Automation will continue to displace workers on a global scale

This is a fact. Now that I am getting an education in network engineering I can see what and how automation is slowly, wait, not slowly taking over the marketplace. Guess what, it's not the labor jobs it's going to replace first.

It's time we begin discussing new ideas. The old ideas are no longer going to apply.

Socialism, capitalism, communism none of the ism's are have exist in a situation where the human element was only a minor contributing factor to the labor force. This will cause a cultural, social and economic change globally. IMO this is part of the new age discussed in Slayer's thread here. The new energy that's obviously been changing the earth in the last 100 years has manifest this technology faster and faster and faster.

Automation replaces 10% of the workforce in 2019

Robotic process automation (RPA) and artificial intelligence (AI) will create digital workers — software that automates tasks traditionally performed by humans — for more than 40 percent of companies next year, and a full one-tenth of future startups will employ more digital workers than human ones. Moreover, in 2019 roughly 10 percent of U.S. jobs will be eliminated by automation, which will also be responsible for creating the equivalent of 3 percent of today’s jobs.

In my education we automate networking task through software defined networking, with python and Ansible. It's not going to completely replace network engineers as the underlying infrastructure is still ran on the backs of basic CPU and ASIC processing with typical routing protocols and security features. However this will eventually change as well.

Adidas new automation factory

Adidas' Speedfactory in Atlanta is open, producing shoes like the new AM4NYC limited collection.
The factory is completely automated, and designed to be able to speedily produce limited runs of customizable product or replenish the hottest product selling quickly during the same season.

The manufacturing and supply chain process is already being heavily automate. There are MASSIVE warehouse facilities where I live run by skeleton crews for Amazon, Adidas and other manufacturers and supply chains.

CMS Newswire

The global RPA market continued to grow in 2018. According to the 2018 Robotic Process Automation Annual Report by Everest Group Research, the global RPA independent technology vendor market grew at about 92 to 97 percent in 2017, and is expected to grow between 75 and 90 percent annually up to 2019. The report highlighted the accelerated rate of RPA adoption in small- and medium-sized companies and that industry-specific processes continued to see the highest adoption of RPA.

RPA = robotic process automation. RPA grew by 90% in 2018 and will be on track to grow by 90% in 2019!!. This is incredible. This isn't going to slowdown either. And no, this isn't creating jobs at the pace it's replacing them NOT EVEN CLOSE!!!

If you can show where the jobs are being create to replace them with actual data I'll listen to that argument. Otherwise it's just another platitude.

Tech Republic

In the frenzy over the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) and its impact on the workforce, many have focused on blue collar jobs, as some reports predict that half of low-skilled US jobs are at risk of being replaced by automation in the near future. However, in reality, a wide array of white collar jobs are already being impacted by the technology, according to a New York Times report.

AI may soon replace millions of office workers worldwide, according to Kai-Fu Lee, CEO of Sinovation Ventures and former president of Google China. "This replacement is happening now, and it's happening in a true, complete decimation," Kai-Fu Lee told a conference at MIT in 2017. "In my opinion, the white-collar workforce gets challenged first—blue-collar work later."

It's already replacing Wall Street, lawyers, doctors and technologist. Well, displacing technologist as they are literally coding themselves out of a job. I know, I'm learning Python to do exactly that.

So what are we going to do?

What do we do when humans are no longer necessary to perform the majority of jobs? Do we allow the major corporations to funnel all of the world's wealth and power into their bank accounts while everyone else lives in austerity or do we begin to discuss the future evolution of mankind?

a reply to: toysforadults

What would be the point of producing products that nobody would be able to buy.

Technology has been displacing workers since the beginning of time...

People adapt and find new careers.

Your right in that all the known "isms" have never operated under such conditions. In a free market system, this will eventually create a paradox. The paradox being, AI and robots are much more efficient at performing the tasks required to produce "products" and don't need to be paid but do not need to really "consume" the products they are creating. Many years ago as machinery started to be introduced in the car factories, there was a meeting of the workers about layoffs. It was mentioned that the machines don't need to sleep or eat and can work 24/7 and don't need to be paid. The reply from amongst the workers.. "Robots don't buy cars". There is the paradox. If humans have no work and can't earn any money then they cant afford to buy the things that AI and robots are producing so the economy grinds to a halt. There becomes no need for any of these things to be produced in the first place. There needs to be a way for the masses of consumers to earn money in a capitalist system or it will reach a tipping point where there are no longer enough cashed up consumers for the economy to function.

Basically, in the long run there will need to be a way for humans to earn money to keep the economy turning or money will have to be somehow artificially distributed to stave off said paradox. I'm not sure there is currently an economic system in place that truely meets the requirements. Universal Basic Income and the "post scarcity" world may be where some of the answers lie but i'm not sure how this would eventuate painlessly.

originally posted by: harold223
Your right in that all the known "isms" have never operated under such conditions. In a free market system, this will eventually create a paradox. The paradox being, AI and robots are much more efficient at performing the tasks required to produce "products" and don't need to be paid but do not need to really "consume" the products they are creating. Many years ago as machinery started to be introduced in the car factories, there was a meeting of the workers about layoffs. It was mentioned that the machines don't need to sleep or eat and can work 24/7 and don't need to be paid. The reply from amongst the workers.. "Robots don't buy cars". There is the paradox. If humans have no work and can't earn any money then they cant afford to buy the things that AI and robots are producing so the economy grinds to a halt. There becomes no need for any of these things to be produced in the first place. There needs to be a way for the masses of consumers to earn money in a capitalist system or it will reach a tipping point where there are no longer enough cashed up consumers for the economy to function.

Basically, in the long run there will need to be a way for humans to earn money to keep the economy turning or money will have to be somehow artificially distributed to stave off said paradox. I'm not sure there is currently an economic system in place that truely meets the requirements. Universal Basic Income and the "post scarcity" world may be where some of the answers lie but i'm not sure how this would eventuate painlessly.

The fallacy is that there won't be any work...

Someone has to build the robots. Someone has to maintain the robots. Someone has to program the robots.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: harold223
Your right in that all the known "isms" have never operated under such conditions. In a free market system, this will eventually create a paradox. The paradox being, AI and robots are much more efficient at performing the tasks required to produce "products" and don't need to be paid but do not need to really "consume" the products they are creating. Many years ago as machinery started to be introduced in the car factories, there was a meeting of the workers about layoffs. It was mentioned that the machines don't need to sleep or eat and can work 24/7 and don't need to be paid. The reply from amongst the workers.. "Robots don't buy cars". There is the paradox. If humans have no work and can't earn any money then they cant afford to buy the things that AI and robots are producing so the economy grinds to a halt. There becomes no need for any of these things to be produced in the first place. There needs to be a way for the masses of consumers to earn money in a capitalist system or it will reach a tipping point where there are no longer enough cashed up consumers for the economy to function.

Basically, in the long run there will need to be a way for humans to earn money to keep the economy turning or money will have to be somehow artificially distributed to stave off said paradox. I'm not sure there is currently an economic system in place that truely meets the requirements. Universal Basic Income and the "post scarcity" world may be where some of the answers lie but i'm not sure how this would eventuate painlessly.

The fallacy is that there won't be any work...

Someone has to build the robots. Someone has to maintain the robots. Someone has to program the robots.

But what happens once AI and robots are able to build, maintain and program other robots?

originally posted by: harold223

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: harold223
Your right in that all the known "isms" have never operated under such conditions. In a free market system, this will eventually create a paradox. The paradox being, AI and robots are much more efficient at performing the tasks required to produce "products" and don't need to be paid but do not need to really "consume" the products they are creating. Many years ago as machinery started to be introduced in the car factories, there was a meeting of the workers about layoffs. It was mentioned that the machines don't need to sleep or eat and can work 24/7 and don't need to be paid. The reply from amongst the workers.. "Robots don't buy cars". There is the paradox. If humans have no work and can't earn any money then they cant afford to buy the things that AI and robots are producing so the economy grinds to a halt. There becomes no need for any of these things to be produced in the first place. There needs to be a way for the masses of consumers to earn money in a capitalist system or it will reach a tipping point where there are no longer enough cashed up consumers for the economy to function.

Basically, in the long run there will need to be a way for humans to earn money to keep the economy turning or money will have to be somehow artificially distributed to stave off said paradox. I'm not sure there is currently an economic system in place that truely meets the requirements. Universal Basic Income and the "post scarcity" world may be where some of the answers lie but i'm not sure how this would eventuate painlessly.

The fallacy is that there won't be any work...

Someone has to build the robots. Someone has to maintain the robots. Someone has to program the robots.

But what happens once AI and robots are able to build, maintain and program other robots?

Who exactly is buying the stuff the robots are making?

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: harold223

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: harold223
Your right in that all the known "isms" have never operated under such conditions. In a free market system, this will eventually create a paradox. The paradox being, AI and robots are much more efficient at performing the tasks required to produce "products" and don't need to be paid but do not need to really "consume" the products they are creating. Many years ago as machinery started to be introduced in the car factories, there was a meeting of the workers about layoffs. It was mentioned that the machines don't need to sleep or eat and can work 24/7 and don't need to be paid. The reply from amongst the workers.. "Robots don't buy cars". There is the paradox. If humans have no work and can't earn any money then they cant afford to buy the things that AI and robots are producing so the economy grinds to a halt. There becomes no need for any of these things to be produced in the first place. There needs to be a way for the masses of consumers to earn money in a capitalist system or it will reach a tipping point where there are no longer enough cashed up consumers for the economy to function.

Basically, in the long run there will need to be a way for humans to earn money to keep the economy turning or money will have to be somehow artificially distributed to stave off said paradox. I'm not sure there is currently an economic system in place that truely meets the requirements. Universal Basic Income and the "post scarcity" world may be where some of the answers lie but i'm not sure how this would eventuate painlessly.

The fallacy is that there won't be any work...

Someone has to build the robots. Someone has to maintain the robots. Someone has to program the robots.

But what happens once AI and robots are able to build, maintain and program other robots?

Who exactly is buying the stuff the robots are making?

And there is the paradox I mentioned in the post I made above. It becomes cheaper for AI and robots to make everything, including other AI and robots but they don't have money or need to consume anything so the whole economy stops having any point. Unless somehow there is another means of distributing wealth? Its a paradox that i've no clue how it will resolve.

a reply to: harold223

Easy, it's called return on investment.

originally posted by: harold223

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: harold223
Your right in that all the known "isms" have never operated under such conditions. In a free market system, this will eventually create a paradox. The paradox being, AI and robots are much more efficient at performing the tasks required to produce "products" and don't need to be paid but do not need to really "consume" the products they are creating. Many years ago as machinery started to be introduced in the car factories, there was a meeting of the workers about layoffs. It was mentioned that the machines don't need to sleep or eat and can work 24/7 and don't need to be paid. The reply from amongst the workers.. "Robots don't buy cars". There is the paradox. If humans have no work and can't earn any money then they cant afford to buy the things that AI and robots are producing so the economy grinds to a halt. There becomes no need for any of these things to be produced in the first place. There needs to be a way for the masses of consumers to earn money in a capitalist system or it will reach a tipping point where there are no longer enough cashed up consumers for the economy to function.

Basically, in the long run there will need to be a way for humans to earn money to keep the economy turning or money will have to be somehow artificially distributed to stave off said paradox. I'm not sure there is currently an economic system in place that truely meets the requirements. Universal Basic Income and the "post scarcity" world may be where some of the answers lie but i'm not sure how this would eventuate painlessly.

The fallacy is that there won't be any work...

Someone has to build the robots. Someone has to maintain the robots. Someone has to program the robots.

But what happens once AI and robots are able to build, maintain and program other robots?

Let me know when Skynet has an IPO. If AI and robots are able to do everything then I think us humans have bigger problems we will need to worry about.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: harold223

Easy, it's called return on investment.

Expand further if you will? Do you mean that companies may opt not to use AI and robots despite they been a cheaper and more efficient option so as to make sure that they have paid human workers who can afford to buy things they are producing?

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: harold223

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: harold223
Your right in that all the known "isms" have never operated under such conditions. In a free market system, this will eventually create a paradox. The paradox being, AI and robots are much more efficient at performing the tasks required to produce "products" and don't need to be paid but do not need to really "consume" the products they are creating. Many years ago as machinery started to be introduced in the car factories, there was a meeting of the workers about layoffs. It was mentioned that the machines don't need to sleep or eat and can work 24/7 and don't need to be paid. The reply from amongst the workers.. "Robots don't buy cars". There is the paradox. If humans have no work and can't earn any money then they cant afford to buy the things that AI and robots are producing so the economy grinds to a halt. There becomes no need for any of these things to be produced in the first place. There needs to be a way for the masses of consumers to earn money in a capitalist system or it will reach a tipping point where there are no longer enough cashed up consumers for the economy to function.

Basically, in the long run there will need to be a way for humans to earn money to keep the economy turning or money will have to be somehow artificially distributed to stave off said paradox. I'm not sure there is currently an economic system in place that truely meets the requirements. Universal Basic Income and the "post scarcity" world may be where some of the answers lie but i'm not sure how this would eventuate painlessly.

The fallacy is that there won't be any work...

Someone has to build the robots. Someone has to maintain the robots. Someone has to program the robots.

But what happens once AI and robots are able to build, maintain and program other robots?

Who exactly is buying the stuff the robots are making?

Obviously other robots, duh!

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: harold223

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: harold223
Your right in that all the known "isms" have never operated under such conditions. In a free market system, this will eventually create a paradox. The paradox being, AI and robots are much more efficient at performing the tasks required to produce "products" and don't need to be paid but do not need to really "consume" the products they are creating. Many years ago as machinery started to be introduced in the car factories, there was a meeting of the workers about layoffs. It was mentioned that the machines don't need to sleep or eat and can work 24/7 and don't need to be paid. The reply from amongst the workers.. "Robots don't buy cars". There is the paradox. If humans have no work and can't earn any money then they cant afford to buy the things that AI and robots are producing so the economy grinds to a halt. There becomes no need for any of these things to be produced in the first place. There needs to be a way for the masses of consumers to earn money in a capitalist system or it will reach a tipping point where there are no longer enough cashed up consumers for the economy to function.

Basically, in the long run there will need to be a way for humans to earn money to keep the economy turning or money will have to be somehow artificially distributed to stave off said paradox. I'm not sure there is currently an economic system in place that truely meets the requirements. Universal Basic Income and the "post scarcity" world may be where some of the answers lie but i'm not sure how this would eventuate painlessly.

The fallacy is that there won't be any work...

Someone has to build the robots. Someone has to maintain the robots. Someone has to program the robots.

But what happens once AI and robots are able to build, maintain and program other robots?

Let me know when Skynet has an IPO. If AI and robots are able to do everything then I think us humans have bigger problems we will need to worry about.

Stephen Hawking warned us of this. The reality is as the OP demonstrated, starting to get disturbingly close to that.

a reply to: harold223

I've addressed this before.

The value in the economy goes to those who make artisanal goods. Everyone can have a robot made blanket, but not everyone can have a human, artisan quality one. So more or less Etsy becomes the new value marketplace and that crazy lady down the street who knits everything out of her own cat's hair becomes your new overlord.

a reply to: harold223

When any company buys a machine, they expect the machine to make the company money.
Who would buy a machine if they couldn't sell enough product to get a return on the capital investment?

a reply to: ketsuko

Interesting prospect. Will it work on a global scale with a population of 7 billion plus humans though? We'll have to wait and see.

I read one article that said we will lose 50% of unskilled jobs in the next 20 years.

Imagine, you go into a fast food place. You place your order on your smart phone before you go, then you scan your phone when you arrive and your food, freshly prepared, slides down a chute to you.

The only people at the store will be those that maintain the robot cooker and move bulk food items to where they need to be.

Say goodby to your fast food career.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: harold223

When any company buys a machine, they expect the machine to make the company money.
Who would buy a machine if they couldn't sell enough product to get a return on the capital investment?

That the free market theory. It may turn out that way, but it seems we are headed for some upheaval in the marketplace first as AI and robots become more cheap and proficient. When will we reach that tipping point that too many humans are out of work from robots and AI that it starts to create negative effects on the economy and companies start loosing returns on investment? It seems at the moment that companies are saving money using AI but for how much longer? Interesting stuff.

a reply to: Wildbob77

I see two things with that scenario.

1, maybe then they would actually get my order right.

2, aren't those the jobs the Dems say are destroying our economy?
Losing them would be their wet dream.

a reply to: harold223

It doesn't have to. It only has to work locally. Bob keeps bees. Sally has flowers and herds to make teas. Bob's bees make honey from Sally's flowers and herbs. They trade back and forth. Others can pay for their goods or learn how to produce things Bob and Sally want, and so it goes ...

Pretty soon you have an economy operating independent of the so-called robo-economy.