jobs and automation

[cab21]

I wonder why there are some that oppose automation because it kills manual labor jobs? which theory supports this? i though even a communist post scarcity theory economy relied on automation to remove humans from manual labor where possible. what is the thought that gives incentive to saving manual labor jobs that could otherwise be automated to free humans for better activities? with capitalism fully supporting automation when possible to increase profits, I know the conflict is coming from the capitalism side, but why should it come from a communist/socialist side either?

[rosencrantz]

with capitalism fully supporting automation when possible to increase profits

 

Wrong. Automation decreases the marginal costs and in turn also decreases the economic profit as in economic value added in the long run.

[Tyler H]

and in turn also decreases the economic profit as in economic value added in the long run.

How?

[Boss]

Im not sure why there is opposition, My guess is its because they just dont understand economics or they want the state to run things.

Automation = cheaper, thus, making cost go down. 

Example, if there is an auto checkout without cashier, then the company wont need as much profit for the items in the store, So sure the cashiers are out of a job, but, their cost of living is down. And because the cost of living is down, there will be more economic growth that normally creates more jobs. 

[cab21]

Wrong. Automation decreases the marginal costs and in turn also decreases the economic profit as in economic value added in the long run.

 

a decrease in marginal costs increases economic profit.

 

so say fixed cost is 1000

then marginal cost is 5$ a unit

 

1000 units would be a cost of 6000

 

if automation reduced the marginal cost to 4$ a unit

 

1000 units would costs 5000$

 

if in both cases the unit sells for 12$

the 5$ toal cost gives 7000$ profit while the 6$ total cost gives 6000$ profit

[Tyler H]

I wonder why there are some that oppose automation because it kills manual labor jobs? which theory supports this? i though even a communist post scarcity theory economy relied on automation to remove humans from manual labor where possible. what is the thought that gives incentive to saving manual labor jobs that could otherwise be automated to free humans for better activities? with capitalism fully supporting automation when possible to increase profits, I know the conflict is(n't?) coming from the capitalism side, but why should it come from a communist/socialist side either?

Anyone who is going to lose their job due to automation will unlikely be able to learn a new skill and will likely oppose automation. At present the pace of technology puts a large group of workers in the crosshairs, workers who vote, workers who belong to unions, unions that donate to politicians. While exhibiting communist tendencies, I don't think the current left are ideologues, I think they are just power mongers looking to benefit themselves at the expense of anyone and everyone else.

[rosencrantz]

so say fixed cost is 1000

then marginal cost is 5$ a unit

 

1000 units would be a cost of 6000

 

 

Sure, if there only was one company making one good. If there are several companies, the following happens with decreasing marginal costs:

 

a) a company decreases mc, makes more profit

b) other companies do the same, the playing field is level again

c) go back to a)

 

Since companies compete with each other via marginal costs, the economic profit and the eva eventually go down.

[Tyler H]

Sure, if there only was one company making one good. If there are several companies, the following happens with decreasing marginal costs:

a) a company decreases mc, makes more profit

b) other companies do the same, the playing field is level again

c) go back to a)

Since companies compete with each other via marginal costs, the economic profit and the eva eventually go down.

Yes eventually profits will return to equilibrium, but you're not taking into account the net savings enjoyed by all customers due to the lower costs. Being able to produce goods using fewer resources is a net positive to society.

[cab21]

Sure, if there only was one company making one good. If there are several companies, the following happens with decreasing marginal costs:

 

a) a company decreases mc, makes more profit

b) other companies do the same, the playing field is level again

c) go back to a)

 

Since companies compete with each other via marginal costs, the economic profit and the eva eventually go down.

 

 

so say many companny's all buy from the same automation company.

instead of the 12$ a unit, one decides on 11$  a unit and all the profit is the same.

 

if this goes down to say 10$ a unit and the profit is reduced, that would be like it going down to 11$ before. now the price for  consumers is cheaper , and the workers do their retraining to get better jobs or start their own business.

 

this is assuming that one company won't have a competitive advantage in it's  patented automation.

 

a consumer wants the goods for the best price, and if companys need to take a lower profit margin to compete, they can consider that in when going into competition, vs the oppurtunity cost of other business.

Anyone who is going to lose their job due to automation will unlikely be able to learn a new skill and will likely oppose automation. At present the pace of technology puts a large group of workers in the crosshairs, workers who vote, workers who belong to unions, unions that donate to politicians. While exhibiting communist tendencies, I don't think the current left are ideologues, I think they are just power mongers looking to benefit themselves at the expense of anyone and everyone else.

 

workers as union power mongers looking to benefit themselves at the expense of everyone else seems like a fair explanation.

[Tyler H]

workers as union power mongers looking to benefit themselves at the expense of everyone else seems like a fair explanation.

To be clear, I think workers would oppose automation in their own interest, and there happen to be so many with that interest that it provides a source of power for the union leaders and politicians. So the workers just want to keep their jobs, and the unions and politicians exploit that need in order to satisfy their own lust for power. Altogether they make up the opposition to automation, but for desires of immediate needs or power, not ideology.

[dsayers]

Anyone who is going to lose their job due to automation will unlikely be able to learn a new skill and will likely oppose automation.

*willing (not able). I agree. I think it's laziness and general lack of understanding of economics, both of which come from child abuse.

 

As for the debate about profit as a result of automation, if it was not profitable to automate, the free market would not be 

engaging in automation as transitioning from manual to automatic comes with enormous overhead.

[rosencrantz]

so say many companny's all buy from the same automation company.

instead of the 12$ a unit, one decides on 11$  a unit and all the profit is the same.

 

First of all, why should there be only one automation company? A lower marginal price necessarily means that the fixed price becomes more important for the price of the product, hence reducing the margin of profit.

[cab21]

First of all, why should there be only one automation company? A lower marginal price necessarily means that the fixed price becomes more important for the price of the product, hence reducing the margin of profit.

So multiple automation companies, one would have a competitive advantage over the others by making better automation.

 

There are already business where the profit margin in that industry is lower than other industry and entrepreneurs still create business in that industry. Grocery stores have a lower profit margin than the luxury car market for example and both have new entrees to the markets.

[rosencrantz]

There are already business where the profit margin in that industry is lower than other industry and entrepreneurs still create business in that industry.

 

 

Compared to Germany, the profit margin is still substantial. Which is my Lidl and Aldi copypaste their model and start branches in the US.

[WasatchMan]

Dramatic increases in human productivity is not a new thing.  Every era we mark in the progress of human civilization is essentially just a jump in human productivity.  The industrial age and the computer age have been some modern dramatic jumps.  The automation age will be no different - and will be a boon to the civilization who masters it, and not a negative thing.

 

At the dawn of every one of these eras we do see the malcontents who, usually sitting up in their ivory towers, whine about the good old days and make people uneasy about the changing times (see Charles Dickens).  But history has shown they are always wrong and increases in productivity always pay dividends to the general quality of life.

[Kikker]

Dramatic increases in human productivity is not a new thing.  Every era we mark in the progress of human civilization is essentially just a jump in human productivity.  The industrial age and the computer age have been some modern dramatic jumps.  The automation age will be no different - and will be a boon to the civilization who masters it, and not a negative thing.

 

At the dawn of every one of these eras we do see the malcontents who, usually sitting up in their ivory towers, whine about the good old days and make people uneasy about the changing times (see Charles Dickens).  But history has shown they are always wrong and increases in productivity always pay dividends to the general quality of life.

Though the current era is marked by the automatization of thought not of manual labor.

[RichardY]

Though the current era is marked by the automatization of thought not of manual labor.

How?

[Kikker]

How?

Well you have the "famous" examples of artificial intelligence of: deep blue (chess), Watson (jeopardy) and AlphaGo (go) which are able to outperform humans in games requiring mental exercise. If these machines don't mean anything to you then I'll just list some current automatization.

 

Transport automatization in self driving cars had less to do with inventing a car able to drive around, as humans already do for a century, but to invent something able to drive it. Today self driving cars can take safe trips through the country side and suburbs without slowing down while in cities they have to take some extra distance compared to human drivers.

 

Navigation of the internet is automated with search engines, more importantly, the expert system of the internet with 200 billion facts makes reasoning possible. You can for example google a place and the whole right side of your google page is generated by an expert system.

 

Baxter (robot) is also an example on how we have hardware but require learning systems and reasoning systems to further automate tasks.

 

Middle class work like costumer service and administrative work can be fully automated by deep neural networks in combination with expert systems. Even doctors operate much more efficiently if they use expert systems to diagnose patients. A online version of that, a artificial doctor understanding natural language and is coupled with an expert system is already making process (Watson).

[rosencrantz]

This is a fairly easy article outlining the situation as it is right now. Everything that can be decided within one second can be automated with the tools that are available right now. This limit will be extended if the current trend continues.

https://hbr.org/2016/11/what-artificial-intelligence-can-and-cant-do-right-now

[RichardY]

You can use machines to calculate, but at the end of the day, there remains no need for them to do so. Automate thought?  Automate Calculations.

[DaVinci]

Im not sure why there is opposition, My guess is its because they just dont understand economics or they want the state to run things.

 

Automation = cheaper, thus, making cost go down. 

 

Example, if there is an auto checkout without cashier, then the company wont need as much profit for the items in the store, So sure the cashiers are out of a job, but, their cost of living is down. And because the cost of living is down, there will be more economic growth that normally creates more jobs. 

I think in some cases in the past you have someone who starts a business that they love doing who sees their business go under because someone supplants it. So they go from running their own business to losing it, to working for the guy who supplanted them. 

 

I think that is why people oppose automation. I don't think people like regressing in their careers. 

[Boss]

I think in some cases in the past you have someone who starts a business that they love doing who sees their business go under because someone supplants it. So they go from running their own business to losing it, to working for the guy who supplanted them. 

 

I think that is why people oppose automation. I don't think people like regressing in their careers. 

well, I think they should be glad people supplant businesses, imagine if we didnt do that? nothing would grow.

 

I dont see how someone who appreciates new technology, would not like getting regress(career wise) because of new technology, or better service, or whatever caused them to get their business supplanted. It seems people who oppose automation oppose competition. 

[DaVinci]

well, I think they should be glad people supplant businesses, imagine if we didnt do that? nothing would grow.

 

I dont see how someone who appreciates new technology, would not like getting regress(career wise) because of new technology, or better service, or whatever caused them to get their business supplanted. It seems people who oppose automation oppose competition. 

Competition for the sake of competition, while not morally wrong, doesn't seem preferable to competition with an end goal of improvement in a specific skill as the primary motivator. For example, we both learn to bake cookies and are judged on who did the best job. Only one person wins, but the loser can take their skills and continue to progress and might even end up surpassing the person who beat them. 

 

That's not really what happens in the market. If I make horse carriages and you make the car, well then, you put me out of business and because the world runs on money I have to give up my dream, close down my shop, and my skills making horse carriages don't quite transfer anywhere else. I have to accept something less now to scrape by because I need money.

 

I think you could look at it as being very similar to a man being divorced by his wife because she is "unhappy" or "found someone better". In effect he was driven out by competition. Is that wrong? Well, I suppose not. Does it suck for the guy? I would say yeah, it does. Men who lose their position as husband and/or dad often spiral into depression. I think the same is true of people who find themselves ousted from their business as an artisan cheese maker because someone else pumps out blocks of velveeta. 

 

Sure, velveeta blocks are way less expensive than artisan cheese, and all the people now buying the automated cheese are now saving money. But isn't the world down one awesome craftsman? Granted some people are much more flexible and adaptable and they will turn their car dealership into a restaurant or something like that to stay afloat, but other people have their morale totally shredded by losing their business. 

 

I don't see how anyone can just shrug their shoulders at someone losing this thing they were so passionate about and go "Oh, well, that's capitalism" In fact, I would argue that most of the crap hindering a truly free market is a blow back to that kind of attitude. 

[WasatchMan]

Though the current era is marked by the automatization of thought not of manual labor.

 

Your distinction isn't meaningful.  The end is the same, the means are only different. 

 

Also, the computer age already automatized a lot of thought.

[Boss]

Competition for the sake of competition, while not morally wrong, doesn't seem preferable to competition with an end goal of improvement in a specific skill as the primary motivator. For example, we both learn to bake cookies and are judged on who did the best job. Only one person wins, but the loser can take their skills and continue to progress and might even end up surpassing the person who beat them. 

 

That's not really what happens in the market. If I make horse carriages and you make the car, well then, you put me out of business and because the world runs on money I have to give up my dream, close down my shop, and my skills making horse carriages don't quite transfer anywhere else. I have to accept something less now to scrape by because I need money.

 

I think you could look at it as being very similar to a man being divorced by his wife because she is "unhappy" or "found someone better". In effect he was driven out by competition. Is that wrong? Well, I suppose not. Does it suck for the guy? I would say yeah, it does. Men who lose their position as husband and/or dad often spiral into depression. I think the same is true of people who find themselves ousted from their business as an artisan cheese maker because someone else pumps out blocks of velveeta. 

 

Sure, velveeta blocks are way less expensive than artisan cheese, and all the people now buying the automated cheese are now saving money. But isn't the world down one awesome craftsman? Granted some people are much more flexible and adaptable and they will turn their car dealership into a restaurant or something like that to stay afloat, but other people have their morale totally shredded by losing their business. 

 

I don't see how anyone can just shrug their shoulders at someone losing this thing they were so passionate about and go "Oh, well, that's capitalism" In fact, I would argue that most of the crap hindering a truly free market is a blow back to that kind of attitude. 

Competition by definition is about establishing superiority. If you made the horse carriages and I made the car you should thank me, as now you and your future children, and the whole of humanity will now enjoy excellent transportation. If I made the car I will thank the person who makes the flying automatic car, as I know me, my future children and the whole of humanity will experience better transport because of it. Its a little selfish to not want something that can benefit you and the whole of the humanity just because your business might fail. I personally have had many failed businesses and only a few successful ones. It might suck in the moment when your business fails but that wont solve anything. Starting a better one will. Capitalism is the right kind of attitude. 

[RichardY]

Competition by definition is about establishing superiority. If you made the horse carriages and I made the car you should thank me, as now you and your future children, and the whole of humanity will now enjoy excellent transportation.

Said Genghis khan, as he impregnated 20% of Asia.

 

Or more contemporary Angela Merkel, Tony Blair and ilk, when they  opened the borders to the 3rd World. Any Europeans want to hold a celebration or send them a thank you?

 

Capitalism is the right kind of attitude. 

Ethics is the right kind of attitude, although a very large part of me really wishes I had a limited concept of it. Though capitalism could be kind of fun, "best" system in place, some potential to be a complete "dick", not that anyone here necessarily would be.

[Boss]

Said Genghis khan, as he impregnated 20% of Asia.

 

Or more contemporary Angela Merkel, Tony Blair and ilk, when they  opened the borders to the 3rd World. Any Europeans want to hold a celebration or send them a thank you?

 

Ethics is the right kind of attitude, although a very large part of me really wishes I had a limited concept of it. Though capitalism could be kind of fun, "best" system in place, some potential to be a complete "dick", not that anyone here necessarily would be.

Im not understanding the argument, maybe you can rephrase it.

[dsayers]

Its a little selfish to not want something that can benefit you and the whole of the humanity just because your business might fail.

I agree with your underlying point, but this is an appeal to emotion. "Selfish" is what motivates everybody and that's okay.

 

Ethics is the right kind of attitude

Although it is unclear to me what either of you mean by "is the right kind of attitude," I just wanted to point out that ethics comes from capitalism. If you own yourself (capitalism), then your neighbor owns himself, and now we know how to interpret interpersonal behavioral propositions (ethics).

[Boss]

I agree with your underlying point, but this is an appeal to emotion. "Selfish" is what motivates everybody and that's okay.

Yea that part was just my personally thoughts on the matter. The larger part you didnt quote was the actual argument. So I wasnt trying to appeal to emotion. 

 

Can you make the argument of how being selfish motivates you? 

[RichardY]

Selfish. "The Virtue of Selfishness" (Ayn Rand). Well I guess if someone wanted to be really.... selfish, they could have children if they were able. Explain the principle of self ownership to them, then tell them that Mummy or Daddy might need a Liver transplant in 15 years. But its OK as you have self ownership and can refuse. I don't think Ayn Rand had children, but I would guess she went through some soul rending horrors.

[dsayers]

Yea that part was just my personally thoughts on the matter. The larger part you didnt quote was the actual argument. So I wasnt trying to appeal to emotion. 

So you find value in it being pointed out that you did despite not wanting to? Also, I addressed your position by saying I agree.

 

Can you make the argument of how being selfish motivates you? 

Is this personalization? I find that when somebody shifts a discussion from ideas to individuals, they're going astray, up to and including closing themselves off to the discussion.

 

Every breath you take is oxygen others don't get to use. Every drink and bite you take is nourishment others don't get to use. You provide products/services to others so that you can store value for yourself.

 

"Selfishness motivates our every decision" is only a controversial position to those who want for the individual to erase themselves.

[Boss]

Every breath you take is oxygen others don't get to use. Every drink and bite you take is nourishment others don't get to use. You provide products/services to others so that you can store value for yourself.

"Selfishness motivates our every decision" is only a controversial position to those who want for the individual to erase themselves.

I am not sure if im understanding the argument. I hate trying to rephrase what people mean, so, I hope you can correct me if im wrong, but, are you saying it is selfish to breathe, drink and eat?

 

As far you saying "You provide products/services to others so that you can store value for yourself", providing products/services is probably the most unselfish thing you can do in the free market. Someone who's willing to find the needs or wishes of others and create a business to supply it (which has a 96% rate of failing within 10 years), shows a willingness to put the needs or wishes of others before one's own. And the proof is when people buy the product, as they clearly needed or wished to have it if they paid for it. 

Business may be a complicated topic, Let me ask you a question that I feel will help me understand your "Selfishness motivates everyone" argument better, what are some actions that humans do, that you would consider unselfish?

[EclecticIdealist]

I think he id saying that every person's action is directed by their own interests, i.e. self-interest is the only motivation we have. Some people allow their own concept of self or identity to be discounted to the point that the only way their self-interest is manifests is in their projection of their identity or worth as determined by the opinion of others.

[dsayers]

are you saying it is selfish to breathe, drink and eat?

Absolutely. Who else's interest does it serve if not for the self?

 

As far you saying "You provide products/services to others so that you can store value for yourself", providing products/services is probably the most unselfish thing you can do in the free market. Someone who's willing to find the needs or wishes of others and create a business to supply it (which has a 96% rate of failing within 10 years), shows a willingness to put the needs or wishes of others before one's own.

This is not true. Creating a business requires a great deal of investment and overhead. This is done with the expectations of returns on investment. Self gain. We are a social species and our individual lives is made easier by the division of labor. Specializing by providing a product/service for others enables you to accumulate the wealth to have the freedom of choice to do that much less of the labor you want done in your life.

 

Business may be a complicated topic, Let me ask you a question that I feel will help me understand your "Selfishness motivates everyone" argument better, what are some actions that humans do, that you would consider unselfish?

I don't know that such a thing is possible. As I reflect on my own life, the most "unselfish" things I've done, I did because of the ways they brought joy, peace, happiness, and tranquility to my own life. Not consciously, and that's my point. We are biologically driven to increase pleasure and decrease pain.

[rosencrantz]

The AI-train has no brakes and a lot of white collar jobs will be rolled over.

https://hbr.org/2016/11/what-artificial-intelligence-can-and-cant-do-right-now