|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:But this sci-fi scenario is also one where someone has an autodoc that costs less than 90,000 a year to run. Lol, doctors make way more than that. You need to at least double that number. Owlofcreamcheese posted:If everything is automated why are my expenses also not going down a huge amount? only my income? Consumer goods can be and have been produced more cheaply due to automation, but people don't spend most of their money on consumer goods. People spend a lot of money on things like housing and medical care in which there is a lot of government influence to maintain scarcity of those types of goods/services and keep prices high. You are correctly pointing out though that people in these discussions tend to underestimate the maintenance cost of mechanical systems. The maintenance cost of 'digital systems' which automate away semi-skilled white collar jobs can be really low though. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Dec 2, 2016 |
#
¿
Dec 2, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 13:55 |
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Really, automation impacts everything for a long time already. Various corporate operations are getting automated too, just nobody is complaining (yet). Procurement, O2C, sales & marketing, etc. are all becoming increasingly automated. While many people are still needed, of course, it's nowhere near what it would be with manual processes. Just Outlook must've eliminated millions of secretaries - it used to be that everyone of any importance had one, and now even big managers at most get a shared assistant. It's actually way cheaper to automate semi-skilled white collar jobs where the only inputs and outputs are information than it is to automate some blue-collar work where complicated, costly, high-maintenance mechanical contraptions are needed to do certain types of assembly.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Tei posted:Humans can do some white collar jobs better than a program. But the program don't need to sleep or take vacations. It depends on how menial the office work is and how much of it involves interacting with humans. An advantage to the computer is, in addition to speed, if it is programmed correctly, it does the same thing every time. Humans are not good at keeping track of many things at once and often make clerical errors.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
Shao821 posted:Air travel (and to the same extent airframe manufacturing) is all about trust and risk reduction. Sure they have these systems. But just like self-driving cars, there will be someone behind the wheel. That is, until people become comfortable with the automated systems and the perceived risk of using them becomes negligible. At first, they'll start by retraining the pilots to allow the planes to take the wheel for certain phases of flight, just like they do now, but with more emphasis on taxi, takeoff, and landing. Then pilots will become glorified babysitters for the fully automated planes. After 20-30 years of advertising this to their customers (because everything in aviation is slow, they still don't have wireless DAL C systems yet, much less B or A), airlines may start introducing fully automated flights to see how the passengers take it. If people accept it, great. If not, then they just put in some guy with 10 hours of flight training and pay him 15 bucks an hour. Either way, the well trained, well paid pilots are doomed long term. I'm sure that the fuel and maintenance costs of a jumbo jet dwarf the pilot's labor cost. I would be shocked if the airlines would be that motivated to do away with trained human pilots.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:Only if the autopilot is more efficient than the human pilot in terms of maintenance and fuel cost. I'm saying that I suspect that the labor cost of pilots isn't that high relative to all of the other costs of flying for the airlines to put a lot of effort into totally removing trained human pilots from the loop. There's not a lot of motivation to do it. Pilots already do a good job landing planes--I'd be shocked if the aircraft industry puts a lot of thought into further improving the smoothness of aircraft landings. They are already pretty smooth. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 05:39 on Dec 6, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
Tei posted:Shows a picture of a drone: this thing can flight to iran capital and destroy a target the size of a car, then flight back. That's very different than commercial passenger flights--the military likes drones and was highly motivated to develop them because having no human being sitting in the aircraft means that they can totally change their war strategies. In addition, for the military, cost is less of a concern than for commercial airlines. Finally, drones aren't self-flying, they have guys remote controlling them. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Dec 6, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 13:55 |
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I chuckle every time I see the words "reduce prices" in this thread, as though companies aren't gonna just pocket more profit and bonuses. The price of oil seems to be at odds with your statement. If you take a look in the DAPL pipeline thread, there are many progressives arguing (maybe even you made the following argument in that thread too!) that oil prices have already been lowered to such low amounts that we don't need another pipeline and more oil supply. There are so many other things which are dropping in cost--food, communications, electronics, software, etc. Maybe more important things like medicine and housing aren't dropping in cost, but you've got to be pretty stupid to claim that it is impossible for the price of goods to ever go down. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 16:57 on Dec 6, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2016 16:52
|
|