CDZ White Collar Jobs at Risk in Robotics Revolution NOW!

[320 Years of History]

This most recent stage in the evolution of automation is miles beyond the primitive governing and gearing of the first machines. We are seeing machines that design machines and assemble them as well as operate them. If a machine can do the job as well as a human, hire the machine! We need to focus on the things which machines cannot provide.

As individuals who need or want to work to earn money/resources, yes, we do. This thread's OP-er, JimBowie1958, thinks, however, that doing that is beyond the ability of most Americans.

About a third of the population has an IQ between 90 and 110, with 110 being the typical store manager. About a third is above that and about a third is below that.

I think your expectations in this regard of staying current on coming technology and meditating on what that implies is a bit unrealistic. We participants on this thread might do that, but Joe Sixpack and his boss will not, EVER.

It is my belief that for most Americans, it's not a matter of most Americans being unable to focus their thoughts and deeds on finding non-automatable means of income creation, it's a matter of their being unwilling to do so. I also think it's a matter of there being artificially imposed barriers to entry into markets that make actually doing so far more difficult than it need be or should be.

 

[Holos]

So what's the point? White collar folks, assuming they want to work, need to do the same things blue collar folks do: read the "job market" writing on the wall and develop/revise their skills in accordance with the coming changes.

The point is that nobody is going to shed a frigging tear when white collar manager types get their crown jewels caught in the blender because they have done the same damned thing to everybody else for so long.

The only thing they will hear over the whine of the blender will be' Karma, bubba!'

So there is no debate intended with your thread?

 

[JimBowie1958]

So what's the point? White collar folks, assuming they want to work, need to do the same things blue collar folks do: read the "job market" writing on the wall and develop/revise their skills in accordance with the coming changes.

The point is that nobody is going to shed a frigging tear when white collar manager types get their crown jewels caught in the blender because they have done the same damned thing to everybody else for so long.

The only thing they will hear over the whine of the blender will be' Karma, bubba!'

So there is no debate intended with your thread?

Of course there is.

 

[Holos]

So what's the point? White collar folks, assuming they want to work, need to do the same things blue collar folks do: read the "job market" writing on the wall and develop/revise their skills in accordance with the coming changes.

The point is that nobody is going to shed a frigging tear when white collar manager types get their crown jewels caught in the blender because they have done the same damned thing to everybody else for so long.

The only thing they will hear over the whine of the blender will be' Karma, bubba!'

So there is no debate intended with your thread?

Of course there is.

All of it seem like confidently decided statements to me.
What are the differing positions for content?

 

[JimBowie1958]

All of it seem like confidently decided statements to me.
What are the differing positions for content?

1. White collar workers realize that their careers are not safe and join in with the movement to reform the economic structure of our country to protect jobs and advance the common good.
2. White collar workers do nothing to help anyone, continuing to fantasize that they are above the fluctuations of the market, i.e. the only one with vulnerable careers are the blue collar types.
3. White collar workers accept their vulnerability in the Robotics Revolution but take a third path that relies on sycophantic approaches to appealing to the Oligarch class to remain employed.

 

[Mac1958]

Jim, this goes back to our conversations about some kind of universal salary. What really concerns me is that we're not seeing much national conversation - and NONE from politicians - about this, and the clock is ticking. Technology was meant to decrease our need to work. Well, here we are. NOW what?.

Well, one of two things will happen; either we get a grip on this thing and manage it well, or there will be a culling of some kind. Know what I mean?

Yeah, and it won't be pretty.
.

 

[320 Years of History]

Jim, this goes back to our conversations about some kind of universal salary.

What really concerns me is that we're not seeing much national conversation - and NONE from politicians - about this, and the clock is ticking.

Technology was meant to decrease our need to work. Well, here we are. NOW what?
.

Well, one of two things will happen; either we get a grip on this thing and manage it well, or there will be a culling of some kind.

Know what I mean?

What leads you to think "getting a grip on this thing" and "culling" are mutually exclusive outcomes?

 

[320 Years of History]

All of it seem like confidently decided statements to me.
What are the differing positions for content?

1. White collar workers realize that their careers are not safe and join in with the movement to reform the economic structure of our country to protect jobs and advance the common good.
2. White collar workers do nothing to help anyone, continuing to fantasize that they are above the fluctuations of the market, i.e. the only one with vulnerable careers are the blue collar types.
3. White collar workers accept their vulnerability in the Robotics Revolution but take a third path that relies on sycophantic approaches to appealing to the Oligarch class to remain employed.

There's at least one other option:

• White collar folks see the coming changes and, "taking the bull by the horns," prepare themselves for it by developing skills that will allow them to keep working if they need/want to do so.

Capitalism: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.

 

[JimBowie1958]

There's at least one other option:

• White collar folks see the coming changes and, "taking the bull by the horns," prepare themselves for it by developing skills that will allow them to keep working if they need/want to do so.

Your optimism overwhelms me.

 

[JimBowie1958]

What leads you to think "getting a grip on this thing" and "culling" are mutually exclusive outcomes?

Lol, well I was not trying to present a false dichotomy, but merely wanted to rpesent two logical possibilities.

If we go more in the management of the problem direction, I think that presumes a respect for human rights and will tend to avoid a deliberate culling.

If we go more for the culling approach, we will see things like the introduction of previously controlled diseases into the Western nations via immigration, the development of antibiotic resistant diseases that we have no medical cure for, the economic destruction of those targeted for culling as they will not be able to respond as effectively without proper funds and the corporate control of most agricultural industry which tends to prefer homogeneous crops that are very vulnerable to catastrophic disease and blight.

Wait.....

 

[320 Years of History]

There's at least one other option:

• White collar folks see the coming changes and, "taking the bull by the horns," prepare themselves for it by developing skills that will allow them to keep working if they need/want to do so.

Your optimism overwhelms me.

What you call "optimism" I call "taking ownership of one's life." I don't think anyone is required to be optimistic, but I do think everyone is required to take ownership of their life, and those who don't suffer the consequences of not having done so.

 

[320 Years of History]

What leads you to think "getting a grip on this thing" and "culling" are mutually exclusive outcomes?

Lol, well I was not trying to present a false dichotomy, but merely wanted to rpesent two logical possibilities.

If we go more in the management of the problem direction, I think that presumes a respect for human rights and will tend to avoid a deliberate culling.

If we go more for the culling approach, we will see things like the introduction of previously controlled diseases into the Western nations via immigration, the development of antibiotic resistant diseases that we have no medical cure for, the economic destruction of those targeted for culling as they will not be able to respond as effectively without proper funds and the corporate control of most agricultural industry which tends to prefer homogeneous crops that are very vulnerable to catastrophic disease and blight.

Wait.....

I don't think any deliberate "economic culling" is what anyone aims to achieve. That "economic culling" may occur as part of the natural operation of economic principles is quite possible. But that sort of "culling" has long occurred. We see that one cannot readily buy a CRT television any more. The tapestry industry has become relegated to art whereas they were once functional elements of a home's climate control system.

What you call "culling," I see as the perfectly normal obsolescence of various goods and services that simply are no longer demanded by consumers. Human labor in the performance of certain tasks is just one of those things that can become obsolete. Consider the role of the human switchboard/telephone operator. When was the last time you called a large organization and didn't get an automated response before you got to a human? The labor people performed to answer the phone became an obsolete service, and those people needed to obtain or offer different skills that they possessed, or they needed to acquire one or more new skills, if they wanted to remain the workforce or they needed to exit the workforce.

I think you've been viewing this matter of technological advances, specifically automation, making humans obsolete. That's just not so. It's the various types of labor that have become obsolete.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

What leads you to think "getting a grip on this thing" and "culling" are mutually exclusive outcomes?

Lol, well I was not trying to present a false dichotomy, but merely wanted to rpesent two logical possibilities.

If we go more in the management of the problem direction, I think that presumes a respect for human rights and will tend to avoid a deliberate culling.

If we go more for the culling approach, we will see things like the introduction of previously controlled diseases into the Western nations via immigration, the development of antibiotic resistant diseases that we have no medical cure for, the economic destruction of those targeted for culling as they will not be able to respond as effectively without proper funds and the corporate control of most agricultural industry which tends to prefer homogeneous crops that are very vulnerable to catastrophic disease and blight.

Wait.....

I don't think any deliberate "economic culling" is what anyone aims to achieve. That "economic culling" may occur as part of the natural operation of economic principles is quite possible. But that sort of "culling" has long occurred. We see that one cannot readily buy a CRT television any more. The tapestry industry has become relegated to art whereas they were once functional elements of a home's climate control system.

What you call "culling," I see as the perfectly normal obsolescence of various goods and services that simply are no longer demanded by consumers. Human labor in the performance of certain tasks is just one of those things that can become obsolete. Consider the role of the human switchboard/telephone operator. When was the last time you called a large organization and didn't get an automated response before you got to a human? The labor people performed to answer the phone became an obsolete service, and those people needed to obtain or offer different skills that they possessed, or they needed to acquire one or more new skills, if they wanted to remain the workforce or they needed to exit the workforce.

I think you've been viewing this matter of technological advances, specifically automation, making humans obsolete. That's just not so. It's the various types of labor that have become obsolete.

But, you don't think we'll at some point reach a point where human labor overall is outdated? I can see that happening.

 

[JimBowie1958]

What you call "optimism" I call "taking ownership of one's life." I don't think anyone is required to be optimistic, but I do think everyone is required to take ownership of their life, and those who don't suffer the consequences of not having done so.

Yes, as if 'taking ownership of ones life' can magically create a job where someone will hire them.

 

[320 Years of History]

What leads you to think "getting a grip on this thing" and "culling" are mutually exclusive outcomes?

Lol, well I was not trying to present a false dichotomy, but merely wanted to rpesent two logical possibilities.

If we go more in the management of the problem direction, I think that presumes a respect for human rights and will tend to avoid a deliberate culling.

If we go more for the culling approach, we will see things like the introduction of previously controlled diseases into the Western nations via immigration, the development of antibiotic resistant diseases that we have no medical cure for, the economic destruction of those targeted for culling as they will not be able to respond as effectively without proper funds and the corporate control of most agricultural industry which tends to prefer homogeneous crops that are very vulnerable to catastrophic disease and blight.

Wait.....

I don't think any deliberate "economic culling" is what anyone aims to achieve. That "economic culling" may occur as part of the natural operation of economic principles is quite possible. But that sort of "culling" has long occurred. We see that one cannot readily buy a CRT television any more. The tapestry industry has become relegated to art whereas they were once functional elements of a home's climate control system.

What you call "culling," I see as the perfectly normal obsolescence of various goods and services that simply are no longer demanded by consumers. Human labor in the performance of certain tasks is just one of those things that can become obsolete. Consider the role of the human switchboard/telephone operator. When was the last time you called a large organization and didn't get an automated response before you got to a human? The labor people performed to answer the phone became an obsolete service, and those people needed to obtain or offer different skills that they possessed, or they needed to acquire one or more new skills, if they wanted to remain the workforce or they needed to exit the workforce.

I think you've been viewing this matter of technological advances, specifically automation, making humans obsolete. That's just not so. It's the various types of labor that have become obsolete.

But, you don't think we'll at some point reach a point where human labor overall is outdated? I can see that happening.

I doubt there will come a time when human labor is 100% obsolete. I don't see computers/automated systems:

• Identifying what new human needs and desires will come about.
• Determining how to express emotion via art.
• Inventing new goals for society to achieve.

Computers and automated systems are very good at executing on predefined goals and processes. They are very good at identifying the range of possible choices available in a closed system (no matter how large that system may be) in accordance with whatever be the set of predefined rules. They are lousy at innovating, at generating original creative thoughts and expressions of that thought. That is what cannot, IMO, be automated; thus that is what human need to focus on doing or learning how to do.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I think you've been viewing this matter of technological advances, specifically automation, making humans obsolete. That's just not so. It's the various types of labor that have become obsolete.

It isnt a case of horse buggy whips being replaced by automobiles, as Rush so famously joked about, it is now a case of cheap black market labor now, and robotic labor replacing legal human labor down the not-so-distant road.

That is what makes this particular Industrial Revolution so potentially catastrophic.

And the oligarchs, without further need for the Middle Class and the vast majority of the poor class, will do what with us? Feed, house, clothe and provide us with medicine for ever? roflmao, history says no.

This coming crisis needs to be intelligently and humanely managed out of the gate and not left to the tender mercies of the descendants of those who sacked most of Europe not so long ago.

 

[320 Years of History]

What you call "optimism" I call "taking ownership of one's life." I don't think anyone is required to be optimistic, but I do think everyone is required to take ownership of their life, and those who don't suffer the consequences of not having done so.

Yes, as if 'taking ownership of ones life' can magically create a job where someone will hire them.

How about putting in the effort to innovate and thereby create something whereby one is hiring others or purchasing the robots that will execute on that idea?

How about acquiring the skills that others have already identified they need rather than insisting on offering only one's skills that nobody (or few others) indicates they are willing to purchase?

Those are two examples of what I call "taking ownership" of one's life.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I doubt there will come a time when human labor is 100% obsolete.

So 85% is AOK then?

I don't see computers/automated systems:

• Identifying what new human needs and desires will come about.
• Determining how to express emotion via art.
• Inventing new goals for society to achieve.

This is merely a matter of programming in advanced AI. Number 1 and 2 are already being done by AI today.

 

[JimBowie1958]

How about putting in the effort to innovate and thereby create something whereby one is hiring others or purchasing the robots that will execute on that idea?

So we will all own our own businesses and the macro economy will consist of human being suing robots to shuffle the wealth around like a pile of dominoes?

How about acquiring the skills that others have already identified they need rather than insisting on offering only one's skills that nobody (or few others) indicates they are willing to purchase?

The product is the same whether it is a robot, illegal or legal native making it. I fail to see what you think a demand for a product has to do with any of this.

And the human with skills is obsolete compared to a robot with those skills programmed and the robot works 24/7 with no breaks, no days off, no medical, no Social Security, etc.

Who wouldnt buy the robot and replace the human, morality being ignored for the point?

Those are two examples of what I call "taking ownership" of one's life.

And they are utterly fantastical. Your misconceptions here have zero to do with reality.

 

[320 Years of History]

I think you've been viewing this matter of technological advances, specifically automation, making humans obsolete. That's just not so. It's the various types of labor that have become obsolete.

It isnt a case of horse buggy whips being replaced by automobiles, as Rush so famously joked about, it is now a case of cheap black market labor now, and robotic labor replacing legal human labor down the not-so-distant road.

That is what makes this particular Industrial Revolution so potentially catastrophic.

And the oligarchs, without further need for the Middle Class and the vast majority of the poor class, will do what with us? Feed, house, clothe and provide us with medicine for ever? roflmao, history says no.

This coming crisis needs to be intelligently and humanely managed out of the gate and not left to the tender mercies of the descendants of those who sacked most of Europe not so long ago.

The economic principles are the same. All that's different is that what's becoming obsolete is certain services rather than certain goods. Even considering your "horse and buggy" example, if one was a buggy-maker and one was only willing to make buggies, one's buggy-making effort, one's labor, became obsolete. If, on the other hand, one learned how to build automobiles, one could find a job building vehicles.

Now, if one, after learning how to build cars, or let's say car transmissions, one figured out a way to make a transmission automatically shift among the gears, one has innovated and created something that others want and will pay for. Now, one has devised a way to support oneself through innovation. After all, one need not invent the "mousetrap;" merely inventing a better one will do.