@SevenFirewalls Not unless you consider engineering a creative field. There will always need to be someone to design better machines, test them, figure out how to deploy them, program them, and maintain them. Say we were able to come up with a machine that does all this - you would still need the same things for that machine.
@calloption The robot is usually the simplest solution. You're just emotionally invested in the alternative, so you pretend it's simpler. Robots don't do drugs or take maternity leave. They don't have unexplainable constant logical errors, and they certainly don't get to have equal chance at a job despite being inferior. Best robot gets the job. No tax credits, no crying, no "equality" BS.
Robots are very expensive to repair. If I am starting up my company I can not afford to purchase those high priced machines and the repair bills are horrendous.
@javajunko Someone is going to need to be able to repair the robots, and the systems, and the conveyors. When they get robots for that, then you might need to worry a bit.
utopia. actually, i believe there's always going to be jobs for people. when we got machines, we needed people to operate them. now that we have robots, we need people to program them. (not to mention you still need chemists for food and medicine, engineers for designing cars etc). They aren't intelligent, you know.
hey MRSketch09...if you have ever been to a packaging factory you will know that It takes many people to package all the things that this robot is able to do byitself... and repairing the robots? .. I dont think everyone would just become technicians and even if they did .. I dont think we will need as many technicians as packagers so there will always be unemployment when robots come in.... its good for the company..not so good for the workers...
@SevenFirewalls a Recourse Based Economy and the venus project is the only viable suggestion. In this monetary system that we are now, more and people will be out of a job and in scarcity.
These machines are faster than humans so in the short term it is more cost effective. Yet they break down, productivity is stalled and repairs are very expensive. Humans are cheaper. It's best to stick with humans.
And the government public school system has utterly failed the majority of students. Wasting over $10,000 a year in a generalized education while the world's economy runs on increasing specialization. The good math/science student wastes valuable hours in English classes reading BS like Jane Eyre, while the future artist wastes valuable time on Physics, leaving neither with appreciable skills to compete with 3rd world cheap labor whose education was far cheaper.
if the economy can't handle technological progress, it's obviously a terrible economy that deserves to fail. Do you actually cry for all those workers who used to shovel shit off the roads all day when we used horses? We have better things to do.
Its been 5 years since the latest comments. The machines have not taken over. Too much hype over very cost ineffective highly priced machines that when they do break down will cost an arm and a leg. Keep the humans. They're cheaper and work not as fast but repairs are not as costly.
