When I started working in accounting 26 years ago, we had a 2 rooms full of people that did nothing but data entry and simple addition on 10-key calculators all day. Twenty people, 40 hours a week. Our error rate was .1%. And our average turn around time was 2 business days. When we automated 30% of our invoicing (by volume, not dollar amount), the company absorbed the excess personel in other departments. Overall efficiency and accuracy improved. Invoice volume increased while costs stayed the same. Why would anyone suggest that we pull people out of better jobs, and put them back to grueling data entry work?
I’m on board if it means that my great grand pappy gets his buggy whip making job back.
But seriously, blocking progress and innovation in technology in the name of preserving jobs that will be displaced or replaced by that technology is going to do no one any favors.
We are in for an interesting transition with not only labor jobs, but skilled jobs as well getting automated. New jobs should come up, but it will take time to move workers into those jobs.
That was a factor in why I got into the industry I’m in. I’m not saying it cannot ever be automated, but it is going to be a pretty good hold out before someone comes up with a way to make a robot that can groom a dog.
Assuming that automation was subject to banning, per OP, automation would have to be very specifically defined. Automation is widespread throughout thw world, the whole world, of manufacturing.New cars are painted, produts are assembled and packaged, the list is approaching endless. Where does the category of automation stop? How about a simple pneumatic cylinder used to fill a bottle or push a defective product off of an assembly line? Is that automation? You may not think about pnuematic actuators in your spare time, but let’s say they were included and banned. You just knocked out very large companies that manufacture them. I will guess that you also just caused very adverse production conditions in roughly- roughly- 100% of the manufacuring plants in the country.
There will probably be more mass shootings and violence but the automatons will take care of that as well, eventually you’ll just be a giant fetus-like creature in a sack of sustenance. Think how much free time you’ll have then!!!
Don’t worry. As soon as you tell people the truth that removing automation will destroy their ability to get bluetooth-enabled toenail clippers for their parrots on next-day delivery, the subject will be as dead as gun control.
Some people manually collect water every day from a nearby reservoir.
For others, there’s an automated process that brings water directly from the reservoir in to your house, on-demand. It’s called piping.
Are you sure you want to “ban” automation?
So, “Tucker Carlson of all people had actually floated the idea of banning automation.”
That FOX is giving a soapbox to that yahoo is not only ridiculous, but dangerous. That sounds a lot like the Unabomber and one of the most recent mass murderers.
Carson really does not mind tossing liquid oxygen into the fire.
One thing to check as a counter and explanation to all that is what James Burke said at the end of his historical view of technology and progress TV show “Connections”
The episode, while with dated technology, shows his views about what was coming up as being almost right on the money. Particularly on how some would react to even more rapid fire change brought thanks to automation today and in the near future.
In essence, banning automation or technological progress is not a recommended course of action.
Why ban automation? Why not just distribute the fruits of production more evenly? Problem solved.
Oh wait, it’s Fox News we’re talking about…
Funnily that is option 3 as talked about by James Burke. And with a big :sigh: from him.
As he said, It sounds like a good idea until you ask who would pay for it. Or forgetting about the implied “stop doing more and share it now” directed to the ones working with technology.
Option 4: keep going with change and progress with technology and automation is the best option, but it comes with a lot of choices that should had been made yesterday, so as to prevent the discontent from a very significant number of people that will be left behind by the fast pace of change or worse, that they will work harder to prevent change when science points at problems but there are likely good opportunities that we will get when dealing with the danger. Sadly, they will ignore those opportunities too while trying to prevent change.
The rich would pay for it, with progressive taxation.
And the rich will try to give us more Trumps in the future. /s
Although I’m not very pessimistic, because to me the latest Luddites are also hurting the rich corporations bottom line, so I do think that more corporations will finally see that looking for tax cuts is not good if the result is a complete collapse of their business later, or bad publicity and loss of revenue now by having to pay for more security at their businesses.
How well would this conversation work without computers?
I rest my case.
No, “the economy” does not hold opinions. There are countries with economies similar to the US which do not share this culture of work being an end in itself: that as long as you’ve got a jab it doesn’t matter if what you are doing is pointless or soul-destroying.
To add to this: sometimes we do the same work using less human labor, and sometimes we decide to do more work overall. And the latter is not a bad thing at all either: it widens the scope of what humans can achieve.
Pick your favorite sci-fi utopia: we’re not going to get there with handicraft.
Including mine.
That’s not a subtle reference to my user name. It really would.
I like the idea of hand-fabricating a CPU. Or, even better, hand-wire the transistors and components than make up a make up a modern computer! Laptops would be the size of a city block.
As soon as I find the wifi cog, I’m switching to this.
To be fair, it’s not “us” who think that. It’s a bunch of loud people who don’t think things through. There may be more of those when we discuss economics, but they’re there in every field.
I’m pretty sure I have both a semaphore cheat sheet and a naval ensign recognition card somewhere in the appartment, just in case. I’m not sure in case of what, as such, but by gum I shall be prepared when whatever it is happens !
So you’ll know to run away instead of standing to fight next time you see Royal Navy signal flags spelling out “England expects that every man will do his duty?”
Too soon?
Seems pretty obvious, we just ban the bad automation.