0
4

[–] AmaleksHairyAss 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

In my opinion it's up to Trump. If he can prevent a recession in the next few months (and that would be a miracle) the US economy really will have tight employment numbers and rising wages. In that case there will be considerable incentive to automate this year. In the more likely case there's a fairly large recession in 2017 that automation will be put off to later 2018 to mid 2019. In either case we can count on the low-hanging fruit to be eliminated. That means warehouse bots, self-driving delivery trucks (with a human for the last 30 feet) self-driving big rigs (with a human on board for now) and more automated mines.

And on that last one I don't know WHAT Trump thinks he's doing promising coal mining jobs. Those jobs are gone forever.

0
4

[–] 8267421? [S] 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

If robots and AI are economically advantageous, they will take the jobs, whether it's in the USA, Europe, Asia, or wherever. It's not something we can stop. The race towards efficiency is inevitable, and it will create gross inequalities never seen before. I don't know what the solution will be, but there's no stopping progress.

1
1

[–] TotallyNotAFed 1 point 1 point (+2|-1) ago 

Best I can see, universal basic income. Until anybody gives me a better solution, that's what I'm going with.

0
1

[–] level_101 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I work in automation. Nailed this right on the head.

What is not being understood is that when one person can develop automation to replace 4 people... All of those people will be employed until the automation is complete. After that point. Those positions will never come back again.

It is cheaper to employ someone who can automate your processes at 300% market value WHILE employing the existing workforce.. If you know that you can fire 1/4th of the rest of the workforce in less than a year. (Yeah, its that fast).

Automation is amazing and it is the future (and always has been). It is still going to really F-Up the world economy.

As such. I highly suggest learning how to automate any process that is part of your current work life. It will potentially lead to a future in automation. Better be the ones building the bots, than the ones replaced by them ^^tm.....

[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
2

[–] Blessthemaker 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

The president doesn't control the economy dummy

0
1

[–] MaFishTacosDaBombBro 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Why do you think the coal jobs are lost forever? I'm asking because there's coal mines near to me, and folks on the radio are hopeful that Trump will ease regulations to start mining things again.

0
6

[–] rwbj 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

There's a big reason we moved to natural gas. It has nothing to do with environmental policy, regulations, or pretty much anything. It's price, plain and simple. And solar power is already becoming price competitive against natural gas and the price continues to precipitously drop.

And keep in mind that coal and oil are both heavily subsidized. If Trump kills off all energy subsidies solar would be even more price competitive. However, I think since he certainly won't touch the oil subsidies he's probably not going to touch any energy subsidy to avoid overt hypocrisy about his 'government shouldn't pick winners and losers.' Of course not touching those subsidies is still doing the same thing, but that's a rant for another time!

0
2

[–] AmaleksHairyAss 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

At this point it's much less expensive to use automated trucks and shovels for most coal mining. We could double coal output and only add 10% more jobs. Just as important, the world is moving to solar power over the next five to ten years.

1
0

[–] DickHertz 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Of course they are because they see autonomous machines as cotton gins.

Like Ross Perot said, if they know so much about it money and trade where are all the all billionaire economists?

[–] [deleted] 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
5

[–] rwbj 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

I think there's a difference between sober skepticism and something bordering on denial. At this point we can look at vehicular automation, just by itself, as something that will be imminently completely upsetting our jobs system. This isn't pie in the sky futurism. You can buy cars that are completely capable of driving themselves. And in Tesla the crash rate among vehicles when in auto-driving mode is already a fraction of that when humans are driving the vehicles. Uber is already testing completely automated taxis. They still have humans in the car or this wouldn't be called a test, but this isn't like "Oh maybe 5, 10, 20 years down the line this might happen." The technology has already happened. What we're in now is the refinement phase before it's commercially released. And again that's just one form of automation among countless others, but it's one that will single handedly completely wreck our jobs system.

Your comment would be like if we already had numerous stations on the moon with dozens of people at each testing them out to ensure their safety and stability, and you were claiming that colonies on the moon were a distant future fantasy.

0
2

[–] 8267438? [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

This was a report from bank economists, not futurists.

0
0

[–] Iroc ago 

They were talking about automation taking jobs in the 20s.

0
2

[–] derram 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

https://archive.is/wZPvy | https://vgy.me/9XUzBM.png :

Economists May Be Underestimating How Fast the Robots Are Coming - Bloomberg

'Economists may be underestimating the impact on labor markets of increasing automation and the rise of artificial intelligence, according to a post published on the Bank of England’s staff blog on Wednesday.“The potential for simultaneous and rapid disruption, coupled with the breadth of human functions that AI might replicate, may have profound implications for labor markets,” BOE regional agents Mauricio Armellini and Tim Pike wrote in the Bank Underground post. “Economists should seriously consider the possibility that millions of people may be at risk of unemployment, should these technologies be widely adopted.”Robots and intelligent machines threaten to replace workers in industries from finance to retail to haulage, with BOE Chief Economist Andrew Haldane estimating in 2015 that 15 million British jobs and 80 million in the U.S. could be lost to automation. '

' Past periods of technological upheaval, such as the industrial revolution, may not be a useful guide as the pace of change was slower, giving society longer to mitigate the potential consequences of increasing job displacement and inequality, according to Armellini and Pike.“Economists looking at previous industrial revolutions observe that none of these risks have transpired,” they wrote. “However, this possibly underestimates the very different nature of the technological advances currently in progress, in terms of their much broader industrial and occupational applications and their speed of diffusion.”“It would be a mistake, therefore, to dismiss the risks associated with these new technologies too lightly,” they said. '

This has been an automated message.

0
2

[–] OKythen 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

So why do we need the immigrants???

0
0

[–] Cognoggin ago 

My take away is that all economists are robo-sexuals.

0
1

[–] M346 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

A franchise owner doesn't want to be responsible for robots, they want to boss kids around and do nothing themselves.