You seem to be implying that there is no net loss of jobs
The steam engine was invented 3 centuries ago, kicking off the industrial revolution. If automation caused a "net loss of jobs" there would be none left.
In this case that pocket belongs to Jeff Bezos, and he will invest it in automating more people out of a job.
... which is a good thing. America consumes too much and invests too little. This investment in capital equipment will lead to more efficiency, and even higher living standards in the future.
Meanwhile, the money will leave Jeff's pocket and go into the pocket of the people building and installing that equipment.
Good on China for only forcing some Muslims into concentration camps
They are not forced into internment camps because they are muslims, but because they are separatists.
Clearly they have learned from the British and Americans follies
Indeed. Time for some Whataboutism: British internment camps, were the first to target an entire population, and had a mortality rate of 50%. American internment camps during the Philippine-American War had a mortality rate of about 20%. There are no reports of excess deaths in the Chinese camps, so they still have some catching up to do.
Can you still play video games in chinese muslim internment camps?
They are really Uyghur internment camps, not for muslims in general. The Hui people are muslim, but generally more assimilated than the Uyghurs, and none of them are interned.
Or are games only for non muslim chinese?
Anyone can play them. Only about 10% of the Uyghur population is interned, so the other 90% can play video games if they like. The CCP would prefer that over young men going to the mosque and causing trouble. Video games tend to have a pacifying social effect. It is the opium of the people.
You are talking about inequality, not unemployment.
Does automation cause inequality? Yes, there is plenty of evidence for that.
Does automation cause unemployment? No, it causes some short-term dislocation, but not long term unemployment.
There is no evidence that automation "destroys jobs".
Even for inequality, there is little evidence that there are "losers". The top 20% gained a lot, the middle 60% gained some, and the bottom 20% were stagnant, but still no worse off than before.
The rise in inequality has mostly occurred from 1980 to today. But inequality declined between 1914 and 1970, when the pace of automation was even faster.
Also, the "stagnation" is based on the assumption that inflation affects everyone equally. This is not true at all. Inflation increases the price of services more than goods, but the rich spend mostly on services, while the poor spend mostly on goods. The inflation figures also ignore free stuff. Today, anyone can access and search petabytes of human knowledge in seconds, using a device they carry in their pocket. Surely the value of that is more than $0.
If you pass through (in either direction) without scanning your phone, the cameras will see it and sound an alarm, and possibly call the police.
Of course you can run in, grab stuff, and run out with it, but you can already do that at any store. The staff is unlikely to physically confront you. The main difference at Amazon Go is that everything you do will be recorded, making it easier for you to be apprehended and prosecuted.
Most criminals have better things to do than stealing a bag of chips from a grocery store. Also most retail "shrinkage" comes from employee theft, not customer theft, so by reducing the number of employees, Amazon Go will likely have less of a theft problem than traditional shops.
Look, if you don't need to pay someone to do warehouse picking, then that money will go toward lower prices and/or higher dividends, putting that money into the pocket of someone else who will either spend it or invest it, thus generating jobs elsewhere in the economy.
The difference is that the warehouse picker was adding nothing to the total amount of goods and services produced, but the new job will, thus leading to a rise in living standards.
And for all that say they'll be new jobs, what? I want specifics.
Then buy some tarot cards. Nobody can see the future. Do you think a farmer in 1880 could see that his great-grandson would be a video game developer?
Following the last big industrial rev there was about 80 years of joblessness until new tech came along.
This is absolute nonsense. The last big surge of automation led to dramatic and nearly immediate improvements in standards of living.
This is all good. The next step is to require all results to be published. Currently, "negative" results are often left unpublished. But it is often as important to know what doesn't work as it is to know what does.
Where would we be today if Michelson and Morley hadn't published their "failure" to measure the ether?
There are billions of people living on less than $5 per day. The time when "people have all the stuff they need" is a long, long way off.
Even when people have all the stuff they want, there are still services, which provide 80% of jobs in developed economies. Nobody wants to eat in a fancy restaurant just to be served by a robot. If they want automated food, they would order take-out.
you just need to displace a big enough percentage of works to tip the system off.
That already happened when agriculture was mechanized. Instead of starving, living standards soared, and today we are in a full employment economy.
Ethiopia, Niger, Afghanistan didn't "wisely avoid" automtion. They were devastated by wars and corruption.
The wars and corruption are caused by low productivity leading to poverty and illiteracy.
So name a country that lacks automation and is prosperous based on anything other than tourism or financial tax shelters?
Or name a country that has automated and remains poor.
Because NASA is seen by many as an unbiased 3rd party, with the technical expertise to do the analysis.
If NASA says Google's Q-computer works, that is more credible than if Google says it works.
There is a scramble for talent in quantum computing, and if Google is seen as the leader, it makes it easier for them to recruit promising scientists who can extend their lead. Like many other tech fields, QC could be a winner-takes-most market.
Much encryption is based on old algorithms that are already crackable with conventional computers. So obviously, plenty of people don't really care much about security.
For those that do care, there is post-quantum cryptography based on algorithms believed to be resistant to quantum cryptanalysis.
That will require human level AI which is pure sci-fi. It may happen someday, but if it does, the changes to our existence will be so profound and unpredictable, that "jobs" will likely be the least of our concerns.
It's all endgame capitalists with all the money in the world, and the rest with nothing.
It was once predicted that only "the rich" would be able to afford cars. The same was predicted about computers, washing machines, dishwashers, etc.
Now you are predicting the same about robots, replicators, blah blah blah. Whatever.
There is no reason that mass produced robots should be unaffordable to the masses. Once the design cost is sunk, it will be cheap stamped or molded parts, and software (marginal cost: $0). Anyone that can afford a refrigerator today, will be able to afford a household robot-maid and fabricator a decade from now.
Automation doesn't "create more jobs". Automation destroys jobs
I see. So that explains why America, Europe, and East Asia are starving, while countries that wisely avoided automation, like Ethiopia, Niger, and Afghanistan are so prosperous. Whatever.
Yet obesity is worst in people that can afford the least food. And obesity rates have soared in some poor countries with income levels far below the level where they were when obesity started to climb in the US. And obesity failed to rise in some countries where food became dramatically more affordable.
The big decline in food prices happened in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s. Yet there was a negligible increase in obesity during that time. Then in the early 1980s, obesity rates began to climb dramatically.
Black Africans in East Africa are of the "thin build." Their "cohorts" in the USA for example are primarily obese.
Very few African Americans are of East African descent. Barack Obama is a rare exception. He, like most East-African-Americans, is skinny.
It's soared in "rich" countries
Obesity soared in some rich countries, but not in others. It also soared in some poor countries, but not in others.
No. But nor is it beyond the reach of the FCC to add it (again), which was the point of this ruling.
There was no "ruling". The SCOTUS simply declined to hear the case. This lets the lower court decision stand, but sets no precedent. The lower court decision only has precedent in the DC circuit.
The SCOTUS can only hear a limited number of cases each year, and they likely declined to hear this case since it is pointless because the regulation in question has already been repealed.
The subjects are ingesting more calories than their bodies need. That's why they become obese. It's that simple.
This is just stating the obvious while explaining nothing.
Of course fat people eat more. But WHY do some people eat more than others? And why have obesity rates TRIPLED since the 1980s? And why is there a huge disparity in obesity rates between different income levels and different ethnicities? And why have obesity rates soared in some countries, while barely changing in others?
Meaningless tautologies like "people are fat because they eat more" explains none of that.
Has there been a corresponding decrease in childhood obesity? No.
To be fair, older cars produce much more NO2 than newer models, so kids in low income neighborhoods are more likely to have higher NO2 exposure, and are more likely to be obese. But even in low income areas, NO2 levels have fallen, with no corresponding decrease in childhood obesity.
Not in America. Due to the fracking revolution, America is roughly self-sufficient in oil. So every extra dollar that a Californian pays for gas is extra money into the pocket of an oil field worker in west Texas. There will be regional shifts in income, but they net to zero.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to be implying that there is no net loss of jobs
The steam engine was invented 3 centuries ago, kicking off the industrial revolution. If automation caused a "net loss of jobs" there would be none left.
How exactly do you mandate endpoint authentication for calls originating from Canada, Latin America, South America and overseas?
You don't. You just fine the telecoms a significant amount of money for every spoofed robo-call. Let them worry about how to fix the problem.
Once the fines start, I predict they will come up with a solution in about five minutes.
Financial incentives work better than regulatory micromanagement.
Oh, well that clearly makes it all okay.
I never said it was "okay", and I certainly don't think it is. Explaining something and putting in context is not the same as approval.
Does Beijing pay you in yuan or imperialist Yankee petrodollars?
Bitcoin.
In this case that pocket belongs to Jeff Bezos, and he will invest it in automating more people out of a job.
... which is a good thing. America consumes too much and invests too little. This investment in capital equipment will lead to more efficiency, and even higher living standards in the future.
Meanwhile, the money will leave Jeff's pocket and go into the pocket of the people building and installing that equipment.
Good on China for only forcing some Muslims into concentration camps
They are not forced into internment camps because they are muslims, but because they are separatists.
Clearly they have learned from the British and Americans follies
Indeed. Time for some Whataboutism: British internment camps, were the first to target an entire population, and had a mortality rate of 50%. American internment camps during the Philippine-American War had a mortality rate of about 20%. There are no reports of excess deaths in the Chinese camps, so they still have some catching up to do.
Can you still play video games in chinese muslim internment camps?
They are really Uyghur internment camps, not for muslims in general. The Hui people are muslim, but generally more assimilated than the Uyghurs, and none of them are interned.
Or are games only for non muslim chinese?
Anyone can play them. Only about 10% of the Uyghur population is interned, so the other 90% can play video games if they like. The CCP would prefer that over young men going to the mosque and causing trouble. Video games tend to have a pacifying social effect. It is the opium of the people.
You are talking about inequality, not unemployment.
Does automation cause inequality? Yes, there is plenty of evidence for that.
Does automation cause unemployment? No, it causes some short-term dislocation, but not long term unemployment.
There is no evidence that automation "destroys jobs".
Even for inequality, there is little evidence that there are "losers". The top 20% gained a lot, the middle 60% gained some, and the bottom 20% were stagnant, but still no worse off than before.
The rise in inequality has mostly occurred from 1980 to today. But inequality declined between 1914 and 1970, when the pace of automation was even faster.
Also, the "stagnation" is based on the assumption that inflation affects everyone equally. This is not true at all. Inflation increases the price of services more than goods, but the rich spend mostly on services, while the poor spend mostly on goods. The inflation figures also ignore free stuff. Today, anyone can access and search petabytes of human knowledge in seconds, using a device they carry in their pocket. Surely the value of that is more than $0.
Or the thief goes in when someone exits.
The exit is narrow like a turnstile in a subway station. Two people can't pass through it in opposite directions.
Here is a photo of the entrance/exit.
If you pass through (in either direction) without scanning your phone, the cameras will see it and sound an alarm, and possibly call the police.
Of course you can run in, grab stuff, and run out with it, but you can already do that at any store. The staff is unlikely to physically confront you. The main difference at Amazon Go is that everything you do will be recorded, making it easier for you to be apprehended and prosecuted.
Most criminals have better things to do than stealing a bag of chips from a grocery store. Also most retail "shrinkage" comes from employee theft, not customer theft, so by reducing the number of employees, Amazon Go will likely have less of a theft problem than traditional shops.
when the world doesn't need ditch diggers?
The unemployed people can stay at home and read about economic fallacies.
Look, if you don't need to pay someone to do warehouse picking, then that money will go toward lower prices and/or higher dividends, putting that money into the pocket of someone else who will either spend it or invest it, thus generating jobs elsewhere in the economy.
The difference is that the warehouse picker was adding nothing to the total amount of goods and services produced, but the new job will, thus leading to a rise in living standards.
And for all that say they'll be new jobs, what? I want specifics.
Then buy some tarot cards. Nobody can see the future. Do you think a farmer in 1880 could see that his great-grandson would be a video game developer?
Following the last big industrial rev there was about 80 years of joblessness until new tech came along.
This is absolute nonsense. The last big surge of automation led to dramatic and nearly immediate improvements in standards of living.
Nothing keeps some bum from using a purloined credit card in the entry slot to get in
... except for that fact that you can't get in with a credit card.
You need a smart phone, with Amazon's app, linked to a Prime account, and you need to know the PIN.
Yeah, this sounds like a great idea.
Wow, you sound really smart. This must be why no grocery stores have self check-out. Thanks for explaining why it can't possibly work.
That's not the same as Amazon at all.
Indeed. What is described in TFA is no different from what every grocery store has already been doing for years.
Amazon is doing something completely different:
1. You pickup the goods.
2. You just walk out.
Of course you need to already be a Prime member.
I'm currently at Elsevier. This is one of the things that has management here actively and violently shitting their pants.
That is good to hear. The best way to eliminate parasites is to cut off their source of sustenance.
This is all good. The next step is to require all results to be published. Currently, "negative" results are often left unpublished. But it is often as important to know what doesn't work as it is to know what does.
Where would we be today if Michelson and Morley hadn't published their "failure" to measure the ether?
This works only for so long.
There are billions of people living on less than $5 per day. The time when "people have all the stuff they need" is a long, long way off.
Even when people have all the stuff they want, there are still services, which provide 80% of jobs in developed economies. Nobody wants to eat in a fancy restaurant just to be served by a robot. If they want automated food, they would order take-out.
you just need to displace a big enough percentage of works to tip the system off.
That already happened when agriculture was mechanized. Instead of starving, living standards soared, and today we are in a full employment economy.
Ethiopia, Niger, Afghanistan didn't "wisely avoid" automtion. They were devastated by wars and corruption.
The wars and corruption are caused by low productivity leading to poverty and illiteracy.
So name a country that lacks automation and is prosperous based on anything other than tourism or financial tax shelters?
Or name a country that has automated and remains poor.
"Quantum Supremacy" sounds like the name of a song off a Muse album.
Or a film, where James Bond fights Jason Bourne.
Why NASA?
Because NASA is seen by many as an unbiased 3rd party, with the technical expertise to do the analysis.
If NASA says Google's Q-computer works, that is more credible than if Google says it works.
There is a scramble for talent in quantum computing, and if Google is seen as the leader, it makes it easier for them to recruit promising scientists who can extend their lead. Like many other tech fields, QC could be a winner-takes-most market.
Much encryption is based on old algorithms that are already crackable with conventional computers. So obviously, plenty of people don't really care much about security.
For those that do care, there is post-quantum cryptography based on algorithms believed to be resistant to quantum cryptanalysis.
But automation will eventually displace all work.
That will require human level AI which is pure sci-fi. It may happen someday, but if it does, the changes to our existence will be so profound and unpredictable, that "jobs" will likely be the least of our concerns.
It's all endgame capitalists with all the money in the world, and the rest with nothing.
It was once predicted that only "the rich" would be able to afford cars. The same was predicted about computers, washing machines, dishwashers, etc.
Now you are predicting the same about robots, replicators, blah blah blah. Whatever.
There is no reason that mass produced robots should be unaffordable to the masses. Once the design cost is sunk, it will be cheap stamped or molded parts, and software (marginal cost: $0). Anyone that can afford a refrigerator today, will be able to afford a household robot-maid and fabricator a decade from now.
Automation doesn't "create more jobs". Automation destroys jobs
I see. So that explains why America, Europe, and East Asia are starving, while countries that wisely avoided automation, like Ethiopia, Niger, and Afghanistan are so prosperous. Whatever.
Because food is cheaper than ever before...
Yet obesity is worst in people that can afford the least food. And obesity rates have soared in some poor countries with income levels far below the level where they were when obesity started to climb in the US. And obesity failed to rise in some countries where food became dramatically more affordable.
The big decline in food prices happened in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s. Yet there was a negligible increase in obesity during that time. Then in the early 1980s, obesity rates began to climb dramatically.
Black Africans in East Africa are of the "thin build." Their "cohorts" in the USA for example are primarily obese.
Very few African Americans are of East African descent. Barack Obama is a rare exception. He, like most East-African-Americans, is skinny.
It's soared in "rich" countries
Obesity soared in some rich countries, but not in others. It also soared in some poor countries, but not in others.
No. But nor is it beyond the reach of the FCC to add it (again), which was the point of this ruling.
There was no "ruling". The SCOTUS simply declined to hear the case. This lets the lower court decision stand, but sets no precedent. The lower court decision only has precedent in the DC circuit.
The SCOTUS can only hear a limited number of cases each year, and they likely declined to hear this case since it is pointless because the regulation in question has already been repealed.
The subjects are ingesting more calories than their bodies need. That's why they become obese. It's that simple.
This is just stating the obvious while explaining nothing.
Of course fat people eat more. But WHY do some people eat more than others? And why have obesity rates TRIPLED since the 1980s? And why is there a huge disparity in obesity rates between different income levels and different ethnicities? And why have obesity rates soared in some countries, while barely changing in others?
Meaningless tautologies like "people are fat because they eat more" explains none of that.
Why would you want to shave whales? Do they even have any hair?
Yes. Whales have hair.
Young whales of many species are born with some hair, and lose it before adulthood. Others keep a bit of hair into adulthood.
Shaving them is difficult, because you have to train them to keep their head above water so the shaving cream doesn't wash off.
Depends on whether our pollution standards happen to target the chemicals
They do. Catalytic converters specifically target nitrogen oxides, and NO2 levels have fallen dramatically over the last 20 years.
Has there been a corresponding decrease in childhood obesity? No.
To be fair, older cars produce much more NO2 than newer models, so kids in low income neighborhoods are more likely to have higher NO2 exposure, and are more likely to be obese. But even in low income areas, NO2 levels have fallen, with no corresponding decrease in childhood obesity.
Would it cause an economic disaster?
Not in America. Due to the fracking revolution, America is roughly self-sufficient in oil. So every extra dollar that a Californian pays for gas is extra money into the pocket of an oil field worker in west Texas. There will be regional shifts in income, but they net to zero.