Fear of Robots Taking Jobs in the Short Term is Overblown, Says General Electric CEO (qz.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: "I think before we go to the phase where it's only robots at every bench, we are going to go through a phase of smarter workers," General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt told reporters on March 30. GE has been investing heavily in futuristic manufacturing techniques. Immelt said that in Lafayette, Indiana -- where GE Aviation is ramping up production for portions of its new fuel-efficient LEAP aircraft engine -- "we're going to add workers, but probably not as many as we would have twenty years ago" and each worker will be "higher value, smarter, more productive." [...] So if phase one is smart workers, what's the next? "I'm not that smart," Immelt said. "I don't know exactly how many phases that we're going to go through. But I think we're going to be in phase 'smart worker' for a fair amount of time. I really do. I think we're better off as a country focusing on the smart-worker phase than going right to 'robots are evil.'"

Comments

You have nothing to fear of robots taking jobs

[SeaFox]

...says company that makes robots for assembly lines.

What's next, an article by Wall Street about how regulation is not needed in the banking industry?

Even if my job isn't replaced, I still lose

[PeterM from Berkeley]

What a lot of people don't seem to get is that if a substantial fraction of labor gets displaced, market forces will tend to devalue *all* labor.

Yes, maybe *my* job is safe, but my pay doesn't have to stay high.

Suppose all truck drivers are replaced with automation. That's 1M more people on the job market. Yes, maybe they can't do MY job, but, with no alternative, they'll try to get educated and move up the labor food chain.

And with more people in general chasing ever fewer jobs, there'll always be someone willing to do any given job for cheaper--including mine.

Arguably this has already happened significantly. Do you realize that the share of corporate productivity that goes to labor has shrunk in half compared to 1973?

That if labor got the same share of productivity today that it had in 1973, that we'd all have 2x the purchasing power? I'd love to be paid 2x the purchasing power. I'd be done with my mortgage, be completely unworried about retirement and paying for medical care, etc.

I welcome automation replacing labor, but we have to find a way to distribute the resulting wealth such that the people who own things have don't have ALL the wealth and so that the people who can no longer make ends meet in a depressed labor market can live decent lives.

--PeterM

Re: Even if my job isn't replaced, I still lose

[PeterM from Berkeley]

You know what, you're right about ME. I've built up enough funds to be in the "owns things" class. I personally will be just FINE, unless of course, I get unlucky and some unanticipated medical expenses wipe me out. (This could easily happen to ANYONE who isn't independently wealthy.)

However, there are a LOT of people out there, mainly younger than me, who weren't born with wealth and who rely on their labor to have any sort of standard of living or future. Right now, many of these people are living paycheck to paycheck with no chance to get ahead right now. I know lots of these people. They are often more inherently talented than I was, and work just as hard or harder.
  However, they don't have the same opportunities, in general, that I did. They had to pay more for school and are saddled with debt. Fewer jobs are available to them.

The "ownership class" isn't open to them because, without reward from labor, they can't bootstrap themselves into it.

And unlike a lot of people who have succeeded, I'm not willing to turn my back on those that come later and say, "I got mine. **** you."

--PeterM

Re: Serious question here

[tylersoze]

Umm, I don't know may be adjust your world view? And realize no person is better than another and everyone is entitled to basic food, shelter and healthcare.

Re:How short term is short term to this guy?

[jeff4747]

Well, he's a modern business executive, so about a month. "Long term" is next quarter.

Re:How short term is short term to this guy?

[DickBreath]

It's not just short term. He just doesn't get it.

"I think before we go to the phase where it's only robots at every bench, we are going to go through a phase of smarter workers," General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt told reporters

Imagine a guy who was a coal miner. Then the coal mine closed.
So he became an auto assembly line worker. Then was replaced by a GE robot.
So he became a truck driver, because those trucks aren't going to drive themselves.

The GE guy is saying that we're going to go through a phase of smarter workers. Okay, the mythical guy I just described might not be that smart. And it's not his fault. And he made rational choices. What's he going to do?

Free clue: if only the smart people will be employed, there are going to be a bunch of angry dumb people with torches and pitch forks. Something to consider. It will be a lot worse than angry ignorant Trump voters who uncritically believe whatever their dear leader promises. A lot worse. When it's over there may not be any operational robots left. Or high tech workers.