Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

bane5454 t1_ivrgd4k wrote

Reply to comment by Infernalism in A study found that people perceive that robots are replacing human jobs at a greater rate than they actually are. Only 14% of workers say they’ve had their job replaced by a robot. Workers who had been supplanted by a robot estimated that 47% of all jobs have been lost to robots. by Brave_Cycle_8745

Hi! I work in automation, and let me tell you, the answer is a resounding “not enough”.

Society is built around working for a wage, so as a result, it’s understandable that there’s a lot of people who are checked out from their jobs and only punch a clock. There’s also a lot of people who ended up replacing someone who was like this and find out painfully quick that they can do the entire job in 15 hours a week or less, but still have to work 40. Society isn’t ready for the level of automation that we have available today, mainly because society would be invariably damaged if automation started to actually replace people’s jobs at the level it’s capable of. I don’t see a future in which there’s both capitalism AND upward social class mobility as a result, but the saving grace for society rn is that most business owners are not automation experts.

That said, I’m confident that most companies could axe 30-40% of their workforce and still perform at the same level if not better, but I’d rather see a world in which automation and improvements in technology actually help all humans by allowing us to reclaim more of our time and lives. Basically, if the new guy can do the same job in 15 hours, let him, and make sure he gets paid the same salary as he would working 40. That’s what I’d like but the opposite is more likely - in 10-20 years, the wave will be at its crest and automation should be cutting down corporate spending by eliminating inefficiencies at an unprecedented rate. What will happen next?

50

CrashDeTrash t1_ivsmmug wrote

I'm also in automations field, and I have a scary amount of free time at work. However when something finally goes wrong, the entire production stops

9

8lackJack8lack t1_ivs6lra wrote

"That said, I’m confident that most companies could axe 30-40% of their workforce and still perform at the same level if not better"

So 30% of the world now isn't earning an income to spend at the companies that just automated their jobs.

I don't think those companies are gonna be performing at the same level profit wise.

5

TheOtherSarah t1_ivsjyry wrote

Like they said, you can pay people a full salary for getting the same job done quicker. Don’t fire 30%, have all of them in for 30% fewer hours

4

8lackJack8lack t1_ivsm8ns wrote

Tell that to the bosses in charge and watch them snicker and laugh.

8

[deleted] t1_ivs7yqb wrote

[deleted]

0

8lackJack8lack t1_ivsc92o wrote

The narrative of this post/article is that automation/robots will eventually replace a large percentage of human workers.

There won't be just another different job.

Companies racing to replace humans with automation to reduce costs (increase short term profits) are forgetting that their business also creates an income for the people they once employed.

A portion of that income spent at various businesses.

Automation is a race to self destruction.

8

emelrad12 t1_ivsoon3 wrote

That is true for companies that employ 100% of the entire workforce which is no one. For individual companies it is always the right choice to replace workers.

1

Studiousskittle t1_ivubuwl wrote

You do realize automation just makes most of the population useless. They will have plenty of time but zero wealth.

2

bane5454 t1_ivuculy wrote

Yes, that’s why I posed this as a question, but the likely outcome is a modern version of surfdom/feudalism, kind of like what happened in the industrial revolution

2