Laborless Society

Governement can forbid the use of it if it would damage the economy.

>>1279640
>Using government to impede technological progress because it threatens jobs.
We're going to freeze all progress and say society is the best it can be right now to preserve poor paying jobs that people hate to do? That doesn't sound like a worthwhile solution on any front.

Oh, so you'd rather want your tax money to be spend on welfare because Kaneesha and Tyron are unable to find a job?

You talk about technological progress like it were some kind of race.

>>1279648
Major corporations are the first to go laborless. Kaneesha and Tyrone will be the only ones that still have traditional jobs soon due to their community having small businesses like the barber shop.

>>1279640
>>1279648
>>1279650

please learn economics 101

I don't like the loss of humanity these sort of machines bring, I would pay more to deal with a real person

>>1279660
I doubt you or anyone else is going to actually offer to pay more for human truckers.

>>1279652

>Tyrone
>Jobs

kek, barbershops will employ less than 1% of the black population. It is only going to get worse.

>>1279660
Everyone else will so you're not going to be able to find businesses that use real people except super-high-end-luxury establishments. Hope you're rich.

>>1279672
Poor people in majority black/immigrant communities with a tradition of small businesses are going to do far better than poor white communities which tend to not even know their neighbors.

>>1279678

You clearly don't know anything about white communities then. I live in a small farm-town and everyone here buys local. It is also 99% white and educated. All the money gets made off other communities and spreads within itself.

>>1279691
I did qualify with "poor".

>>1279696

45% of my town is sub-poverty line. The crime is extremely low and you only here sirens when someone from out of town didn't use their blinker or something.

I would love to see just ONE equivalent in the black """"""community""""""

>>1279678
>black/immigrant communities
>tradition of small businesses
I see you've never lived anywhere but with your parents in a middle class 99% white suburban neighborhood.

>>1279710

Seriously. All the gas-stations and liquor stores are owned by Asian/Indians. All the credit unions and banks are Jews/Whites. The only thing actually black is the barbershop. Immigrants also eat at each others restaurants but that is about it.

>>1279648
Side note, i literally know no black people on welfare, swriously im as surprised as you once i thought about it. I do however know atleast 4 asian families and 2 white people who are

>>1279701
>educated small farm town
>45% of my town is sub-poverty line.
Small farm towns are economically inefficient so the fact that everyone is apparently educated and less than 50% are below the poverty line (I assume that's the national line, not adjusted to the region or those people would have already left) tells me that as a unit your small farm town is by no means poor and are there out of choice.

>>1279691
>>small farm town

Yes good for you, you have work ethic

Über workaholic corporate mommy and daddy living in culdesacs in florida and los angeles. Those people dont have applicable skills. Their jobs done on computers are literaly replacable by computers and at the moment doable by computers. These people have no job once the program is designed to do what they do nonstop for free.

As much as you might not want to admit it. You fall into the same category as some minorities. Because you all buy and provide localyour community will be ok because youll sell up to the rich people who can afford your produce and provide for yourself. Likewise imigrants provide services for people outside their communities to put back into their own. Not all, but ones who do, you fall into the same category with.

>>1279721

My point was for rural working class communities. I understand that upper middle-class white fucks in gated communities don't know each other. I just took at as you not understanding the complexities outside of that.

It is like when the "no white american culture" thing gets thrown out there. Mine and neighboring towns have an annual event at least every month. Festivals, Music, etc... Mostly old German shit.

File: 61f4a276-89ba-4e8f-bf9a-476a4f2c5e59.jpg (48KB, 600x500px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 600x500px

>>1279640
>the solution to minimal wage is more government regulation
I dont even know if this is bait or not.

>>1279734
the solution to unemployment due to minimal wage*

>>1279628
honestly its pretty damn simple. tge labor market wouldn't be replaced, it'd simply shift. rather than work at mickeydicks the low level workers would move either be forced to adapt and acquire the skills for slightly better sales or retail positions that are less easy to replace with robots, or move down to manual labor positions that can't yet be replaced by robots.

you can't impede advancement, it's going to happen sooner or later. its simply reducing redundancy.

>>1279628

As the automation progresses and more and more people will be forced to fight over less and less available jobs (like thousands of applicants to 1 job), the government and the big corporations will need additional riot police and security guards to suppress the inevitable protests.

Weaponized robots aren't very good atm and it will take a long time until they will be able to fully replace human meatshields.

>>1279764
>manual labor positions that can't yet be replaced by robots
Those don't exist. The only manual labor positions that are not majorly replaced by automation are ones where a bean counter has decided the labor market is so saturated that the cost of human labor is not and will not for the foreseeable future rise above the preliminary costs of automation (having to actually create and test the technology themselves) but of course if someone else makes that technology for them, they'll use it if it costs less to purchase and operate than people's wages.

>>1279771

Nevermind that robots won't pass muster for doing unsupervised first aid for a while.

Basically, if your job requires first aid of any sort or more advanced medical knowledge, you're safe.

>>1279721
>Their jobs done on computers are literaly replacable by computers and at the moment doable by computers.
Are you trying to say that all tasks currently done on computers are to be automated in the near future?

You realize how wrong this is, right?

File: image_2.jpg (10KB, 255x265px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 255x265px

What will this mean for the average population if automation did most of everything? How would you spend your days, Anon?

>>1279896
Working in one of the many thousands of jobs that can't be automated.

>>1279896
Working in the field of automating the thousands of jobs >>1279921 doesn't think can be automated.

>>1279812
Most jobs, yes.

You have no idea how far programming has advanced

>>1279628
H-hey
What if we eliminated minimum wage?

Those machines aren't worth the capital they tie up if we can get employees willing to do the job for $5 hr.

It's almost as if the problem was caused by more government and the solution requires l-less government?.......

>>1279937
>let's disincentivize progress by increasing poverty
The topic is how to prevent us going Mad Max, not speeding it up.

>>1279946

What if we just sabotaged the robots so costs of automating would just increase?

>>1279934
I'm a developer for an enterprise-level company.

At the end of the day, someone has to make design decisions and implement them.

We abstract out more and more every day, so programming is now essentially duct taping 30 libraries and passing information to and from them all.

>>1279969
That's great.

But the vast majority of people who work on computers do shit like excel, sql and other things that are easily automatized.

>>1279967
Seems like your idea is aiming for roughly the same employment niche that >>1279771 proposed and I doubt they scale well.

>>1279969
>At the end of the day, someone has to make design decisions and implement them.
There are major pushes for general AI going on right now, the end result being all types of work (creative included) are under threat of heavy amounts of automation. That doesn't mean jobs will be gone but will have far fewer positions and be done in collaboration with AI Because at the end of the day, someone has to make design decisions but there's no reason you'll be making them alone and you probably won't be doing much at all in the implementation process.

That screen would have herpes and aids at the end of every day

>>1279628
Theyll just wxpand the welfare state to keep the poor sedated. We already have VR and soylent and were legalizing weed...

Already there are less and less general labor jobs and more tech- and personal jobs.

1. As long as labor is replaced with machines, humans will be needed to build/regulate/program machines.
2. Humans need other humans.

Society will never be truly labor-less so long as the human psyche requires labor. Rather, labor will be invented based on needs and desires. Primitive man labored to survive; modern man has luxury-professions like entertainers and thinkers that would not survive in a society that could satisfy only the bare minimum requirements of survival.

>>1279640
how can you forbid the use of automation?

did you even think while writing your post?

File: 1324580219335.jpg (46KB, 604x453px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 604x453px

Factories already exist that can operate lights out for a month without any human interaction.

Makes you wonder why people wish for American manufacturing to make a comeback (judging from the applause at Trump rallies) when soon enough, the only steady low-skill human jobs at these places will be quality assurance at the end of the assembly line.

>>1279985
That isn't programming.

That's data entry, and yes, programmers like me are removing those jobs daily.

>>1279896
The same as I do now, NEET and leeching off my parents

>>1279628

No more paying hourly cashier, but prices stay the same? Fuck you I want my $1 McDouble back.

>>1280028
We were talking about jobs done on computers, not about jobs in programming.

What i meant when I said "You have no idea how far programming has advanced" was that it advanced so far, most of computer based jobs can and will be replaced

File: ballmer_peak.png (91KB, 652x592px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 652x592px

>>1280046
Oh, fair enough.

I was looking at 'jobs done on computers' through my own biased lens of a developer.

At the same time, there are some situations where you're not necessarily removing a job, but enriching one.

For example, one of our accounting/sales folks has to spend a significant amount of time doing some manual fixing of invoicing. I am working on a program to replace this manual task.

This will not remove his job, but allow him to do the more qualitative aspect of his job, which is networking and selling, hopefully benefitting our company at the sole cost of my hours of work.

>>1280028
it's actually much cheaper to hire some slut to punch things into excel than to create a fully automated system

>>1280062
That's the H1B mentality.

It would be expensive if we paid an unskilled laborer a small amount to do that, considering the very negative effect a mistake can cause.

It's hard to put a price on clients not having faith in their invoices.

Lose enough goodwill and you've just lost a client that could pay for 10 of those sluts for a year.

The expense for the system is only a few days of my labor, which is infinitely cheaper than hiring some slut and paying benefits and having an extra employee to worry about.

>>1279987

Eh, no one's going to come up with a solution that actually helps the poor folk, so why not join them when the number of poor swells due to lost jobs?

>>1280075
Why would I want to be poor?

File: neckbeard%2B%281%29[1].jpg (10KB, 312x231px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 312x231px

>>1280028
>programmers like me are removing those jobs daily.

Off to /r/futurology with you

>>1280080
What's the issue?

Data entry can be just silly, considering how easy it is to automate data processes these days.

Notice how you can cash checks by just taking a picture of it now.

That information is gleaned from simple image recognition, and removes the necessity for some old lady looking it over and punching that information into the computer.

Now, you just have someone who does a final approval for large amounts or edge cases, and the company is better for it.

Programming is removing jobs and making them better, and that's a good thing.

>>1280008
>1. As long as labor is replaced with machines, humans will be needed to build/regulate/program machines.
But far fewer of them than prior. See instagram with its 12 employees.

>>1280089
True. If you look at, say, a computer factory - machines building machines. Fascinating.

>>1280086
nothing personal, and nothing against data entry, where you're probably right, but the whole debate is usually led by people who are way too optimistic about AI development or robotics.

> thinking replacing the human service touch with machines is a good idea

It's sure worked out great with call centers.

>>1279969
I'm a SW tester in a multinational company and I specialize in test automation. I have been in this field for only one year and I'd like to have a career in it. At the moment I'm thinking about getting a bunch of certifications (at least partially on my dime).

This should be relatively safe investment, right? A lot of SW needs to be written, therefore a lot of it needs to be tested.

>>1280142
Unit tests and things like Xamarin's mobile unit farm will make testing jobs less and less needed.

>>1280100

Yeah, because it shouldn't be a debate, it should just be happening. People leading a debate are doing nothing except getting their own high from "being at the forefront of technology" (See: early adopters, one of the most reactionary, echochambery groups of users)

Ever since the dawn of man useless manual labor Niggers have been afraid of progress and advancement because of "muh manual labor jobs"

Don't worry. No matter how much society advances, we will always find menial, affirmative action jobs so useless Niggers have something to do.

Look at america's Unions & government jobs for example.

We CREATE inefficiency just so niggers have shit to do.

>>1279628
Craft beers, hipster eateries and etsy

>>1279628

Basic income sometime in the next 40 years

>>1280255
You must not like economic freedom.

>>1279937
Here:
>>1279734
>>1279743

>>1280028
>programmer here
kek. Get back to work Abinav, I mean Steve

All jobs going to robots, India or China eventually that's why the /biz/ endgame has to be 1 not working or 2 being the bossman who cuts the jobs and saves the bottom line.
>mfw another bonus for me for beating EPS target and there's more parking spaces today I'll use 4 spots

technology and robots will never take up jobs, at least not in the next 2000 years

the problem is that there are no jobs to begin with

>>1280239
tech is developing really slow now.
instead of big computers you have smaller computers and virtual reality.
nothing is gonna get replaced in this rate

I'm just gonna leave this here. Its a great 15 min watch, but the gist is that complete automation is coming. It won't be about us not wanting to work and being unemployed, it will be about being unemployABLE. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

>>1279628
HOLD THE FUCK UP.

You're telling me you fired all the idiots and replaced them with a robot sending productivity to 100% at 1/3rd the cost.... and nothing on the menu is cheaper?

Chances are very good that there will still be jobs.
If there aren't, then go beg for handouts like you liberals always do.

>>1280616
we're in the age of kike scams.

>>1279812
ai can now write their own languages you fucktard

>>1279734
Sort of like how every failure of corporatism is used as justification of more corporatism. Hey guise, teh fwee markutz never been twied!

>>1279934
With all those Pajeets out there taking a huge dump in the field? You seriously overestimate technology.

File: Out of work.png (18KB, 1037x618px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 1037x618px

Holy massive ignorance, Batman.

>when automation comes, people will just """""""""""""find new jobs""""""""""""""""
This bullshit meme gets tossed around constantly. Fucking *constantly*.

Take a look at this picture. In blue you have the US population, in green our unemployed + "non participating" (ie still unemployed) population, and in red the percent of all people out of work.

Right now, we're sitting at a real unemployment rate of over 30%. Some forecasts for 2016 will put it at more than 33%. That's 1 in 3 Americans, over 100,000,000 people, who won't have jobs. And that's out of the entire population. If you just consider unemployment in the population of working-age adults, that rate is just under 50%.

Yup. 50% of all Americans of working age, who should have jobs, don't. And it's not a result of them being lazy, or uneducated, or discriminated against.

There are literally not enough jobs for everyone to have one. It hasn't been this bad since we started keeping accurate records, in all likelihood since the great depression.

>>1280767
There are three avenues through which the job market is evaporating, and one overarching principle. That principle? Profit. If you’re losing 60% of your revenue paying wages to inefficient meat bags who mess up orders, break machinery, mispack items, and treat customers poorly, you’re going to find a way to cut them out of the equation. The avenues of trimming fat are as follows, in this order: 1) increase worker efficiency, 2) outsource labor, 3) automate. As you can see, there isn’t anything after “automate”. Once that happens, that job is gone. It’s just gone, and it’s not coming back.

You’re losing money by employing so many people, so first you increase worker efficiency. You give them better tools, put a second screen on every desk, make and distribute schedules electronically rather than on paper. This is a continuous process, but generally, this avenue has dried up.

Next, you look to outsource labor. Why pay an entitled American $25 an hour to do a job that Hemanth in India can do for $3 an hour? America is currently at the tail-end of this epoch in industrial change. Most of the jobs still exist, they’re just in India for three bucks an hour or china for 30 cents.

Finally, and this is the coup de grace of labor, you automate. Technological, robotics, and computing have advanced to the point that, with a relatively small initial investment, you can replace $3 an hour Mr. Chang with $1.20 a day Automato. The robot doesn’t get tired, it doesn’t get sick, it doesn’t have kids, it doesn’t take vacation, it doesn’t make mistakes, it doesn’t need insurance, it doesn’t get mad at customers, it doesn’t sabotage operations, it doesn’t leak secrets. It is, for its intended purpose, better than the human in every way.

>>1279628
Tax companies with high revenue and low employee salaries.

Basic income for everyone, regardless if you work or not.

>>1280794
That’s what we’re transitioning to now. Driverless cars are already a reality, and this (I believe) will be the first change in labor big enough and fast enough for the public to actually notice. Millions of people in the US work in shipping and transportation. One of the biggest expenses of anything you buy is getting it from the factory to your living room. The biggest portion of that expense? Paying someone to drive the truck. Automated driving will shake up one of the oldest industries we have, and it will not be pretty, and it will not be stopped.

Now let’s address automation, specifically. People keep insisting, absolutely insisting, that any jobs taken by automation will be replaced with white collar labor; technicians to repair the robots, specialists to design them, advanced manufacturing workers to assemble them. Yes, these jobs will come up. In fact, these job areas will grow enormously. In 10 years’ time, I guarantee that “Automation Engineer” will become as common, or more common, than “Mechanical Engineer” or “Civil Engineer”.

But, the one thing everyone is forgetting (when they say “new jobs will be created!”) is that the whole *point* of automation is to pay less in labor. Its entire purpose is to reduce the workforce. So yes, when a factory gets fully automated you’re going to have 10 robot repairers who now have jobs, but they were only given jobs because 200 other people lost theirs. Yes, we’ll probably have a highly paid “Distribution Supervisor” in charge of a convoy of 15 vehicles, but 14 other drivers just lost their jobs, permanently.

>>1280823
Labor is on the way out. Humans are inefficient. I am not arguing this from a technological perspective; engineering is my trade, but business is my passion. Money dictates what happens to markets. And right now, the money is saying “fuck people, buy robots”. And the one thing you absolutely have to understand: this is a one way street. You cannot reverse the wheels of innovation. As a society, we must learn to adapt to an automated world, or face an upheaval that will make the French Revolution look like a playground scuffle.

>>1280767
>>1280794
>>1280823
You're an idiot.

>>1279648
No

>>1280100
Typically yeah. I agree with them in how far AI will eventually go, but it'll be a while until most jobs start seriously being threatened. People claiming it's happening now in any meaningful way are idiots who for some reason usually don't think their job is automatable.

>>1280419
>technology won't take jobs

>what is a self driving car
>what is modern agriculture
>what is an automated assembly line
>what is self checkout
>what is email

Where the fuck do you live?

I work in a "cutting-edge" manufacturing plant.

Machines are still running off air compressors and malfunction all the time. In my particular field, I can say that we won't be automated for at least ten years, if even that.

In my personal opinion, they'd sooner send our jobs off to some 3rd world shithole than replace us with robuts.

AI or cheap labor are the primary threats imo. In the case of AI, everyone has something to worry about so the point is moot.

File: 1461550096144.gif (467KB, 500x229px) Image search: [Google]

467KB, 500x229px

>>1280026
the high paying jobs that come with the sales, design, deployment, support and upgrade of these factories, robots, databases, networks, and programs will be numerous.

File: 1461797674057.gif (1MB, 615x346px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 615x346px

>>1280885
forgot the high skill development of these systems. millions of man hours of engineering and coding time.

>You will never see the end of wage slaving
Why even live?

File: 1464461085627[1].jpg (29KB, 538x297px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 538x297px

>>1280888
The point is few people will be able to create enough products for many more people.
Automation never multiplied jobs.
It creates new jobs, sure, but the main reason it's been so popular especially with western companies is that it ultimately reduces human labor, and costs because of that.
Look at this graph. It shows how productivity per worker has risen dramatically and consistently over the decades.
The inevitable outcome is Universal Basic Income, which would allow us to eliminate all of those nasty welfare systems (along with minimum wage) and solve all of our related problems (unemployment, etc.).
Of course this is only sustainable if worker productivity reaches a certain point.
Then most people won't have a job anyway.
It won't be a choice but the only sane solution.
And even if it means raising taxes that money is coming back anyway, and will be spent in products made by companies, driving the economy.

File: 1461636905683.gif (913KB, 500x700px) Image search: [Google]

913KB, 500x700px

>>1280906
would have to agree with the base income. i see no other way to keep things civil if we go full systems labor.

>>1280912
The best thing about UBI is that it can get both liberals and libertarians together.
It means less government, since the government just gives money to people who are then able to choose how to spend it.
The individual chooses.
And in truly free-market/capitalist fashion, competition determines the winner.

Everyone getting a basic income will bring many more to try their luck in the business world, opening companies or investing.
You can risk wasting your time, because you do not need a job.
You can also demand higher pay without the need for something as ridiculous as "minimum wage" simply because you do not *have* to work.

I think everyone can benefit from this system.
The rich will be the people who did work when they did not have to, and the poor will be the ones who did not.

>>1280767
>Right now, we're sitting at a real unemployment rate of over 30%. Some forecasts for 2016 will put it at more than 33%. That's 1 in 3 Americans, over 100,000,000 people, who won't have jobs. And that's out of the entire population. If you just consider unemployment in the population of working-age adults, that rate is just under 50%.
Wait what? 30% of ALL people are unemployed, meaning that 70% of people are employed, but 50% of WORKING AGE people are employed... so ergo the non-working-age population must have employment rates over 100% in order for that overall percentage to get up to 70%.

Or you're just a moron who can't even read and/or interpret his own charts.

File: 1462132565968.gif (523KB, 500x329px) Image search: [Google]

523KB, 500x329px

>>1280920
thank you, i was also confused by this but did not challenge it.

>>1280616
Welcome to our generation where automation makes things more efficient and prices still rise while jobs are slowly cut.
Lets be real though, we aren't going to hit a point where a huge portion of the population are unemployed but certain jobs will eventually be replaced and that guy getting paid somewhat decently now who will have his job replaced by a machine will not have a fall back option that pays him the same lifestyle he had before.
If the majority are paid basic income or something, Whos going to buy cars, boats, motorcycles, etc? Where will people get money for hobbies? Basic income will only cover basic needs, no luxuries. It's going to be a sad place to be living in.

>>1280948
>implying you cannot just start a business

>>1280948
Also prices won't necessarily rise forever. If machines produce goods (making manufacturign cheaper) and people can't buy them, there is no choice but to lower prices.

>>1280951
>yeah everyone will just start a business
get real, you imply starting a business is easy for the avg person which is who we are talking about.
Most people only have the effort to show up and do their shitty task for 8 hours and go home, watch tv and go to bed. Rinse repeat. These people will not be starting their own businesses

>>1280956
Yes, they won't.
But are their lives really better now?
Entertainment is cheap in the 21st century.
If they choose to watch netflix all day let them do it.
It's not like having a boat is much better, anyway.

>>1280955
lower them to what point though? Do you honestly think people on UBI will have a decent car or truck and a moderately sized house what was strictly paid for with UBI? I doubt it.

>>1280963
All I'm saying is everyone has different hobbies, One person may enjoy netflix binging etc. Some people enjoy other outdoor hobbies which generally cost more
>fishing, hunting, boating, traveling, quading etc

>>1280101
It did. They saved money and lowered your expectations. Win-win for them.

I'm assuming we're talking about the insurance and telecom oligarchs.

>we're going full automation!
This assumption's always pretty dumb, since it really only focuses on the context of the local economy.

You don't see a lot of companies abroad fully automating, since they can pay employees shit wages, it probably ends up cheaper for them than buying machines and paying for maintenance, electricity bills, etc.

In a first world country with access to capital? Possible, but it's more likely that more jobs will be given to Pajeets and Zhangs abroad beforehand; they're already doing that with programmers and ITfags.

>>1280971
You can do that in VR :^)
VR and videogames might get a huge boost from the "do nothing and live off of basic income" crowd.

>>1280983
Have you been living under a rock?
Outsourcing has been a thing for decades now.
The point is, that's drying up.
Wages in china have been rising and they are implementing automation more and more as a result.
India is next.
Also not everything can be outsourced. Look at McDonalds replacing workers with machines.

>>1280988
Lol VR will never replace the real thing, especially for someone who as actually done it before.

>>1280992
>someone who as actually done it before
So, people who eventually might not really exist if your predictions are correct.
Or at least they're gonna be the very few rich people who can afford it.

Also you are assuming that VR cannot be close enough to perfect realism to replace it.
It cannot now, but there's a lot of money going into that and it might eventually.

After all videogames are one of the fastest growing industries right now.
Videogame blockbusters are grossing more than movie blockbusters.
GTA V made more cash than the new Star Wars.

>>1281015
I agree that VR can one day provide realism graphically but doing it for real is just in my mind always going to be better
>Using my VR to emulate taking out my seadoo to hang out at the beach and take sluts for rides and fuck them afterwards.

>>1280827
>>1280823
>>1280794
>>1280767
This.

>>1281024
You were born in an era in which that was normal.
Many young people nowadays communicate more by using the internet than the real world.
If you're born in an era in which VR is normal, reality will look like the weird choice to you.
The thing is, we don't really know how the next generation will feel.

>>1280920
>meaning that 70% of people are employed
Or don't count toward employment figures by virtue of being too young or retired.

>>1280794
>in India for three bucks an hour or china for 30 cents.
>chinese wages are lower than india
>implying chinese labor hasn't gotten 6x more expensive in the last 10 years
shiggy diggy
India is the new china

>>1279771
>weaponized robots aren't very good

Anon have you seen the UAVs

>>1281068
You don't really need UAVs when you have long range missiles.
Just kill everyone and enjoy a world of robots taking care of your every need.

I'd pay a poor person to do my dishes every night and clean my home every week. It'll be a while before robots can do that, right?

Maybe once they get desperate enough, I can pay them to label datasets for AI. I can even host tournaments for games that are particularly challenging for AI to get enough data to train the machines properly.

Eventually, I'll need someone to "raise" my AI like a human child, so we can run proper experiments to see what exactly it is that makes a human human. I'd pay some poor people to raise my AI. Of course they wouldn't be allowed to have kids while they're doing it, since that might mess with the experiment, but at least they'd have jobs.

Maybe while they're raising the AI or even their own kids, I can pay them a little extra to put on some sensors that would track everything they do. That way, I can try to replicate the way they raise kids. It probably wouldn't go anywhere, but it's worth trying if it's cheap enough. Could be a contract thing, so I can avoid the minimum wage crap. Seriously, what entitled fuck would call that "working"?

So why are we trying to prevent this? I'm kind of okay with this future.

>>1281105
>So why are we trying to prevent this?
>we
who?
No one (no relevant person anyway) has argued against automation in the last decades.
The arguments against it are really dead especially in public opinion.
It isn't even being blamed by any current political party.
Neither Sanders, nor Trump or Clinton have argued against it.
They blame unemployment on all sorts of things, but none of them are machines.
It's either Mexico, "the billionaires", "wall street" etc. or muslims.
Muslim immigrants from 3rd world countries are a real threat for a completely different reason though.

>>1281043
You're an idiot too.

>>1279967
>What if we just sabotaged the robots so costs of automating would just increase?
Workers in the 19th century did that and it did not end well.

>>1280835
Great rebuttal faggot

>>1280920
>>1280934
Okay, now that I think about how that was worded, yes it's confusing. Yes 30% are unemployed/non-participating, but the other 70% isn't all employed; a big chunk of that is people under the working age and people over the working age. For 2015 the total population was 321 million, of which 204 million were working age, and 102 million were unemployed/non-participating. So 32% out of work, 32% with jobs (204MM - 102MM), and 36% not of working age.

So, of the 204 million of working age, half (102 million) were without jobs.

Good that you guys pointed that out, that wasn't very clear.

>>1281050
This, thank you.

>>1281133
Alright Fatty McRetard, tell me where I'm wrong.

File: HHgrKuA[1].png (86KB, 784x786px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 784x786px

>>1281186
According to this chart the number of employed people is 151 million in the USA.
With a population of 318 million people that means about half are unemployed, right?

>>1279628
The greatest lesson from that video is the guy doing the interview while hundreds slave away below on the conveyor belts. You have a choice in life to work hard, to strive and to learn to be the guy giving the interview, or to just accept mediocrity and work your 8-10 hour day in front of the conveyor belt, year in and year out.

>>1280948
You're assuming a UBI would have everyone being poor. I believe if UBI if it were say tied to the GDP of the country, paying out like each citizen is a stakeholder in their country, than like Saudi Arabia today there will be likely more than enough money per individual to pay for expensive items.
Someone should do the math on what the base income for the USA would be today taking the entire GDP and spreading 90% of the money out across every citizen. I would not be surprised if merica was already profitable enough for a middleclass level basic income.

File: ARiRiA6[1].png (49KB, 426x691px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 426x691px

>>1281286
>Someone should do the math on what the base income for the USA would be today taking the entire GDP and spreading 90% of the money out across every citizen. I would not be surprised if merica was already profitable enough for a middleclass level basic income.
That's called GDP per capita, it actually is a thing and has been a measure for a while

>>1281286
>>1281291
Just remove 10% from the 54'630$ and you get 90% which is 50000$/year
There. No need to even use a calculator.
I do not know how much income that is for a US citizen though.
We should assume however that this comes without taxes (if it's UBI taxing it would not really make sense)

>>1279640
Ur brain is quite the inferior type.
Kill yourself softly, sweet prince

We need population control. Of everybody to be fair, but we need it.
Not killing people, but we need to have a 2 child policy. I know white girls who speak ebonics who have 8 fucking kids.
Gotta stop. Its gotta fucking stop.

File: Federal_Poverty_Level_Guidelines_-_2016-06-02_18.43.12.png (6KB, 653x368px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 653x368px

>>1281296

>>1281333
What would be the point of that? (Besides your interest in regulating other peoples genitals.)

>>1281333
Couldn't agree more
Problem is the religious types won't behaving it. They are trying to spike their birth rates at all costs. Then you have the 40-50% of pregnancies that are completely unplanned. Our work is cut out for us

>>1281338
we need to regulate breeding. I'm sick of people having kids they can't possibly provide for

>>1281205
> children
> teens
> students
> retired

Think before your post

>>1281342
>they can't possibly provide for
If there's really NO possibility for them to provide for their children then isn't that a problem with the economic system, not them?
Raising a child doesn't even cost that much in the grand scheme of things, this guy's >>1280948 boat costs more.

>>1281346
It's not the system's fault that 16 yr olds can't provide. It's not the system's fault the illiterate crack dealers can't make enough selling dimebags to support a family. We need to stop this bleeding heart crap and get population control started. No guilt or shame or sublimed religion to stop us

>>1281349
Yeah but yall still haven't answered, what would be the point of that? (Besides your interest in regulating other peoples genitals.)

>>1281343
>Think before your post
I did.
They are still not employed, as in not working.
Meaning someone has to support them economically.
And that's exactly what our discussion is about.

>>1281351
Smaller population means less burden for one. The people targeted would be undesirables who will never develop job skills beyond soft AI's capabilities. That leaves the people smart enough to not get replaced by machines

>>1281354
>>1281349
No, there is no reason to limit the number of children.
The USA are not even remotely being threatened by overpopulation, that is literally just a meme.
In fact the population is not increasing by a lot.
Your anecdotal "white girls who speak ebonics who have 8 fucking kids." are not relevant.

If anything the problem is that people on welfare are making lots of children because they get more benefits from that. That's absurd.
Welfare should be limited to having 2-3 children maximum.
If you have more and are too poor to support them they should be taken away from you.

This is especially important with UBI. Otherwise someone could literally make thousands of children for free. If you have more than 3 children and no outside income the fourth child should be taken away.

There is absolutely no reason to start "population control". It is anti-democratic, authoritarian, pointless and it won't work (look at how well it worked in China, it didn't).

It's not about "bleeding heart", it's just retarded

>>1281354
>Smaller population means less burden for one.
How are you calculating that? A small population over a larger area will cost more in distribution than a far larger population all in one location, which is why cities are prosperous. There's alot of small things like that which provide greater benefits than forced population control.

>The people targeted would be undesirables
And how are you calculating? It's literally impossible to know who will be the next Einstein or Da Vinci or whoever that will completely change our world for the better.

>>1281352
You cannot count those people as workforce.

>>1281358
>There is absolutely no reason to start "population control".
>If you have more than 3 children and no outside income the fourth child should be taken away.
>look at how well it worked in China, it didn't
You're contradicting yourself pretty hard, right there.
I assume you ACTUALLY meant to say that UBI/welfare shouldn't pay out beyond 3 children's worth? Not that the child itself should be taken away since that would would be ten times as monsterous than China's 2 child policy. (See the Australia's "Stolen Generation" for details on the moral hazards of that.)

But realistically I can't see the economic benefits in regulating payouts in that way either. Your problem seems to insist that people may just farm themselves to profit from a UBI type system since it pays out per person. But each person also costs a significant amount (in money and time) and they retain the rights to their payouts so... UBI money minus the cost of raising them and for only around 16 years when you can maintain some rights over there use of their benefits. I sincerely doubt the profit margins are worthwhile enough without actual fraud (benefits for dead people) or malpractice (unfit parent laws still apply) taking place and even if it's a worthwhile practice, you can only do it so much given the limits of human biology.

>>1281368
Cont.
The only scenario I can think of that could have a worthwhile profit margin would be where a Man has many children with many women and has all of them convinced in giving him the scraps leftover from payouts. Essentially a gigolo scenario. I don't see that being a big enough problem to need to regulate it when you could easily just produce something of value to make even larger profits.

>>1281105
Are you nine? Look at a diagram of a brain (specifically its functions) and you'll see that human brains naturally develop in the same way. Our brains develop specific, consistent processes when we are young, determined by our DNA.

Were you to raise a neural network with sensory input and maybe a physical body, the way it would develop would be somewhat predictable by you as the programmer, knowing it's reward function(s) and whatnot.

>>1280706
That has nothing to do with this discussion.

File: Google’s_Training_Its_AI_to_Be_Android’s_Security_Guard_WIRED_-_2016-06-03_10.45.19.png (10KB, 552x205px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 552x205px

Another article about genius numales ruining it for everyone.
https://www.wired.com/2016/06/googles-android-security-team-turns-machine-learning/

>>1281286
>>1281291
You're assuming People who own the corporate world would allow that wealth to be distributed evenly

>>1282361
You're assuming the oligarchy owns the state. Until they man up and stage a full coup, their opinions don't hold actual weight. Even for all the money US corporations lobby with in the USA, their influence could quite easily be countered with higher voter turnout. Institution of compulsory voting would all but destroy money influence.
And all that said, I mentioned only a 90% equal distribution. That 10% left over is more than enough for billionaires to thrive in. I doubt very much our current biggest corporations, majority of which sell mass consumption products and/or are the ones making use of heavy automation, are going to fight too hard against a system which insures every citizen can afford their products.
Wal-Mart for example is already on this path by encouraging their employees to use welfare instead of paying them livable wages.

>>1279716
Poor white people are like the bottom rung of the earth. All that advantage and still broke as shit. I know one guy who grew up sometimes having hotdog water soup. Not hotdog soup, but hotdog water soup. Like they boiled the hotdogs one day and kept the water for the next day. I shit you not. The poor black people I knew at least knew how to go fishing and the poor hmong people I know made chicken pens in their backyards and feed chickens basically garbage to grow them for food. Also, I grew up a broke ass mexican. We had a fucking huge ass garden and my mom would can everything we didn't eat @ harvest.

>>1282483
Had to come back. Makes me smile thinking back to my youth, dumping the water from boiling hotdogs. That was a meal for poor white trash I dumped out. Or when we grilled them. Totally decadent of us not to have boiled them.....

File: clip_image00215.jpg (56KB, 576x432px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 576x432px

> Sheetz has had this for a decade....

Who the fuck cares about some little snot nosed fuck or drug addict not taking my order.

KEK I'm an automation engineer and also manage projects where we automate things to put Mexishits -- let alone white trash Americans -- out of low skilled and low paid jobs.

Good luck kucks because unless you have at least the same work skills as an electrician/plumber/welder or a MA degree + license in something like nursing, physical therapy, or some creative art that actually makes money. Don't worry -- we're coming for you guys too, but you're not the first priority.

Third worlders are cheaper than machines.
I think we're more likely to see the collapse of labour borders than the automation of the entire service industry.
The white working class is fucked either way.

File: 1463533806573.jpg (38KB, 550x380px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 550x380px

doom , doom , doooooooommmmmm.

It is either going to be ubi or wholesale killing and/or detention of the masses. There is no other option aside from space colonization and/or uploading consiousnes to computers. Both far the fuck off.

>>1282673
>Automation engineer
>Engineer

Nice fake meme-degree famelam

>>1281068

I've meant the robots, who could directly replace riot police and security guards on the ground. UAVs can't fully replace the "foot soldiers", the existing surface robots are still shit.

Machines and humans find the exact opposite things easy and complicated.

Identifying unwanted plants in the garden, emotions, moving around randomly shaped objects, making ethical decisions, setting new goals, having taste in fashion or food etc all come naturally to humans. Trying to code that into an AI is very hard.
While complicated stuff like math, science, remembering infinite data, responding instantly, looking miles away are easy for computers and seem like superhuman feats to us.

>>1283029
I read that Google cars cant even tell if a folded piece of paper on the road is a dangerous obstacle or not. A human just fucking knows it's no big deal. But a machine in turn can look behind the object which is impossible for humans.

>>1281358
>There is absolutely no reason to start "population control". It is anti-democratic, authoritarian, pointless and it won't wo


So is taking people's children away retard.

File: 1393573688025.jpg (173KB, 679x631px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 679x631px

UBI NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>1280004
Jesus Christ, you're right.

The future poor will get $300/mo for food, eat mostly soylent, and spend the vast majority of their lives in a VR second-life clone.

I have to admit, I'll be ok with seeing fewer NEETs.

>>1280086
True. Basically, automation is being used for the median/middle cases. Banking is limited in its current automation potential by regulations requiring oversight and approvals (which is actually why you see the additional approvals processes for checks over $10k - that's not because the system doesn't do it accurately, it's because AML/BSA laws require an investigation on the source of funds in order to ensure there's no money laundering or illicit trade financing going on), but many other industries have no such limitations, and you're seeing them push AI and automation much more quickly.

It seems to me that in the near future, the vast majority of human jobs are going to be skilled worker-type jobs where you're either overseeing an automated system, or you're applying human judgment to human decision-making processes; QA is going to be a huge part of the human economy of the future, since the increases in automation will essentially mean that people will no longer need to know how to *do* anything, like they have in the past.

In the short term, this means factory jobs and low-skill jobs go away. In the long term, likely everything but development of hardware/software, testing of automated processes, and QA for said processes and/or QA required by regulation will be essentially nonexistent, unless your business is unable to take advantage of economies of scale.

>>1279648
Then the companies will move to countries that are not anti-technological progress, and you'll lose even more money.

I'll just leave this here

http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/academic/The_Future_of_Employment.pdf

Of course some of those will be replaced by others, but as the case has been in the past, those won't be as many as the ones that disappeared.

>>1280858
I think you're assuming that most jobs are skilled labor.

They're not. I work for an F500; we employ ~65,000 people. 80% of those jobs are either hourly wage retail/customer-service type jobs that pay <$20/hr, or they're salaried jobs either initiating automated tasks or performing some form of data entry.

We are in a highly regulated industry, otherwise 75% of these jobs would already have been automated; in fact, they are partially automated, to the extent that we're legally allowed to. At one point we paid 60 Sheilas $70k + bennies to manage 8 expense accounts. Then, in the 90s, we hired a couple MIS staff to "make Sheila's job easier"; they automated the data entry and put it into a daily task that Sheila now kicks off, then reviews when it's complete. Now, we have 4 dumber, less capable Kathleens handling 120 expense accounts apiece, and each one only gets paid $35k + bennies. We have 3 MIS monkeys to manage any errors or job abends, they get paid $40k + bennies to oversee 4 different groups of Kathleens that used to be 4 different groups of Sheilas that were 10x as big as they are now. So, what used to cost us 4 * 60 * $75,000 = $18MM, now costs us (4 * 4 * $35,000) + (4 * 1 * $40,000) = $720,000, and a job that used to take 240 people now can be done by 20. Those other 180 job are just gone. Poof. Disappeared.

This is how the job market is moving; low-skill jobs are going to be harder & harder to come by, and the only way you'll have any long-term stability in them is if you're working in an industry where automation is too expensive to implement because either your job is too varied to easily create robots to perform, or you work for a small company that can't take advantage of automation due to economies of scale.

>>1283141
This is an Oxford Uni study by the way.

File: 1396769268008.jpg (127KB, 670x424px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 670x424px

WHO THE FUCK READY FOR BASIC INCOME AND UNIVERSAL NEET-DOM HERE?

THE ONLY ONES WORKING WILL BE THE CHINESE

IT WILL BE LIKE THE AUGUSTAN AGE ALL OVER AGAIN I'M FUCKING READY

>>1279926
Kek

>>1280983
Dude what. We're in the death knells of outsourcing. We milked China's labor force for all they're worth, and India's labor force is super shitty due to cultural bullshit surrounding how Indians handle conflict/failure. There are a few east-asian countries with a desire for technology and low labor rates, but none that are anywhere near the scale of China, and once we've brouth our outsourcing to them, that's all she wrote in outsourcing terms.

Automation is the next step, and we're already well on our way at most F500 companies (Amazon, McD's, vehicle manufacturers, and most other large-scale industries)

>>1279969
Behold the glory of C#

>>1281205
"Unemployed" typically implies they're looking for a job, which isn't really accurate for a significant number of people (children, people in school and not working, retired, those unable to work due to disability, etc.).

"Out of the labor force" is the preferred term for those not currrently working, and not actively seeking work. "Unemployed" is typically reserved for those people who are fit to be employed, and are seeking employment, but are not employed in the short term due to any number of factors.

>>1283172
>"Unemployed" typically implies blah blah
Yes, but that wasn't really what we were talking about
>>1283172
>"Out of the labor force" is the preferred term for those not currrently working,
Well whatever then it's "out of labor force".

>>1281338
Dude, I wish. It's political suicide, because both parties rely on Shaniqua's 4 welfare babies and Horatio's 8 children by 3 different mothers and shit.

I think in the long run, forced sterilization after X kids is a more likely possibility than UBI, though. I mean, think about it; no corporation is going to consent to being taxed at a level that would create a functional UBI, and the only way to generate enough revenue to be able to afford UBI is to tax corporations extremely heavily. Remember, right now most corporations pay very little income tax; much of their tax burden comes from payroll taxes (in the USA, anyway).

We would pretty much need riots threatening to burn down industry before any corporation would consent to taxation at a level that would provide UBI, and even then, it would only be a short-term solution, as companies would only consent to it so they can begin offshoring their automated processes.

UBI doesn't work in a capitalist system, unless the *entire world* agrees to it at the same time.

>>1283141
>>1283147
Can you summarize some of the few main points that this study states? I don't have time to read 70+ pages lel

I don't think the word 'Data Scientist' came across anyone's radar 10 years ago.

Or medical transcription.

Or scrum master.

Or social media manager.

Or analytics associate.

Jobs are being created. Employers don't know who to get and candidates don't know these jobs are available. The idea of people working in a factory that employs 1,000 are over.

>>1283215
None of those are real jobs, you can't be a Cybermancer either you dip

File: 1361168432411.jpg (92KB, 556x700px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 556x700px

This topic's face when they realize that they already live in a "laborless society". Used to be that, hundreds of years ago, almost everyone farmed yet now almost no one farms and we have more food than ever. Because modern farming freed people from the land, factories were made practical and commonplace. Now factory work is going the way of the farm. In the future almost no one will work in manufacturing, but that base of people who need neither food nor material objects will become ripe to feed the next industry, probably software. Eventually, even writing software will be automated and people will be put to use doing things we can't even yet imagine.

It'll work out, but the neo-luddites will be right there crying about how automated software generation steals jobs from hardworking code monkeys.

>>1283219
If by real jobs you mean jobs your girlfriend's friends recognise, then no, they are not real jobs. But they are paying jobs.

>>1283197
As with all studies, there's an abstract in the beginning:

Abstract

We examine how susceptible jobs are to computerisation. To assess this, we begin by implementing a novel methodology to estimate the probability of computerisation for 702 detailed occupations, using a Gaussian process classifier. Based on these estimates, we examine expected impacts of future computerisation on US labour market outcomes, with the primary objective of analysing the number of jobs at risk and the relationship between an occupation’s probability of computerisation, wages and educational attainment. According to our estimates, about 47 percent of total US employment is at risk. We further provide evidence that wages and educational attainment exhibit a strong negative relation-ship with an occupation’s probability of computerisation

>>1283219
Those are real jobs.

Marx probably thought that factory jobs aren't real jobs because the proletariat were being ripped off from the bourgeoisie. If Marx were alive today, he would complain that humanity were evolving into cybermancers and we need to be transhuman free or some Whole Foods free range stuff.

BTW, manufacturing is making a comeback...in the craft beer industry.

>>1283215
Sure, they're jobs, but they aren't well-paying jobs (except perhaps scrum master, I'm assuming that's a numale term for development project manager who specializes in agile methodology), and they certainly aren't available in the volume that factory/middle-income labor jobs have disappeared. Plus, most of them require some form of certification, which makes them skilled labor, rather than unskilled, and puts them in a different category of employment than the ones most middle-income laborers have enjoyed for the past 40 years.

>>1283246
Also forgot data scientist. That actually pays well and is in demand. It's the only "new" job you listed that actually pays well, and it's not even a new job; it's just a fancy new term for statistician, just like "scrum master" is a fancy new term for project manager, and "medical transcriptionist" is a new term for "scribe".

"analytics associate" is the same as an analyst.

Social Media Manager is really the only new field, and it's basically a specialized marketing gig.

>>1283262
Scrum masters are not project managers. They perform an aspect of project management but they are not themselves project managers, or at least they don't have to be. A lot of people have dual roles these days.

>>1283273
So then it's not actually a job in itself, it's just a numale term for "senior code monkey"?

>>1283278
Okay, you're just retarded then. Got it.

>>1283273

Agreed.

IMO Scrum Masters are better if they come from an Engineering background.

That's probably true for all PjM or PdM but dual expertise is rare... engineers usually go Eng manager or architect route.

>>1280239
As a redpilled black person I confirm this

>>1283283
lol mr. "I got my certification" has his butt hurt.

Scrum is the development methodology, "scrum master", according to google, is:
>A scrum master is the facilitator for a product development team that uses scrum.
So they're a project manager (aka "facilitator") for scrum-based projects, which is a role typically reserved for the senior code monkey on development projects.

Please, use that 2-day training course and certification to succinctly and effectively explain to me how I'm wrong.

File: 1451934940719.png (291KB, 750x366px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 750x366px

Become PRO-NEET.

>low skilled so my job will go to a robot.
>no reason to work towards educating myself to get a somewhat higher skilled job since by that time it will be a 10000:1 applicant to job ratio.
>spend my time doing fuck all I guess.

>>1283382
>So they're a project manager (aka "facilitator") for scrum-based projects

Lets not play semantics here.

The guy was just saying the two roles don't necessarily have to be the same.

As I mentioned, most of the effective scrum masters I've seen are engineers, not PjMs, since scrums tends to be more technical.

> project manager (aka "facilitator") for scrum-based projects, which is a role typically reserved for the senior code monkey

I actually don't see this much. Going from an engineer to PjM is a sideways move at best.

Most engineers follow the architect or eng manager route.

Engineers that can't hack it tend to go sideways into PjM.

>>1283093
>likely everything but development of hardware/software
assuming it's a type of hardware/software with correct answers and not in some way subjective/artistic results that cannot be defined, than your assumption is flat wrong. Google is already attempting to use AI in making Android hackproof and scientists have already used learning AI to tweak field hardware setups to use the most efficient configurations possible because a machine can retest thousands of times faster than a skilled human tester.

>>1279946
If nobody can buy your products, how do you expect to make money?

>>1283187
It's not like offshoring can't be regulated against, we just haven't been doing it because of lobby interests.
Your forced sterilization concept, beyond being insane, wouldn't actually help in any way. UBI is not the same as welfare in that everyone gets it, not just the poor. There is the possibility right now that some people are using the contradictory welfare rules to give themselves a sustainable niche inside of the poverty laws but those niches break down fast in a fairer system like UBI.

>>1281342
In a free market those kids would have jobs of their own and the reduced cost of labor means they can buy their own didgeridoos or whatever kids buy.

To further talk about Universal Basic Income, here's a description for people not caught up:
It's a long proposed system to replace most or all benefit systems (definitely welfare, probably social security) essentially anything that pays out based on people's situations, requiring bureaucrats to assess peoples conditions, is thrown out and replaced with non-conditional income that pays out to everyone (rich people receive UBI the same as poor). There are some common non-discriminatory condition checks proposed for UBI (things that can be easily checked by a computer as it sends out the money), most notably age where it's proposed people young enough to have guardians should be paid a lower income and/or that people of senior ages should be paid more.
The UBI is also primarily conceived as working in conjunction with Progressive Taxes (most nations on earth already use a progressive income tax) and if implemented would very likely spur the raising of Progressive Tax rates to cover UBI expenses and will likely also come along with calls to repeal most Regressive Taxes (Sales Tax would be the big one but Sin Taxes will no doubt survive).

File: ap_9911415495591.jpg (153KB, 663x741px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 663x741px

>>1279640
>WOW EDGY
>GOVERMENT CARES
So your saying the same government that pays out major banks is going to care what Mcds or any other company does by increasing profit and don't forget these companies are taking the employees money as soon as they get it
[spoiler]GOVERMENT PAYS FOR YOU TO LIVE[/spoiler]

>>1284432
Sounds like a great idea if you want the entire population of the Third World to move to your country.

File: 123.jpg (133KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 1200x800px

>>1284440
...wait, if that's the case, then who could possibly support basic income?

>>1279640
>>1279648
>>1279650
Congratulations on being the dumbest person in this thread.

>>1284440
>>1284443
>Mad that their countries governance could end up so good that it attracts new patrons.
America currently gains massive benefit from undocumented immigrants through cheap labor, not having to pay out many benefits which require citizenship and simultaneously gaining taxes (payroll, sales). Seems to me the real jews are the current American governance which incentivizes quasi-citizenship to rip off immigrants.
Take your bullshit back to >>>/pol/ this is an economics thread.

>>1284701
Patrons.
Like black people?
Yeah, why not.
Let's get "culturally enriched" with "patrons" who give us money in two metaphorical ways, while taking our money in many literal ways. Sounds like a good deal to me.

>>1284716
>metaphorical money
>>>/biz/Trumpcoin

>>1284716
N.B. I have multi-generational black welfare families in mind.

I know that you're only familiar with the kind of black people that drink wine after successfully advancing medical science, wear pyjamas, and celebrate kwanzaa while upstaging racists, but this isn't liberal TV.

>>1284719
Sure, I "support a ponzi scheme." I'm also "fat" or "a teenager," if it makes you feel better.

>>1279969
Welcome to why enterprise software is such unfit garbage. You don't program so you have no clue how or why your black boxes malfunction.

>>1284720
>N.B. I have multi-generational black welfare families in mind.
If you rounded up every last multi-generational black welfare dependent family and (instead of sending them to the camps) you tallied up how much benefits they've leeched from the system combined, would still be far less than 1 generation of the Walton families abuse of welfare to subsidize their business.

>>1280767
>>1280794
>>1280823
>>1280827
Glad there are actually some intelligent people on this board.

>>1285473
Yes, and I once saw a white person throw a can on the ground. That's why we should have basic income.

So when huge chunks of labor jobs dry up, will this cause more people to go into and be trained in engineering and other jobs that support automation, or will mass unemployment on a long scale be likely, as they aren't trained for other white collar jobs?

Automation technician here. I install and program systems like these that put plebs like you out of jobs.

Enjoy being unemployed and broke while I travel all around the country putting people out of work.

>>1280036
This. They're pushing the labor onto the customer, not automating it. I want a human slave to take my order.

>>1285688
most people either arent smart enough for engineering jobs or are too lazy to strive for anything more than the labor job they used to have.

>>1280767
>population increases
>unemployed + non part slightly above 30 year average (~27.5% vs 28%)
>Doesn't think to correlate to aging population and likely more retirement
>Doesn't correlate it to increases in education requirements, thus students putting off work
>% out of work, whatever the fuck that means, is slightly above 1983ish level at the second worst recession in US history
>Blames automation

Keep trying, faggot.

>>1285688
>So when huge chunks of labor jobs dry up, will this cause more people to go into and be trained in engineering and other jobs that support automation
Of course.
>or will mass unemployment on a long scale be likely
This is not an "or" this is an "also". Capitalism incentivizes ever rising productivity, but previously every increase also required high skilled labor that were at a premium so productivity and wages raised in tandem. Now we're now at a productivity crunch where the technical innovations are at such a massive worker displacement that even high skilled labor market is far more abundant than the available positions, meaning productivity increases and wages decrease. And on top of that as high skilled labor is disenfranchised they pour out into the lower skilled workforce (starbucks baristas) and devalue that market's labor even further.
>will mass unemployment on a long scale be likely
Already underway. The only reason for statistics not reflecting this as terrifyingly as it truly is, is that they tend to have a low bar of what's considered "employment" where people are simultaneously working multiple jobs and reaping welfare benefits and bobbing up and down on the poverty line.

>>1279628
My thoughts on automation:
>when the service industry gets axed, it will not be replaced by a new industry. There isn't really anything else for lower skilled people to move in to.
>low skill people who are incapable of training for a higher skill job will be SOL if the government can't keep them alive through wellfare
>lower skill people who are capable of a higher skill job will train into those positions and, at least monentarily, drive down wages in those industries.
i.e. if, say, teachers or electricians can't be automated, lots of people will train for those industries and wreck supply and demand.
>If the economy isn't completely wrecked at this point (no one will need an electrician if no houses are being built because no one has a job to buy a house), it's possible that enough new high tech industries will develop to employ anyone with a brain. People with lower iq will be doomed to a life of absolute poverty or wellfare. If all they can do is provide labor, and labor is no longer needed, then, perforce, are not needed in the economy.

>>1286275
>teachers
We already pay teachers in the American public school system ridiculously low wages and the only thing protecting them from productivity redundancy firings is their union. Without their union protections we could easily fire half the teachers in the country with no service loss due to the productivity boost of incorporating new technology (each student gets a cheap tablet to watch videos on as the main gateway to lesson material).

Given that by and large the only way to maintain livable wages in the majority of the economy is through non-market regulation like the government (min wage) and unions then it's quite obvious we're already in a crisis. The labor market is crashing.

>>1285854
Right, it's not just automation. Increases in worker efficiency and outsourcing have been the largest reasons behind lower available positions. I'm not saying automation is the majority cause of where we are now; I'm saying that automation will be the primary killer of jobs in the next few decades.

I wouldn't call a 5% increase "slightly" above 30 year average. Aging people aren't included in the workforce; if they were, non-participation would be like 45%.

>>1279628
We either do things better than the machines, or we become them.

>>1285790
You should be thankful you were born with the smarts to be in the position you're in. Not gloating over the fact that you will have money and other people won't. Not everyone won the genetic lottery like yourself

>>1286350
>(each student gets a cheap tablet to watch videos on as the main gateway to lesson material).

American education is shit, but seriously anon, that is seriously going to kill any hope for future generations, my cousin substitutes sometimes and he tell me stories about dumb kids sitting in school all day playing dumb games on their tablets, do you really want to make that the main source of information for students?

>>1286736
It's already been tested in other countries and has much better education outcomes. Students rewatch parts of a lesson as needed and the teacher is freed up to help in whatever way isn't covered by the video.

>>1279640
>>1279648
>>1279650
it seems you in the wrong board retarded >>>/b/

>>1279660
Yeah, I'll miss shooting the breeze with the Amazon warehouse worker who packs my orders.

>>1284775
I don't have to.

The software I've written works well enough, and we didn't have to pay anyone tens of thousands of dollars in labor hours to create it.

You're insane if you think every single simple software project needs to be written from scratch in C with no libraries.

>>1286731
This is truth.

I try not to take for granted the fact that I am incredible smart, and was able to get my career going so well.

Careful, though. You'll trigger someone who thinks that everyone is 'created equal'.

>>1281222
But only one guy will be the interviewer. It will only be a choice for one person, the rest will just be rat-racing suckers and losers in the eye of that one person until he retires, then the cycle repeats.

Even capitalism can be as depressingly naive as socialism.

>>1279660
I agree, i will order from the counter over these machines everytime

>>1288361
I'd prefer just eating at a diner instead of MemeDonalds

>>1279660
>>1288361
That entirely depends on the quality of staff.

Sometimes, the real person can be unfriendly or, even worse, incompetent.

Luckily, we have Whataburger and Chik Fil A everywhere here, which both don't pay minimum wage and generally have decent staff.

It's going to be like modern-day Unemployment Benefits but for 95% of the population, and there won't be a minimum wage if you're on the dole.

We'll receive a monthly check affords us a comfortable middle-class lifestyle but in return we must either work at least 20 hours a week or show proof that we've applied to 5 jobs every two weeks.

If you make over a certain amount of money at your job, you go off the dole.

>>1279646
It helps keep welfare low.

>>1288437
>We'll receive a monthly check affords us a comfortable middle-class lifestyle
UBI?
>but in return we must either work at least 20 hours a week or show proof that we've applied to 5 jobs every two weeks.
Not UBI... just a super expensive, inefficient welfare system. You have to tax even higher than UBI proposals to include the oversight and enforcement of those regulations. Also all that nanny stating will likely negatively impact new skills/business development with it's request for daily grind behavior.
>If you make over a certain amount of money at your job, you go off the dole.
And this is already a problem with the current welfare system called the poverty trap.

Economically inefficient, more worried about politics than functionality. 2/10

>>1288455
At the expense of stagnation of the entire economy.