Obama Must Face the Rise of the Robots.

[dkf]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f6f19228-6bbc-11e2-a17d-00144feab49a.html#ixzz2JtXhrSKK

Early in his first term Barack Obama joked that he would “keep an eye on the robots in case they try anything”. He should have known resistance is futile. During Mr Obama’s presidency, IBM’s Watson has proved computers can outfox the most agile minds, drones have become America’s weapon of choice, the driverless car is now a reality and the word “app” has been detached from its origin. No longer the realm of science fiction, the rise of robots now poses the central economic dilemma of the Obama era.

With each month, the US economy becomes steadily more automated. In January the US economy added just 4,000 manufacturing jobs, and the net increase since July is zero. Yet last month, manufacturing activity rose by its fastest rate since April, according to the Institute for Supply Management. The difference boils down to robots, which pose an increasingly nagging paradox: the more there are, the better for overall growth (since they boost productivity); yet the worse things become for the middle class. US median income has fallen in each of the last five years.

Things cannot continue as they are. Yet change is speeding up. Manufacturing employment is shrinking around the world. Among other countries, China is moving even faster towards industrial robotics, an area in which German and Japanese manufacturers dominate. Last year Foxconn, the Shenzhen-based assembler for Apple, Nokia and others, said it was buying 1m robots in the next three years to substitute for workers performing repetitive manual tasks. At the other end of the spectrum, a restaurant in Harbin, northern China, last year became the first to be entirely waited on by robots. Last month, China opened the world’s first museum of 3D printing.

The potential is huge. But in the developed world, the distribution of the benefits is unsustainable. The bulk of US jobs growth since mid-2009 has been in low-skilled areas, such as food preparation and domestic aides. In the second place is jobs growth in high-end services. Middle income jobs have cratered. According to the National Employment Law Project, low wage jobs (that pay between $7.69 and $13.83 an hour) formed 22 per cent of job losses in the recession but 58 per cent of recovery jobs since then – a mirror image of the picture for middle income jobs ($13.84 to $21.18).

[RB TexLa]

1. We could ban electricity from manufacturing and increase jobs if we are really wanting to

prevent technological advancement.

[shraby]

2. Maybe it's time for manufacturers to figure out a compensation plan for workers

who have been displaced by robots. The robots not only save the manufacturer megabucks because there is no benefits they have to pay for robots, no wages, etc. just increase their profits from the use of robots.

Maybe a share of the savings/profits that come from the use of robots instead of humans should go to the ex-employees for wages and benefits lost.

I'm just throwing this out there for people to think about. Once a job is lost to robots, it's a permanent situation for the human worker, not only in the job he lost, but the narrowing of opportunities for gainful employment as more and more robots do the work.

[RC]

4. Someone has to maintain the robots.

Install them. Program them. Update them.

[2ndAmForComputers]

8. But how many?

[duffyduff]

3. Article is a pack of lies and the claims have been debunked. n/t

[dballance]

7. The Article Seems Rather Well Sourced for its Statistics

In the article there are links to all the sources for the stats. They go to places like the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. So I'm not sure why you think it's a "pack of lies." Also, the article has only been out since earlier today. Hardly time for many people to have to to read it and debunk the claims.

Could you provide some links to the articles that debunk it? That would be much more helpful than just posting a title-only post of: "Article is a pack of lies and the claims have been debunked." If you're going to make statements like that you should back them up with some substance to prove your argument.

[nevergiveup]

5. The problem is

so go the jobs, so go the incomes of potential buyers of the things the robots are producing.

[aquart]

6. Are they waterproof? Fully functional in extremes of temperature?

Can they come to their own rescue in a power outage?

[dkf]

10. I wouldn't exactly call us waterproof either or immune to extreme temperatures.

And how productive are you in a power outage?

[aquart]

12. Uh. We ARE waterproof. Check your skin.

We also populate areas of fairly extreme temperature, equator to arctic. Computers, not so much.

My city knows very well how to continue to function in a blackout. Ask the people who were evacuated to other hospitals during Sandy. If we'd depended on robots for that, those patients would have died.

Me, personally? I've walked home from the Delacorte at 83rd to 14th Street during a blackout after using candles to help evacuate a full theatre of people watching Three Penny Opera. During that time the unmiked Ellen Greene kept the audience calm singing, I think, Pirate Jenny. And I did it barefoot.

Let me know when you have a robot for that.

[2ndAmForComputers]

9. Dwelling over a bad day one had nearly three months ago is unhealthy.

[MadHound]

11. This is the ultimate design and goal,

To reduce labor costs throughout the world via automation. Humans are going to be left with fewer and fewer job options, options that will pay less and less since most of them will be service sector jobs.