491–500 of 511 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"And for $13.75 an hour, it definitely isn't worth it." A billion of people around the world would be happy to work with that hourly rate.
Would you?
If that were the case, I would be happy to do anything, including relocating to the US and working as an Amazon's robot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"And for $13.75 an hour, it definitely isn't worth it." A billion of people around the world would be happy to work with that hourly rate.
To add further there will be billion who would do as a daily rate.
If we talk about working for that rate in their native country, I think it can be up to 5 billion. And a billion more will take the job without being too happy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a pipetting robot now: https://opentrons.com/
This is awesome! But... PIs everywhere: “Why would I buy this robot when I could get an undergrad to do the work for free?” Although if they hated taking the time to train undergrads maybe they’d give it a shot Then again, they don’t train the undergrads, postdocs do
If censorship is the case, then may I make the point that instead of censoring people critical of y combination backed products/services, maybe you should listen to your potential client/customer base, as my opinion with this product is shared by others in academia. Your money would probably go a lot further.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I worked for Amazon in what was then a brand new warehouse for a few months in 2015. I worked 10 hour shifts, from 20:00 to 07:00 (the extra hour was for lunch and breaks). My job was picking orders. It seemed easy at first (and it was, but mentally, not so much). All I had to do was stand in one place while robots brought me pod after endless pod of products. There was nothing to it, and that was the problem. The po…
"And for $13.75 an hour, it definitely isn't worth it." A billion of people around the world would be happy to work with that hourly rate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't think the past 100 years even remotely indicates how we'll handle this as a society. We aren't talking about taking away one job. We're talking about taking away a skill category. We did it with farmers. 80% of jobs in early 1800's, close to 40% in 1900, 20% by 1930, 5% by 1965, and 1.7% now. A whole "skill category" like driving doesn't even come close to farming. Automation, and even displacing drivers, i…
So I take it your view is we should not plan / discuss how to handle it? Take it on good faith that it'll be fine?
That this isn't special, that we're not "on the cusp of some pretty hairy water", but rather that this is just par for the course.
I just don't see any statistics that suggest the scale or rate will be anything close to larger/faster than our economy can normally handle. If someone can show those comparative statistics exist, then I'll change my mind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a platitude that is said often, but there is no evidence to support it. There is no law of the universe that says whenever a job gets automated, a new type of work pops out of the aether to employ displaced people. It is wishful thinking at best.
Well, if you look at history it keeps happening. Imagine if you said in 1900 that almost all farm jobs would be eliminated in 100 years. The future would be almost unimaginable, but we've turned out okay. However I think the problem is we're at a point where things are churning so rapidly that many are being left behind. Your 50-year-old truck driver is not in a position to learn a new skill every 5-10 years to stay…
Retail changed from a career that offered full time jobs to one making use of a just in time workforce, and has suffered tremendous consolidation over that period.Like entre chains and concept stores have declined; something like Media Play is dead and no longer able to be revived. Even Gamestop suffers, as the amount of physical releases declines.
I think retail shows it can be pretty dire indeed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So I take it your view is we should not plan / discuss how to handle it? Take it on good faith that it'll be fine?
My view is that the loss of driving jobs can be handled normally, via existing free market and education institutions -- that it's no different from the loss of other job categories over the past 50 years. That this isn't special, that we're not "on the cusp of some pretty hairy water", but rather that this is just par for the course. I just don't see any statistics that suggest the scale or rate will be anything clo…
Ie, how many millions of food service workers, manual laborers, and drivers (for trucks, taxis, etc) could move upward in career depth? Where would we expect them to be absorbed?
I definitely think this is hairy waters, in the sense that I want to see studies done. Planning for how it can be handled. Etc. Calling it fine in my view would suggest we don't even need to study it - which seems unfair. This degree of automation, assuming we can get over some AI hurdles of course, seems unparalleled - at least enough to warrant real data.
Anyone parading around like this is bad news has never worked in an assembly line or warehouse job. This might reduce the workforce overall long-term, but honestly this is hard back-breaking long-workday labor. Anything that improves the livelihood of the warehouse workers is a win in my book.
I worked for Amazon in what was then a brand new warehouse for a few months in 2015. I worked 10 hour shifts, from 20:00 to 07:00 (the extra hour was for lunch and breaks). My job was picking orders. It seemed easy at first (and it was, but mentally, not so much). All I had to do was stand in one place while robots brought me pod after endless pod of products. There was nothing to it, and that was the problem. The po…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So I'm misunderstanding the effect? Is the outcome such that the reducion in payroll will lead to increase in profits and then pressumably that profit will be taxed at a minimum of long term capital gains rate when returned to shareholders?
No, it's just that you are only now bringing in capital gains, when that's actually pretty important. If all these corporate profits are going to shareholders, who are then taxed on capital gains, don't you think that's a little bit higher than the 1% you were quoting? So maybe if you actually finished doing the math instead of stopping in the middle, you'd see that automation isn't the tax loss you're making it out…
I'm glad we have you for this time, will finish the math next time ;-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My view is that the loss of driving jobs can be handled normally, via existing free market and education institutions -- that it's no different from the loss of other job categories over the past 50 years. That this isn't special, that we're not "on the cusp of some pretty hairy water", but rather that this is just par for the course. I just don't see any statistics that suggest the scale or rate will be anything clo…
That's fair. It would be interesting to have data that compares all of the job classes out there and the number of workers out there, against the worker education. Ie, how many millions of food service workers, manual laborers, and drivers (for trucks, taxis, etc) could move upward in career depth? Where would we expect them to be absorbed? I definitely think this is hairy waters, in the sense that I want to see stud…