth Quadrant Fiefdom, I sentence you to the salt mines


----------



## KLJo (Jul 23, 2015)

Blade said:


> This works fine until the mines run out of ore or the price drops down out of sight. Automation is a threat here as well.



I'm originally from Kitchener, my Father worked at Budds.

Edit: I definitely get the automation argument. I just think that free trade is a big factor as well.


----------



## Blade (Jul 23, 2015)

KLJo said:


> I'm originally from Kitchener, my Father worked at Budds.
> 
> Edit: I definitely get the automation argument. I just think that free trade is a big factor as well.



8) I have lived here for many years; I used to work at Kuntz Electroplating.

There are other factors aside from the trend towards increased productivity using fewer and fewer people. 

Commodity prices would be one. Oil was trading at $100 a barrel a year ago but there is now talk of prices going below $40 in the near future. Things like Copper and Gold can put up spectacular prices for temporary high demand and then crash with an economic slowdown.

Product obsolescence. What ever happened to cassette players and tapes? Why is McDonald's no longer a global cash cow?

This is overall a dangerous situation for the human worker. New technologies can seriously erode job security in a short span of time undermining the old concept of 'a job for life'. I am sure a lot of research is going into this but it will produce much speculation.:blue:


----------



## walker (Jul 23, 2015)

Kevin said:


> I said :  Now... for your insubordination, as *future* Master of the Western-Fourth Quadrant Fiefdom, I sentence you to the salt mines



As long as I don't have to work for $1 an hour.


----------

