Just own the damn robots • Hacker News Board

Re: Just own the damn robots

#321

Post by Qwertious » Wed, Oct 18, 2017, 11:48 PM UTC

intended wrote: post #157

Iv wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but it will also create new jobs managing the automation No, that's bullshit. New jobs will be created that way but far less: there would be no incentive to automation otherwise. This month I visited a warehouse with a team tasked to automate it. If we succeed, phase I should put ~10 people out of job and we don't expect to have to do more than occasional monthly interventions (and that's assuming that we have a hi…

An article somewhere had a useful categorizaiton of automation of jobs in terms of human jobs 1) Automation removes a bottleneck, and lets workers be more productive - often creating more work. 2) Automation removes a better paying job, and leaves behind a less skilled role for humans 3) Automation removes an entire type of work. Automation doomsday scenarios focus on the last work. The issue with automation, fundame…

>1) Automation removes a bottleneck, and lets workers be more productive - often creating more work.

What's not mentioned is that on average, the work created will be more skilled than the work it displaces. This means that in the long term, training [enough to get a job] is harder, because more and more work will require skill.

In the long run, I suspect that the biggest unskilled job group will be the type that involves interacting with people (so, management and retail/sales), which could well end up being where we ditch as many of our unskilled workers that we've made redundant, unless we can manage to remove them from the economy with e.g. UBI. And oh my god, did I just stumble across that one part of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?

Re: Just own the damn robots

#322

Post by toasterlovin » Wed, Oct 18, 2017, 11:48 PM UTC

graphitezepp wrote: post #273

toasterlovin wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, maybe let your kids decide if life is worth living. Seems wrong to make that decision for them...

You make this decision when you have kids, not by not having them.

All I'm saying is that, as a reason for not having children, "it would be wrong to bring them into a world like this", is just bad reasoning. We all possess the ability to take our own lives, so if you're alive and considering whether or not to have children, you are demonstrating with your very existence that a life in current circumstances is worth living.

Otherwise you would have killed yourself.

Re: Just own the damn robots

#323

Post by Qwertious » Wed, Oct 18, 2017, 11:58 PM UTC

marcus_holmes wrote: post #165

bmomb wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The revolution aspect will still be relevant when we consider autonomous war machines? What power the 90% have when its opposed to drones, or some other hi-tech weapon?

It worked for Gandhi fighting (or rather, not fighting) the British. Superior weaponry doesn't necessarily lead to victory in this kind of conflict.

Gandhi fighting worked because the Indians outnumbered the british by more than 10:1, and if they did fight, they easily could have won.

What's changed since then is that an extreme minority can kill far more people. For instance, automated drones.

Re: Just own the damn robots

#324

Post by royce » Thu, Oct 19, 2017, 12:06 AM UTC

snikeris wrote: post #286

kleer001 wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Incorrect. "Everyone one of our ancestors successfully reproduced." is the most we can say.

Eh yeah, I suppose some died during or shortly after reproducing, but even in those cases someone in the community raised your ancestors successfully.

Even that is insufficiently precise.

Death is not the only thing that separates children from parents. Neglect, disinterest, self-involvement, inability to provide, etc.

And beyond a certain minimum viability, no adult is strictly required. Street "urchins" take care of themselves and each other.

Re: Just own the damn robots

#325

Post by Qwertious » Thu, Oct 19, 2017, 12:09 AM UTC

fastball wrote: post #214

lsiebert wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Communities today where a large percentage of people live on government aid are not the equivalent to the country as a whole on basic income, and government aid now imposes multiple work and reporting requirements that help prevent people on government aid from pursuing creative endeavors. No, if you want to look at basic income, look at the children of the wealthy, who never have to work. Most still pursue education…

The difference between basic income and the children of the wealthy is the spectre of the money disappearing. Only the most short-sighted of the wealthy do not realize that there are many ways in which their wealth could dry up. This provides an impetus to use the money constructively while you have it, because it might not be around forever. Basic income does not give the same drive. You can watch TV all day, doing…

>Only the most short-sighted of the wealthy do not realize that there are many ways in which their wealth could dry up. This provides an impetus to use the money constructively while you have it, because it might not be around forever.

Money doesn't dry up, it increases thanks to investment and hedge funds. You just need to ensure you never dip it below net-positive+base inflation rate.

Suppose you have a billion dollars invested, and you're only receiving 0.1%/year on top of the base inflation rate. 0.1% of $1 billion is $1million, so you have a perfectly sustainable stable $1 million per year. That's more than enough to spend forever dicking around.

Actually, drop that down to $100 million. At 0.1% above, you get sustainable $100k/year.

Now, perhaps that doesn't seem too lavish, but consider that you could afford to take way more than 0.1% off your interest every year, and you'll find that that money isn't going anywhere.

Re: Just own the damn robots

#326

Post by collinmanderson » Thu, Oct 19, 2017, 1:48 AM UTC

toast0 wrote: post #174

rtpg wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's also possible that we no longer have a lot of general technology imporvements that can be cost effective relative to just paying someone. We could probably build excellent robots to bring food from the kitchen to tables of a restaurant, but the capital costs are just not worth it relative to hiring wait staff (conveyor belt sushi nonwithstanding). Would it ever be worth it to Chili's to outfit a 40-table restaur…

I don't think Chili's is going to automate bringing the food to you any time soon, but they're probably considering putting kiosk tablets to order drinks and pay to save a few trips (I haven't been to a Chili's in a while, but these things are invading most of the chains I frequent). McDonald's now has automated drink machines, mobile ordering and in select locations kiosk ordering (on giant touch screens). They've a…

I think food service jobs are some of the safest. At least in the US people are going to want to talk to real people (especially at non-fast food places).

Re: Just own the damn robots

#327

Post by collinmanderson » Thu, Oct 19, 2017, 2:02 AM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #124

adventured wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The largest market cap companies in a given decade, overwhelmingly tend to be under-performers in the following decade. It's a trend that has repeated decade after decade. Many of these types of companies - AMZN, NFLX, GOOGL, FB - have pulled a massive share of their future returns forward (which is what happened to Microsoft, stagnating its stock for ~15 years). In 2007 the largest companies were: Exxon, GE, Microso…

> The largest market cap companies in a given decade, overwhelmingly tend to be under-performers in the following decade. Yes, sometimes it's important to remind people of the efficient-market hypothesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient-market_hypothesis You can't beat the market buying stocks using publicly available information, because everybody else knows everything you do. The average seller has no reaso…

Right. Just buy the S&P 500. Tech companies aren’t the only ones automating.

Re: Just own the damn robots

#328

Post by schof » Thu, Oct 19, 2017, 2:13 AM UTC

bamboozled wrote: post #202

hectorlorenzo wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slightly off-topic, but that is the main reason I do not want to have kids: I am not sure I would like the kind of person I would become. Sometimes I am already paralysed by fear when thoughts about my future take a dark turn (relatively often), but at the end of the day it is my well-being (and my wife's) we are talking about, and we are economically independent adults. We could take a hit or two. Throwing little de…

This seems to be a pretty common attitude amongst a lot of people in their late twenties and early thirties I socialise with (who should probably be well into parenthood). Common question seems to be, "Why bring a child into a world facing climate change, potential nuclear war and a lack of prosperity or opportunities for personal growth". Adopting is probably a better option ;)

I fully reject that "Why bring a child into this world facing..." argument. (And I'm going to skip the fact that this is probably the best time in the history of the world to be born.) Sure there are big problems in the world. My son may help FIX some of those problems.

And if not, he may end up being the mayor of Bartertown.

Re: Just own the damn robots

#329

Post by collinmanderson » Thu, Oct 19, 2017, 2:15 AM UTC

adventured wrote: post #199

ultraluminous wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically (considering all the prognostication) one of the main examples you cite is factually incorrect. which is what happened to Microsoft, stagnating its stock for ~15 years Microsoft stock ticker - https://finance.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:MSFT The longest "stagnant" period is directly after the dotcom bust and up to 2007. In that period the stock appreciated by ~10%. Over the following decade it appreciated…

No, it wasn't factually incorrect. December 1999, it hit a high of $59.97. As recently as November 2016, it was still below that line. Between mid January 2000 and September 2016, it didn't once cross above $59.97 in all of those years in-between. Go back to as recently as August 2015 and you could find it under $40 still. It was $28 as recently as April 2013. Even if you didn't want to look up specific date prices f…

If you factor in dividends and stock splits, it’s just about doubled since its dot-com high.

But, yes it has generally under-performed compared to the S&P 500 until recently.

http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?MSFT,SPY

Re: Just own the damn robots

#330

Post by abandonliberty » Thu, Oct 19, 2017, 5:18 AM UTC

graeme wrote: post #132

bufordsharkley wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's no surprise that we're seeing more and more anxiety coalesce around land: this is the classical economic expectation of what would happen as automated output starts to outperform labor, and capital can be automatically produced. When this happens, scarce natural resources (such as location) increase in value. Henry George saw this nearly 140 years ago, with his "Fool's Paradise" thought experiment.[0] As efficie…

Please don’t encourage the Toronto housing bubble. (Or Vancouver, OP is surely in one of the two) I’m sure Georgianism has its merits, but housing generally hasn’t been a great investment in most of north america, especially once maintenance costs are factored in. Meanwhile, Toronto and Vancouver are in the midst of a speculative housing mania. House prices have far outpaced rents. OP is correct not to buy. (Especial…

>These are likely to reduce home prizes as average mortgage eligibility will shrink

I think that's unlikely for the following reasons:

- Most wealthy people own land, contribute to politicians, and have political power (think seniors). Anything done to slow or reverse property values will negatively impact this class of people who have political power and free time

- The very organizations responsible for fixing this situation benefit financially from it continuing or even getting worse.

- All political parties rely on campaign contributions. How much disposable income do renters in Vancouver/Toronto have?

Until the negative effects tangibly outweigh the benefits in the near term (ie unlike global climate change) for the kingmakers I would be very surprised to see an intentional reversal. Any political party doing this would be taking a huge risk.

Sadly I think we're down to hoping for a global cataclysm.