why is everybody saying robots kill jobs, when all the countries

File: employment-population-ratio.jpg (117KB, 1200x791px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 1200x791px

>>8562601
>60's - 70's
>Automation spreading as never before.
>Population climbing as never before.
>Put women in the workplace.
>Nearly double the size of the employment pool in less than two decades.
>Unemployment rate goes DOWN.

For every job you automate, you create five more in other sectors.

Until we have a bunch of self-maintaining Commander Datas running about, automation is going to do anything but kill jobs.

Additionally, the more people you have, the cheaper the automation needs to be to make it worth the effort. The less people you have, the less jobs you need. So either way the population is going makes it an uphill battle for automation to create mass unemployment. At best, you can create temporary pockets of unemployment in individual sectors or locales, and the jobs merely move somewhere else and/or into something else. (Though this does have the side effect of creating industrial ghetto wastelands in one place, and dystopian megaworks in another.)

You mean those small asian countries with population deficiencies dont have employment problems?

>>8562613
Literally two Asian countries, neither with overly small populations and then five European countries and one European colony before the next Asian country. What the fuck are you on about?

File: south-korea-unemployment-rate.png (19KB, 710x300px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 710x300px

>>8562613
They do, but not really much more than anyone else. Japan has had an increase of unemployment of about 10% in the last 40 years, but in addition to that not being much of a swing when set against some other highly automated nations, several others go in the opposite direction.

Automation doesn't seem to be much of a factor in overall unemployment for any country with a variety of industries. Basic economics and trade is still the deciding factor pretty much everywhere.

>>8562628
All the other ones are very close so implying theres any kind of meaning behind it is nonsense

>>8562609
The pockets of unemployment it kills are the ones that whine the most.

Muh working class that won't change their specialization. It's like coal miners that can't accept that all the cheap coal has run out and their workplace isn't profitable anymore but they still want to mine even if they're hitting pure stone just because they don't want to respecialize.

>>8562658
Yeah man these 45 year olds with no education just need to re-specialize.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm saying it's stupid to ignore reality for these idealized "just change what you're doing"

>>8562662
The problem is that it would be cheaper to just give them some welfare and tell that the business isn't coming back rather than try to run something unprofitable.

We like to pretend that invisible hands of free market fix all, then whine that they don't fix some in another country doing something cheaper or technology killing some job.

In fact I consider it kinda funny how many conservatives seem to really love the people in question mostly for being traditionalist right wingers and blame their failure to respecialize as some external thing caused by evil foreign bodies and not just pure capitalism, at the same time considering every other form of welfare parasitism.

>>8562697
The government pays companies to hire these people. That's what affirmative action is. If you apply for many of these minimum wage jobs they ask if you've been displaced due to automation or have limited education then if they hire that person they get a subsidy from the government.

>>8562706
Which is pretty much a form of welfare. The problem is that we more often propose even more inefficient forms of fixing the problem, while berating other forms of welfare.

Japan started automating as much as it could to deal with the shrinking of its workforce that would have been disastrous for many facets of the country otherwise.

The point is that automation kills jobs in certain sectors even though it "makes them up" somewhere else. Because people are much less mobile in terms of education and skills than any idealized economic model would treat.

Self-driving cars will lead to making professional truck drivers obsolete. Millions are employed directly and millions more in subsidiary industries to support them.

The "jobs" people mean, such as manufacturing, are never coming back. And if you are in your 40s-50s the ROI on retraining is remarkably small if mid 60s is the desired retirement age

>>8562733
>Self-driving cars will lead to making professional truck drivers obsolete.
I got into an argument on /co/ a few days ago about this. Some guy could not even entertain the idea that driverless commercial vehicles would be viable in less than a century. He kept insisting that self driving cars in general were deathtraps that would kill millions, and the engineers would never be able to account for things like potholes and icy roads. It was hilarious.

>>8562601
Americans are fucking lazy and think they should be getting more than $2 an hour.

>>8562601
because it's a lie. The real job-killer is globalism

>>8562826
So all we have to do is make the rest of the world go away...

>>8562633
Sorry about that, had to do some real-world shit before coming back to rekt you.

Anyway, Korea has no population or fertility problem, Japan has no population, but does have a fertility problem and as you can see, Germany is roughly on par with Japan, has to population or fertility problem.

TL;DR, I just stomped you.

File: citation-needed.png (552B, 163x96px) Image search: [Google]

552B, 163x96px

>>8562609
>For every job you automate,
>you create five more in other sectors.
[citation needed]

>>8562733
you are dreaming if you think the governments are going to allow robot cars driving around without a human sitting in them that can control them if necessary. planes and trains could theoretically do everything on autopilot, but pilots and train drivers are still existing jobs.

>>8563368

>you are dreaming if you think cars are going to allow mechanical monsters to replace my horse and buggy

The real drive for automated cars is to dramatically reduce vehicle accidents. The only limit here is technolgical, not physical. The first phase will be of course to allow human input to account for lapses but if they prove themselves to be safer than the average human driver that too may be more for convenience than anything else.

A truck driver, unlike a pilot or train operator, isn't responsible for other lives. It's feasible that they could be programmed to undertake any action including what would be suicidal decision making for a truck driver to spare smaller (human occupied vehicles). You lose the truck and the company is just down whatever cargo it had.

A human driver requires a salary, benefits (possibly), insurance (in addition to what you may have for the cargo), and free space within the cab itself.

There is nothing that prevents complete and utter automation of the truck driving business. Passenger busses would be a different story.

>>8563374
every person on public traffic is responsible for other lifes. people will not accept that a 40 ton monster robot is driving with up to 100km/h next to them on the highways.

besides that, a truck driver doesnt just drive the truck, he also checks the quality of the good, does all the paper work when delievered, and a thousand other small things. you are going to need a human anyways. autonomous trucks will come to increase security, but the truck driver is not going anywhere.

>>8563392
>every person on public traffic is responsible for other lifes. people will not accept that a 40 ton monster robot is driving with up to 100km/h next to them on the highways.

This already happens with Teslas and highways are actually less dangerous for these automated vehicles. It is currently surface streets that are the real problem with parked cars, frequent pedestrians, sometimes incorrect or wrong mapping, etc.

>he also checks the quality of the good
Can be automated

>does all the paper work when delievered
Also can be automated

>but the truck driver is not going anywhere
Its literally only tradition that would keep humans in the cabs. You aren't transporting people, you are transporting goods. And these are tireless drivers that never have to stop.

There is simply too much to be gained from removing the human from the cab. And like I said, you can go crazy with its tolerances and make the truck go to extreme lengths to ensure it doesn't harm a human occupied vehicle. Because its only carrying cargo, unlike passenger cars, busses, planes, or trains.

>>8563402
you have no clue about anything.

>>8563481
We already have robots working in mines instead of human driven trucks

In Aussie they have trucks that are programmed and then an operator watches the whole operation from a Melborne office

This has replaced the drivers jobs, easing admin and payroll ( by the time you factor in sick leave, holidays etc people cost twice as much as what you pay them)

Freight trucks will be replaced next, with only human pilots to park trucks and do in-yard manuveeing
Then it will be bulk line haul
Then everything else

>>8563298
Employment history from the dawn of the industrial revolution onward (not to mention the very post you are quoting.)

If you can increase the size of the employment pool nearly exponentially, all while automating jobs, and the unemployment rate continues to go down, you're clearly creating more jobs than you are eliminating, many times over.

>>8562601
Robots that dont kill jobs seem kind of pointless. Isnt the goal to have robot slaves so we wont have to work anymore?

File: I'm not a robot.png (47KB, 955x589px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 955x589px

>>8562601