|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I'm talking about like, all the jobs that don't exist now because they are not important enough to hire someone else to do. The way cooking used to be. Maybe the la de da queen could get someone to cook for them but not the common person, they were spending hours cooking at home. it's not clear when you're talking about but since you're talking about the queen, labor in early modern england was so cheap that one of the stepping stone status symbols of the middle class was hiring someone to cook for you. more people had maids back then than do now, and any ease in cooking today is due to processed foods and advances in food packaging
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 09:17 |
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Think of an annoyance in your daily life that other people might have. Someone will have a job dealing with that annoyance in the near future because that is what always happens. someone's going to be paid to get you to stop posting?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
it's really not a good idea to resort to historical economics to explain future trends because historical methods of dealing with surplus population are forced deportation, starvation, slavery, compulsory military service, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
the problem with oocc's argument also is the focus on work rather than on the system which prioritizes work. there's plenty of necessary work to be done - look at all the people in society who need care, orphans, the elderly, the disabled, addicts, the mentally ill, who aren't getting it because nobody's paying adequately for it. their needs aren't currently being addressed. there are tons of perfectly good cats and dogs killed every day because they are surplus for society's need for pets - these animals could be cared for if there weren't financial barriers to care for them. when oocc says "needs" what he means is "needs of those with the ability to pay to have their needs cared for" which is a necessarily shrinking group as the labor pool itself contracts. oocc is arguing that an equilibrium exists where this isn't clearly the case
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Okay, but that is the same as the US going from 90% farmers to 9% farmers over a generation. It's not everyone just slaving to serve the few remaining farmers, it's people running off to make teeshirts and arby's burgers and stuff for eachother. Stuff that wasn't worth doing. i think you'll find that people were making clothing and cooking food in 1900 as well. simplistic historical reference doesn't really do the job here, you're proposing some kind of hierarchy of jobs where food production is at the top and video game playing is at the bottom and we're all just slowly going down the chain. you're ignoring a huge number of factors like how society has traditionally dealt with surplus labor (spoiler: horribly) as well as the fact that the labor market has unprecedented levels of surplus within it both in proportionate and absolute terms. the growth of the middle class in the 20th century allowed for a large tertiary employment sector to form, the question of "what happens to these people as there are less jobhavers over time" can't be answered through historic analysis because this sort of problem has never happened before
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I misread this as an example of a suggestion of what one of those jobs might be. please camgirls have been a thing for a while now
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
Bhaal posted:I have a question for when you encounter someone who smugly congratulates people fighting for 15 on causing fast food automation to come and replace them. You know, as though the automation is a punishment invented for them having the greed of wanting a living wage, rather than the automation having been unavoidable and the workers have always been completely and totally hosed. ask them why it makes them feel good to imagine someone working hard but getting paid less also fast food won't be automated any time soon because exactly this kind of person likes to pull petty scams like claiming their order was wrong or that the customer service was bad in order to cadge free food
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
cut, print, that's a wrap. excellent job everyone
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:You only need one person for the job of "Customer Relations Professional" though. two people can't yell at one person at the same time, they will fight
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2016 08:25
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:It doesn't have to be anything as explicit as that, really. on the other hand, the current crop of republicans are discussing how best to voucherize medicare and dismantle social security, so
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:No, but we're likely seeing real effects on the labor market in the form of stagnating (and increasingly polarized) wages and a loss of prime age labor force participation. yeah, but that was mostly done in the last few decades - even people shooting for white collar jobs have trouble getting an entry level job, when back in the day you could just work in the mailroom or as a typist or whatever
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:There's still plenty of room for it to get worse. A kid newly the job market today probably couldn't get to where I am now from where I started ten years ago. for sure, i'm just confirming the statement "we're likely seeing real effects on the labor market in the form of stagnating (and increasingly polarized) wages" which has been true since 1980 iirc. it's like saying "it is likely the soviet union will fall"
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
turn it up TURN ME ON posted:Is there good information out there about the # of jobs automation creates vs. removes? I've tried talking about the fact that companies simply won't invest in automation that won't save them labor money, but it's not sticking.  automation removes jobs from a sector over time. these jobs don't come back, people just find jobs doing other things. over 80% of the us labor force is employed doing service sector jobs, called the tertiary/quaternary sector (primary sector is resource extraction, secondary sector is resource processing). we've already automated nearly all farming, logging, mining etc. we've mostly automated manufacturing, or pushed it to where labor is super cheap. the service sector ranges from selling shoes to designing shoes, flipping burgers to being the ceo of a burger chain. once we start automating those jobs and removing people from employment, which removes their capacity to purchase services, then what?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
turn it up TURN ME ON posted:I think you're missing what the other people are saying. They're software engineers or automation engineers, and they're saying that more jobs like theirs will be created. They're saying that when a menial job is created it will be replaced by a job maintaining whatever thing replaced them. if automation creates more jobs, what incentive do employers have to automate? they will have to hire more people, or outsource to some company that provides the automation service. like if it takes 10 people to make a widget, then i buy a robot that makes widgets and puts those ten people out of work, what good does it do me if i have to hire or contract more than 10 robot repairers? also, what other economic force explains the massive shift from people being employed as resource getters (farmers) or resource changers (bakers) to people being employed as people who sell other people services (personal chef/sandwich artist). once we have an automatic sandwich machine, it's great for the person who optimizes that machine but what will the sandwich maker do? if they go to school to become a robot technician, is that a viable path forwards for all the sandwich makers? if there's such a huge demand for robot techs, then why don't we automate robot techs, such that then people get jobs tending the automatic robot technicians etc. so on
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
turn it up TURN ME ON posted:Also I get the feeling that the people I'm arguing against simply don't mind there being an underclass of underemployed or unemployed people who will simply be poor. They are OK with someone being miserable if they don't have the smarts to be an Engineer. this is very likely to be the case KillHour posted:The people that can afford the robots that handle production can just tell those robots to produce things directly for themselves instead of making burgers to sell to Average Joes to get money to buy the things they wanted. once you get past a few million bucks, rich people don't own things for their practicality, they own things to show off how rich they are. nobody needs a 30k sq/ft mansion, they live in to demonstrate how they can afford to live in a giant impractical house. if society is reduced to a small group of robot owners who just turn their robots to build increasingly enormous mansions to live in then they're not really rich by society's standards, they're all pretty middle class. basically without a huge underclass, rich people aren't really rich boner confessor fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Dec 6, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
Tei posted:Maybe new trucks are made that when they are inside a airport or a port are automated self-drived, and they turn manual outside. Maybe trucker wait in a station, and pick the truck when it park, after crossing half the country self driving. So instead of 20 hours piloting trough the country, is only 3 hours, but are the hard 3 hours, these that have the trucker fighting with humans, or the city trafic, conflicting address. so... a freight train passing a container to a truck at a yard?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
Ignatius M. Meen posted:The New Deal is how we got Social Security and Medicare though so there's more precedent of the rich caving in when poo poo is bad enough in the US than the Weimar outcome. Also I seem to recall the Weimar outcome blowing up in a lot of formerly wealthy peoples' faces which maybe will play a factor in how much they'll keep stoking the fire when poo poo starts getting real? the new deal was also extremely racist, though. like, redlining, the idea of institutionally denying housing loans to minorities, was a direct and deliberate outcome of the new deal HOLC. it's hard to get americans on board with social welfare unless you add the caveat "only for white americans"
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:And won't you look at that, former McDonalds president/CEO Ed Rensi has been threatening the $15 minimum movement with replacing them with touch screen kiosks. I don't know how feasible that tech is yet, but there are some locations with a functioning kiosk and if they work well enough, someone at the company will run the numbers and see how much cheaper it is to have kiosks over cashiers. It could technically happen sooner if the national minimum was $15 an hour. every mcdonalds in america already has multiple touch screen kiosks. every fast food joint does, and 99% of restaurants do too. as of right now it makes sense to pay cashiers to interpret verbal orders into the kiosk rather than have customers do this directly, because we haven't come up with an efficient, idiot-proof user interface boner confessor fucked around with this message at 01:02 on Dec 28, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Similarly, grocery stores haven't found a way to have a self-checkout system that is hard to shoplift from that doesn't constantly lock up and ask for a cashier to help. the problem is easier in that everything in a grocery store has a upc code. there's no single code for "a double cheesburger with lettuce, tomato, pickle, hold the mayo". i think that grocery stores see the labor savings as worth the cost of shoplifters, and statutorially for alcohol and stuff they need to have a human attendant to check your id the problem with fast food is that it needs to be fast or it loses its utility, and all foodservice thrives on throughput during peak demand times (aka "lunch/dinner rush") so you could easily be harming your business if the earlybird seniors cause a traffic jam trying to figure out a kiosk to order coffee at 6am boner confessor fucked around with this message at 02:40 on Dec 28, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 02:38
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:Self checkout is very prone to bottom of the basket theft especially when one employee is meant to watch 4-8 self checkouts. Personally I never understood why shoppers would even want self checkout. if you go to the store at odd hours or you only ever get a few things at a time it's basically an express line. i hardly ever use the human checkouts because you generally have to wait an extra 5-10 mins, and i typically end up at the store with a bored toddler
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:They say they're planning to launch a consumer version this year. If they upgrade it to where it can parse recipes from cookbooks and websites (which should be quite feasible with today's machine learning and language processing technology), I'd start saving up for one in a heartbeat. i dont see the point of this versus frozen meals, which are the superior way to introduce robotic processing to create cheap meals
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:The point of that is to introduce robotic processing to create quality meals - the Moley Robotics system was programmed by performing motion capture on elite professional chefs at work. frozen meals aren't quality? pretty drat elitist. "this machine motion-captures the actions of professional chefs without capturing the intent or artistry, at only 10x the price" lol. some cargo cult poo poo right here, where current extremely efficient automated processes to create food aren't fancy enough but just hiring someone who knows how to cook, or learning to cook yourself, isn't feasible
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
BedBuglet posted:And yet... that is how costco makes pizzas. At least in part. yeah this is the "extremely efficient automated processes" side of things and not the "motion capture of an elite chef" side of things. unless you sincerely think elite chefs make pizza by pouring uniform amounts of premeasured sauce out of a tube etc.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
so we just train another robot to act as a sous chef to lay out the ingredients precisely for the first robot, and a third robot to open the fridge door and get the ingredients, and and and
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:And it's not like we haven't changed what the system was designed for in the past. At one point roads were for pedestrians and horse drawn vehicles and cars were those things the rich drove like maniacs and ran over babies with. they've been trying to make self driving cars for more than 60 years. the earliest attempts involved radio control and signals embedded into the road itself, literally "changing who a road is for, from human drivers to autonomous vehicles". it doesn't work, because there's a shitload of road in this country and you can't update all of it to provide sufficient coverage for automated vehicles. also, we already have a means of constructing right of way that's perfect for automated control of a vehicle - it's called a "railroad track"
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:In one paragraph we have: it won't work with an example of why it's a solved problem. are you drunk? the solved problem is "use a train". i dont know how else you could have read that statement BrandorKP posted:Look at it this way, tech companies design tech kits for business with preexisting systems. Every now and then they create a technology that doesn't work with the preexisting systems but that would work if a new system ( a new business) was designed around it. Now the roads are a massive sunk capital cost so the bar is very high for the whole design a new system around it thing. But it's certainly not impossible. and the technology is "come up with artificial intelligence that can read a human road as well as a human can". no part of that implies changing roads to make it easier for automated cars. you've abandoned your own argument, dude BedBuglet posted:If that were true, electric cars wouldn't exist. this makes no sense at all. electric cars existed a hundred years ago. please make a coherent argument BedBuglet posted:You'd see intelligent roads taking the same form. Cities upgrading traffic signs to be easily readable by AVs, etc, then it'd spread out from there to major highways. I don't know why you think it's an insurmountable challenge. The point of updating roads for AVs isn't so they will work, we already have that technology, it's so that they work better and safer. AVs already drive slightly better than your average human without smart roads. cool mindless tech fetishism but the current, feasible track for self driving cars is to replicate everything that humans do because, suprise, it's way harder to implement standard assistance features across thousands of different jurisdictions also lol at self driving cars being better than the average human when they've only been tested in perfect, pristine conditions this is one of the most brainless self driving car arguments i've seen on this forum in the last few months, i suspect the cargo cult futurism is super strong here boner confessor fucked around with this message at 02:20 on Jan 7, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2017 02:17
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Any technology is part of a larger system and user case. One (of many) solution is to change the larger system and user case. We did those things to adopt cars in the first place at some point it may make sense to do it to adopt self driving vehicles. uh, roads already existed before the mass adoption of automobiles. roads changed very little in comparison to the way people used roads. cars themselves were adapted for roads, the already extant infrastructure, and not the other way round BrandorKP posted:That type of conceptual change can take decades after it starts and could either lag a technology or preceed it. In fact changing the system and user cases may even be harder than solving the tech problem. this is just generic technobabble when we're talking about changing up roadways - which will still be used by manually driven vehicles for decades to come - versus adapting new vehicle technology to the already extant built environment. it is way more reasonable to expect vehicles to conform to present infrastructure than the opposite. for one, self-driving cars could have been implemented decades ago with such a change to the built environment, but it was enormously impractical. second, if we were that willing to modify the built environment, we could easily eliminate cars. you're proposing a solution here to a problem that doesn't actually exist, while indulging in the same old technocratic "X machine will solve all our problems!" which people have been proposing for the better part of a century. with a legacy like that, you really should tone down your expecations
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2017 06:41
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:We brute force map the ocean bottom for navigation and one arm of our nuclear deterrent at a global scale. we know very little about the ocean bottom, like 98% of it is irrelevant for navigation of any kind
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2017 05:37
|
|
|
its comforting to know that the last referenced data of the street im driving on could only be months/years out of date
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2017 05:42
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:That's where this is moving I'm sure. Which is gonna be real nice when we can start getting rid of these massive parking lots everywhere. Columbus has a car share service I already like and when those vehicles are automated you are gonna be able to service the same number/area of people with fewer vehicles overall, looser range restrictions, and the ability to send them away park themselves . If they were in other nearby cities I probably wouldn't have bought a car at all. we'll never be rid of massive parking lots until we get rid of cars entirely at best in the autonomous fleet car future the parking lots will be reserved for people on no-wait plans and everyone else with the bargain tier subscription will have to wait as more cars are brought in from suburban parking lots as rush hour ramps up
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:I think parking garages will become more common. Instead of having gigantic lots in front of every store, you'll just have loading/drop-off areas and your car will store itself 5 minutes away until you summon it. we could and in many places do this today, the only alteration on today's practice is it eliminates the walk to/from the vehicle the problem with huge parking lots isn't a technical one, but a policy one - in many places, mandatory minimum parking requirements are absurdly outsized. plus, there's an economic incentive for large stores to make it as convenient as possible to shop there. neither of these factors are really addressed by self driving cars Dr. Arbitrary posted:It'll create a whole new mess of problems at first, what do you do when the pick up area is full of cars waiting for their passengers who are still shopping, but your car is waiting to get in? a bar i frequent has put up signs requesting uber customers stand in a different location, on a side street, when waiting for their rides because otherwise they stop in the middle of a higher traffic street and it's caused some complaints
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I'm not sure if you really even need curbside pick-up, at least for reasonably dense urban areas. Have some centrally placed parking garage that your car drops you off at and that you later pick the car up from. If we're talking about fleet cars, then the garage can act as a sort of vehicle vending machine. Order a car, show up, get in, and leave. It's nothing that couldn't be done (or isn't already done) with human-driven cars, but centralizing infrastructure like that will probably start to make more sense if/when autonomous fleet vehicles become a common way of getting around. by what mechanism would this be enforced though? banning curbside pickup? the one clear advantage of the self driving car is that it can bring itself to you, rather than you having to go to it
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
withak posted:Obviously the app coordinating the self-driving car would know your location and the car would show up when needed, not before. Otherwise the cars would queue up, just like when a driveway is full for non-autonomous cars. If the passenger is delayed then the car would circle the lot or whatever. *nine autonomous cars circle a bar as a large party of twentysomethings decide to get one more round*
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I was mostly spitballing ways that cities could leverage autonomous vehicle technology to actually reduce congestion and improve things for their residents, though, not suggesting that eliminating curbside pickup would be an advantage of self-driving cars. self driving cars will absolutely not reduce congestion. people get real starry eyed about the possibilites of the future but this is just a nonstarter first off one of the known unsolvable problems in traffic engineering is triple convergence aka latent demand - basically there's a lot of elasticity in car trips, and if you work to improve the capacity of a congested road network then the extra capacity you free up via efficiency or new lanes or whatever will soon be taken up by people who previously weren't using a car at a certain time on a certain route but now they are. this plus steadily growing urban populations increasing demand for car travel means that you simply cannot fix automotive congestion without some external factor involved like alternate modes of travel (mass transit) or tightening O/D pairs (build more urban area that works with mass transit where you dont need car) also, the widespread adoption of cars will introduce additional 0 passenger trips. right now like 75%-80% or some huge number of all trips made by americans are in a car, solo. you're driving yourself somewhere although, technically, you are both the driver and the passenger. taxis are sometimes 0 passenger, though taxi drivers avoid this as much as possible because it costs money. the marginal cost of having a self driving car circling the block is marginal, and largely an externality - the cost of pollution and congestion by that car, with nobody in it, doing right turns until otherwise needed. this is something people often bring up when saying stuff like "oh well we wont need parking lots in the future the cars will just disappear down a rabbit hole" but this idea of the self driving fleet is contradictory to the idea of reducing congestion - cars which are parked are not causing congestion, cars which are driving are, and we have to accept that a much larger number of vehicles will be driving 'uselessly' as in waiting for someone to get in or headed to pick someone up who may be some ways away self driving cars may increase the throughput of large roads in the short term but in the long term it'll just attract more people back to using cars and then we're at square one again. cars themselves are not an efficient means of moving people, they are an expensive but convenient means that we're sort of locked into because of short sighted land development patterns etc. and at best they'll let us continue to avoid the hard work of actually pushing sustainable urbanism
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:A huge amount of congestion is based on the suboptimal way humans accelerate. no OOCC you huge technofetishist weirdo, 100% of congestion is caused by there being more cars on the road than the road can adequately deal with. even if everyone were trained to accelerate and brake in unison, this efficiency gain would be quickly swamped by more people squeezing their cars into the gaps where previously they had avoided that road at that time because of congestion. if you read my post you didn't understand it at all, shame on you
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
shovelbum posted:Don't self-driving nuclear/wind/solar cars make a lot of the negatives of lower density populations magically go away? Your carbon footprint tanks no, you're still using up a pretty decent amount of land per capita in an energy inefficient way shovelbum posted:Why live in a crowded city at all if not to avoid DUIs and carbon emissions in the first place? personal preference. many people enjoy living in crowded cities, for the superior entertainment options available and access to a larger job market
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:The road can deal with the cars just fine. It's the drivers who didn't evolve to move 80 miles an hour moving a wheel to steer a giant metal box that limits everything so sharply. yeah sorry you have no idea what you're talking about. throughput is an actual hard limit on traffic capacity, no matter how they are piloted only so many cars can pass by a certain point in a certain timeframe and then we're back to the efficiency increase which is always degraded by latent demand
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Of course, roads aren't infinite. However you could get more people mobile with the same infrastructure so it's a plus. given that populations are increasing in cities and will likely continue to do so, really this is just keeping up with increased demand rather than actually reducing congestion. the only reliable way to reduce congestion is to guarantee an inefficient oversupply of transportation infrastructure such that it's never filled up even at peak demand times. this is either unfeasibly expensive or a sign that your local economy is collapsing shovelbum posted:It seems like the major carbon emissions of suburbs come from vehicles and direct consumption of natural gas for heating. Surely luxurious energy expenditure isn't necessarily the devil himself if it's clean energy? actually yeah, unnecessary consumption of energy is the devil itself if you're concerned about climate change. pick one
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:The hard limit of traffic is every car moving at 150 miles an hour with a micron between the bumpers nonstop forever. The laws of physics limit is so much absurdly higher than the practical limit of roads, the drivers are the actual limit that matters. yeah and trains exist, cars aren't trains, and you're ignoring a ton of practical problems about 150mph highways in your weird futurist fever dream. imagine someone throws something out the window in the middle of the traffic flow that causes a ripple effect downstream as cars avoid the hazard, or a car gets a flat, or many other things that commonly happen on highways. let alone this level of efficiency would require 100% mandatory self driving car ownership and use across society which is decades away. once you're pretending this level of technology is feasible you might as well pretend teleportation exists shovelbum posted:Unless I have been horribly misled about climate change, the unnecessary consumption of fossil fuels is the danger, and that other options are already scalable to the point of supporting present space inefficiencies, with present technology. using a purpose built vehicle to commute thirty miles from your half acre plot in the woods will never be climate friendly, even if you're using zero-emission technolgy to do it, simply because of the per capita resource outlay to sustain that lifestyle
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 09:17 |
|
|
shovelbum posted:Trains have a lot of disadvantages, the main one being that train routes and proposed train routes outside the very largest cities are routed, scheduled, and used for strictly commuter purposes and can replace none of the social or recreational functions of the automobile. What fun, I can travel from a financial center, to an office park area, to a suburb, twice a day, no trains after 6pm. my point is we already have a vehicle which can go 150 mph with extremely little distance between the cars and can be driven automagically. that was the point i made
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2017 19:01
|
|