[boundring]

The article is focused on robotic automation of menial tasks, primarily in industrial settings (factories, warehouses), not automation of judgements which could be subject to bias...

Thriftwy raises an interesting point, speculatively, but there's little bias to be found in supply logistics or assembly of parts.

Marginally touched upon in the article was the displacement of lower-class workers. Is expansion of automation going to lead humanity toward dispossession of low-income workers, or will universal welfare become the result of outmoded jobs?

I don't think Asimov's "Aurorans,"--elite-yet-few humans supported by legions of robotic servants--is possible, but it's a thing.

[stefie10]

I started working in robotics because I wanted to empower people and make the world a better place. But what I have started to appreciate is that increasing automation is by default a transfer of wealth from labor to capital owners. The two million long-haul truck drivers who are going to be replaced by self-driving trucks are going to lose income; the owners of the self-driving trucks are going to capture that wealth. I am not sure what the right social policies are to address this; retraining, basic income, and universal healthcare all seem reasonable. But I think a lot of people don't appreciate how automation leads to both increased productivity and also increased inequality.

[AOsborn]

> But what I have started to appreciate is that increasing automation is by default a transfer of wealth from labor to capital owners.

I think this is correct. However, one aspect not yet covered in the media as much is that if wealth is concentrated and dispossessed from labour classes, there will be a corresponding decline or collapse in many areas of the economy.

If an entire generation of labour workers are tipped out of employment, who will purchase FMCG? Sure, the market for premium/elite products could increase but I do not think this will compensate nearly enough for the lack of volume.

It is in the interest of capital owners to ensure that significant markets remain so that industries that rely on economy of scale can continue to operate. Basic income doesn't help this situation.

[rgarrett88]

I don't think we'll have a lack of volume. Global incomes continue to rise and push demand higher. Often times developing economies' growth comes at the expense of developed but on the whole it's net positive.

[indigochill]

Although I agree automation necessarily moves wealth from labor to capital sources, I think an underappreciated concept by those concerned about automation is how increased productivity at least historically has benefited the overall economy. The industrial revolution went a long way towards advancing economic inequality, but had it not happened we collectively wouldn't enjoy anywhere near the quality of life we now do (and that goes for pretty much anyone who's worn a t-shirt).

But yes, it would be best if we could find ways to help laborers adapt to new automation and advance technology in a socially responsible way. Not that I have any great ideas for how that would work.

[ryandrake]

Problem is: Tell that to the people losing their jobs. "Sorry you have to choose between medication and rent now. But hey, the overall economy is doing great so you should feel happy!" This idea that a rising overall economy benefits everyone is a lie told by the smaller number of people who it actually benefits.

[stefie10]

I agree with that so much that I spend all my time working on robots. I am not saying we should stop automating. More the latter, that we should work toward applying the technology in a sustainable way. The advances in labor protections as part of the industrial revolution did not come for free. People fought (and died!) for advances such as the eight hour work day, stopping child labor, and many other things.

At this moment in history, with so much automation happening, and also so much inequality, we should keep fighting for it to happen in a good way.

[svachalek]

You have to think about how it benefits the overall economy. Typically this has been by replacing menial, low-paying jobs with more leveraged and better paying ones. But in the industrial age these upgrades were still creating jobs the average person could train for in a few months, and then follow for the rest of their working life.

But there's no guarantee anywhere that this is how it "has" to work out, and as things accelerate there's a lot of evidence to say it's not going to be that way for working class people in highly developed economies. (It seems to be ramping up developing economies much the same as it worked for us.) If you don't have a paycheck, are you really benefitting from the "overall economy"?

[crdoconnor]

https://qz.com/962427/what-its-like-to-be-a-modern-engraver-...

"The relatively steady rate of employment in etching and engraving fits into the optimist’s narrative of what will happen when machines take over work. Unlike the pessimist’s narrative, which points out the instances in which companies view automation as an opportunity to cut labor costs, the sunny view assumes that there’s always more work to do. If workers aren’t bogged down with repetitive, boring tasks, they’ll be able to do more work or focus on new business segments.

“A lot of the automation has just made it faster, not necessarily taken away jobs,” says Dalton. “For us, I would say it’s increased our capability to hire more employees, because we can do more work.”

Coincidentally, the whole magic robots stealing jobs meme neatly exculpates austerity and outsourcing.

[marcosdumay]

> increasing automation is by default a transfer of wealth from labor to capital owners

Things are more complex than that. Whether labor gains or loses depends it productivity saves labor faster or slower than lower prices increase consumption.

[colemannugent]

I don't think that increased automation will necessarily kill jobs. When Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin that could triple the labor of a slave, and the number of slaves increased keep the machines fed.

For a more modern analogy, AWS enables one engineer to deploy machines at let's say 100 times the speed of an engineer doing it all manually. If you business scales with the number of deployed machines, each additional engineer adds significant value to your business until you reach a point where adding another engineer does not justify the salary you would pay her.

The issue then is now training engineers to use AWS. Your business could justify bearing this cost if the cost of training does not outweigh the additional value.

[stefie10]

I think that's definitely true, in terms of net jobs. (But probably not always true.) However it will lead to disruption - the old jobs won't be the same as the new jobs. This disruption is potentially harmful to the people doing the old jobs. Additionally, most of the benefit of the cotton gin went to the slave owners, not the slaves, even though the slaves still had jobs. Hopefully we can do better this time!