This question is for liberals only

[Kosh]

I already know what the rightwing will answer with.

Should there be laws limiting a company from investing in technological automation that replaces human labor?

The keyword here is limit, not eliminate. This problem is only going to get worse and worse in the coming decades.

There are no true liberals on this board only far left drones!

 

[Searcher44]

I already know what the rightwing will answer with.

Should there be laws limiting a company from investing in technological automation that replaces human labor?

The keyword here is limit, not eliminate. This problem is only going to get worse and worse in the coming decades.

Absolutely not. Where would we be if the tribe all agreed not to use that rock as a tool or chip it to a more useful shape. Or use fire, which improved nutrition which reduced labor to gather nutrition, which gave one of them time to paint these horses on a wall in the Chauvet Cave, France.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

But without menial labor jobs requiring no brainpower, what jobs are low information, can't read at grade level Obama supporters even capable of?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

No.

Why do you say No?

Because human evolution has every right to automation. However, those displaced humans must also benefit from that same automation.

That's a fair point about consumers benefiting from it, but i don't mean to bar the investment completely. I mean limit it.

To what end? So that the affected businesses can go out of business for failing to compete with the rest of the world and have to lay off their employees anyway?

The concern I have is that this problem will only get worse and worse in the coming years.

What is "the problem", exactly? When you average the unemployment rate over several years - 20 or so - is it any worse today than it was 100 years ago?

How else can it be dealt with?

What needs to be "dealt" with, exactly? You've yet to demonstrate that automation has done any long term bad.

I can't imagine automation would be the damning variable in global competiveness.

LOL! Productivity is most certainly related to global competitiveness.

I don't think any current automation is a bad thing.

LOL! OK, I get it. All the automation that makes your standard of living better but which came before you - and hence does not compete with your job or the jobs of your friends and family - is OK. All the automation that comes now and later - which may actually influence your job or the jobs of your friends and family - is bad.

That's convenient.

 

[Grandma]

No.

People will still be needed to program, run, and maintain the machines.

 

[sealybobo]

I already know what the rightwing will answer with.

Should there be laws limiting a company from investing in technological automation that replaces human labor?

The keyword here is limit, not eliminate. This problem is only going to get worse and worse in the coming decades.

No. Companies should not be forced to hire a human $30k a year plus benefits and all the other costs when a machine can do it for $10k a year. If we don't need millions of workers to feed the beast maybe future society won't have as many humans overpopulating and consuming all our resources.

So instead of having ten kids to work your farm have two kids and raise them to be engineers.

 

[blackhawk]

If such a law was passed it would surly be challenged in court so what would be the legal justification for limiting what a company could invest in? I don't think some people will lose their jobs would hold up in court.

 

[Billy000]

Why do you say No?

Because human evolution has every right to automation. However, those displaced humans must also benefit from that same automation.

That's a fair point about consumers benefiting from it, but i don't mean to bar the investment completely. I mean limit it.

To what end? So that the affected businesses can go out of business for failing to compete with the rest of the world and have to lay off their employees anyway?

The concern I have is that this problem will only get worse and worse in the coming years.

What is "the problem", exactly? When you average the unemployment rate over several years - 20 or so - is it any worse today than it was 100 years ago?

How else can it be dealt with?

What needs to be "dealt" with, exactly? You've yet to demonstrate that automation has done any long term bad.

I can't imagine automation would be the damning variable in global competiveness.

LOL! Productivity is most certainly related to global competitiveness.

I don't think any current automation is a bad thing.

LOL! OK, I get it. All the automation that makes your standard of living better but which came before you - and hence does not compete with your job or the jobs of your friends and family - is OK. All the automation that comes now and later - which may actually influence your job or the jobs of your friends and family - is bad.

That's convenient.

So it doesn't bother you that McDonald's would invest in kiosks that replace employees? How could this not expand to other applications in the future? Currently it's not a problem, but we are already seeing the beginning of it.

I didn't say productivity in general was not a variable. I mean technology that replaces human labor.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Because human evolution has every right to automation. However, those displaced humans must also benefit from that same automation.

That's a fair point about consumers benefiting from it, but i don't mean to bar the investment completely. I mean limit it.

To what end? So that the affected businesses can go out of business for failing to compete with the rest of the world and have to lay off their employees anyway?

The concern I have is that this problem will only get worse and worse in the coming years.

What is "the problem", exactly? When you average the unemployment rate over several years - 20 or so - is it any worse today than it was 100 years ago?

How else can it be dealt with?

What needs to be "dealt" with, exactly? You've yet to demonstrate that automation has done any long term bad.

I can't imagine automation would be the damning variable in global competiveness.

LOL! Productivity is most certainly related to global competitiveness.

I don't think any current automation is a bad thing.

LOL! OK, I get it. All the automation that makes your standard of living better but which came before you - and hence does not compete with your job or the jobs of your friends and family - is OK. All the automation that comes now and later - which may actually influence your job or the jobs of your friends and family - is bad.

That's convenient.

So it doesn't bother you that McDonald's would invest in kiosks that replace employees? How could this not expand to other applications in the future? Currently it's not a problem, but we are already seeing the beginning of it.

Did it bother you when ATMs put bank tellers out of work?

 

[Billy000]

That's a fair point about consumers benefiting from it, but i don't mean to bar the investment completely. I mean limit it.

To what end? So that the affected businesses can go out of business for failing to compete with the rest of the world and have to lay off their employees anyway?

The concern I have is that this problem will only get worse and worse in the coming years.

What is "the problem", exactly? When you average the unemployment rate over several years - 20 or so - is it any worse today than it was 100 years ago?

How else can it be dealt with?

What needs to be "dealt" with, exactly? You've yet to demonstrate that automation has done any long term bad.

I can't imagine automation would be the damning variable in global competiveness.

LOL! Productivity is most certainly related to global competitiveness.

I don't think any current automation is a bad thing.

LOL! OK, I get it. All the automation that makes your standard of living better but which came before you - and hence does not compete with your job or the jobs of your friends and family - is OK. All the automation that comes now and later - which may actually influence your job or the jobs of your friends and family - is bad.

That's convenient.

So it doesn't bother you that McDonald's would invest in kiosks that replace employees? How could this not expand to other applications in the future? Currently it's not a problem, but we are already seeing the beginning of it.

Did it bother you when ATMs put bank tellers out of work?

No, but that really was the beginning wasn't it?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

To what end? So that the affected businesses can go out of business for failing to compete with the rest of the world and have to lay off their employees anyway?

The concern I have is that this problem will only get worse and worse in the coming years.

What is "the problem", exactly? When you average the unemployment rate over several years - 20 or so - is it any worse today than it was 100 years ago?

How else can it be dealt with?

What needs to be "dealt" with, exactly? You've yet to demonstrate that automation has done any long term bad.

I can't imagine automation would be the damning variable in global competiveness.

LOL! Productivity is most certainly related to global competitiveness.

I don't think any current automation is a bad thing.

LOL! OK, I get it. All the automation that makes your standard of living better but which came before you - and hence does not compete with your job or the jobs of your friends and family - is OK. All the automation that comes now and later - which may actually influence your job or the jobs of your friends and family - is bad.

That's convenient.

So it doesn't bother you that McDonald's would invest in kiosks that replace employees? How could this not expand to other applications in the future? Currently it's not a problem, but we are already seeing the beginning of it.

Did it bother you when ATMs put bank tellers out of work?

No, but that really was the beginning wasn't it?

LOL.

Uhh, no. Not even close.


Did it bother you when the Northrop loom put textile workers out of work? (that's not the beginning either)

 

[Billy000]

The concern I have is that this problem will only get worse and worse in the coming years.

What is "the problem", exactly? When you average the unemployment rate over several years - 20 or so - is it any worse today than it was 100 years ago?

How else can it be dealt with?

What needs to be "dealt" with, exactly? You've yet to demonstrate that automation has done any long term bad.

I can't imagine automation would be the damning variable in global competiveness.

LOL! Productivity is most certainly related to global competitiveness.

I don't think any current automation is a bad thing.

LOL! OK, I get it. All the automation that makes your standard of living better but which came before you - and hence does not compete with your job or the jobs of your friends and family - is OK. All the automation that comes now and later - which may actually influence your job or the jobs of your friends and family - is bad.

That's convenient.

So it doesn't bother you that McDonald's would invest in kiosks that replace employees? How could this not expand to other applications in the future? Currently it's not a problem, but we are already seeing the beginning of it.

Did it bother you when ATMs put bank tellers out of work?

No, but that really was the beginning wasn't it?

LOL.

Uhh, no. Not even close.


Did it bother you when the Northrop loom put textile workers out of work? (that's not the beginning either)

True it goes back pretty far, but the trend doesn't seem to be stopping wouldn't you say? Technology itself has grown exponentially.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

What is "the problem", exactly? When you average the unemployment rate over several years - 20 or so - is it any worse today than it was 100 years ago?

What needs to be "dealt" with, exactly? You've yet to demonstrate that automation has done any long term bad.

LOL! Productivity is most certainly related to global competitiveness.


LOL! OK, I get it. All the automation that makes your standard of living better but which came before you - and hence does not compete with your job or the jobs of your friends and family - is OK. All the automation that comes now and later - which may actually influence your job or the jobs of your friends and family - is bad.

That's convenient.

So it doesn't bother you that McDonald's would invest in kiosks that replace employees? How could this not expand to other applications in the future? Currently it's not a problem, but we are already seeing the beginning of it.

Did it bother you when ATMs put bank tellers out of work?

No, but that really was the beginning wasn't it?

LOL.

Uhh, no. Not even close.


Did it bother you when the Northrop loom put textile workers out of work? (that's not the beginning either)

True it goes back pretty far, but the trend doesn't seem to be stopping wouldn't you say?

No - its not. It has been going on quite a while. And its largely responsible for the high qualify of life you and I enjoy today.

Unemployment today is is 6.2%. It was 4.0 in the year 2000. 7.1 in 1980. 5.5 in 1960. 5.2 in 1928.

Advances in automation have been going on that entire time. Yet it seems to have no affected the unemployment rate.

Why?

Its simple. When a business automates - it is able to produce the produce or service you buy for left. The difference may be pocketed by the business - it may go into reducing the price - it may go into raising wages for the remaining employees - or any combination thereof - it does not disappear. Whoever has it, spends it on increasing their quality of life - creating employment elsewhere.

NET job gain or loss is zero.

 

[Billy000]

So it doesn't bother you that McDonald's would invest in kiosks that replace employees? How could this not expand to other applications in the future? Currently it's not a problem, but we are already seeing the beginning of it.

Did it bother you when ATMs put bank tellers out of work?

No, but that really was the beginning wasn't it?

LOL.

Uhh, no. Not even close.


Did it bother you when the Northrop loom put textile workers out of work? (that's not the beginning either)

True it goes back pretty far, but the trend doesn't seem to be stopping wouldn't you say?

No - its not. It has been going on quite a while. And its largely responsible for the high qualify of life you and I enjoy today.

Unemployment today is is 6.2%. It was 4.0 in the year 2000. 7.1 in 1980. 5.5 in 1960. 5.2 in 1928.

Advances in automation have been going on that entire time. Yet it seems to have no affected the unemployment rate.

Why?

Its simple. When a business automates - it is able to produce the produce or service you buy for left. The difference may be pocketed by the business - it may go into reducing the price - it may go into raising wages for the remaining employees - or any combination thereof - it does not disappear. Whoever has it, spends it on increasing their quality of life - creating employment elsewhere.

NET job gain or loss is zero.

Yeah no shit it's been very beneficial in the past, but after a certain point it is going to negatively affect the need for human labor. Futurists take this position.

 

[Moonglow]

The concern I have is that this problem will only get worse and worse in the coming years.

What is "the problem", exactly? When you average the unemployment rate over several years - 20 or so - is it any worse today than it was 100 years ago?

How else can it be dealt with?

What needs to be "dealt" with, exactly? You've yet to demonstrate that automation has done any long term bad.

I can't imagine automation would be the damning variable in global competiveness.

LOL! Productivity is most certainly related to global competitiveness.

I don't think any current automation is a bad thing.

LOL! OK, I get it. All the automation that makes your standard of living better but which came before you - and hence does not compete with your job or the jobs of your friends and family - is OK. All the automation that comes now and later - which may actually influence your job or the jobs of your friends and family - is bad.

That's convenient.

So it doesn't bother you that McDonald's would invest in kiosks that replace employees? How could this not expand to other applications in the future? Currently it's not a problem, but we are already seeing the beginning of it.

Did it bother you when ATMs put bank tellers out of work?

No, but that really was the beginning wasn't it?

LOL.

Uhh, no. Not even close.


Did it bother you when the Northrop loom put textile workers out of work? (that's not the beginning either)

Or when pneumatic drills were used in mines, cutting mine workers off the payroll...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I already know what the rightwing will answer with.

Should there be laws limiting a company from investing in technological automation that replaces human labor?

The keyword here is limit, not eliminate. This problem is only going to get worse and worse in the coming decades.

ROFL!

If you're job can be done by a Monkey... it's not the Monkey's fault, Dumbass

 

[Moonglow]

They never could make that bricklaying machine they tried to invent...

 

[Wyatt earp]

They never could make that bricklaying machine they tried to invent...

You sure about that? I was just reading about that the other day in popsci or something. A brick laying road machine or something...

 

[Moonglow]

They never could make that bricklaying machine they tried to invent...

You sure about that? I was just reading about that the other day in popsci or something. A brick laying road machine or something...

The one I was mentioning is for housing....

 

[Wyatt earp]

I found it...


Brick Paving Machine Coolest Thing You See Today: