Robots to save the global economy?

CLAPTON

lisyloo wrote: »

i agree with you about benefits, but you haven't taken on board the issues I mentioned. Someone with children cannot just leave them, so unless there are some kind of facilities for them then they can't work. I also mentioned that some can't do that kind of work I.e. Physically disabled. I don't think it's too generous to say that people can't just abandon their children - it's illegal. Perhaps if we offered state facilities we could then demand parents go to work, however it won't be economic for those on low incomes. Sometimes it might be better to just give people benefits?

We cannot immediately get trained nurses/doctors.
It takes years.
Yes agree it's cheaper to import them from elsewhere than train them.
This is morally wrong for not just our own young people but also the countries that lose their nurses.

The 'official' unemployment figure is for people out of work and looking for work and able to accept it. SAHMs and other not actually seeking work are not classified as 'unemployed '.
I fully support benefits for people who need them but I don't support benefits for people as a life style choice.
I agree that its time we started training sufficient skilled people to meet our needs without importing as of necessity.

michaels

GreatApe wrote: »

Well we will see how this pans out very soon as the first of the mega software AI changes is about to hit the real world in just 2-3 years. The self drive tech. Moving things around is perhaps the largest single employer of people and a google search seems to suggest roughly 750,000 people in the UK are Taxi or HGV or bus drivers. As a guess by 2030 none of those jobs will still exist, instead maybe 10-20 thousand people will manage and service these fleets

Fortunately the RMT and Aslef will ensure we still have 'drivers' on trains and tubes :rotfl:

kabayiri

michaels wrote: »

Fortunately the RMT and Aslef will ensure we still have 'drivers' on trains and tubes :rotfl:

This is one of the strong reasons why the meditech companies in places like California are looking to pilot schemes in Africa and India/Asia.

There is too much entrenched resistance from established structures like the medical insurers in the USA and NHS here.

There are plenty of proving grounds for robots or automation in general, even if it's not here.

GreatApe

lisyloo wrote: »

How will one of these sell drive cars get parcels delivered to the reception desk. I don't think it will happen in 2–3 years because there are quite a lot of issues not thought through to do with health and safety and care of good/people.

Well the biggest of the driving jobs are taxis so no problem there. The second biggest is HGVs again no real problem there as there tends to be people who load and unload those big rigs on either end. The smallest but still significant are the light duty vehicles like those people who deliver your amazon products. It's a good point you make that although they might be able to bring the package just outside how do they get it to the door. I don't think that will be too complicated. When the software to drive on roads exists I'm sure there will be software for a small delivery bot to take it from the van to your door the last 10 meters of the trip.

Also I don't think its going to be widespread in 2-3 years its just going to start then. Add 10 years to that until you get to a point that it's very common and then another 10 years for the robots to have taken full market share. So by about 2030 I would expect half, probably 2/3rds of the driving jobs to have gone. By 2040 95% of them.

There will also be a lot, tens of thousands, of secondary jobs that go. For instence we have some 300,000 people who deal with car insurance and car accidents. Everything from solicitors to A&E to the guy working in the call center selling you car insurance. I would expect at least half of them to go too as these fleets self insure and also have fewer accidents.


It will be interesting to see how all this plays out and its very close imo

lisyloo

CLAPTON wrote: »

The 'official' unemployment figure is for people out of work and looking for work and able to accept it. SAHMs and other not actually seeking work are not classified as 'unemployed '.
I fully support benefits for people who need them but I don't support benefits for people as a life style choice.
I agree that its time we started training sufficient skilled people to meet our needs without importing as of necessity.

I totally agree with everything you've said.
Where we part company is that I don't think people with kids to feed can accept the casual type of work where they go to Asda with a bucket and cloth. can you not see a difference between a fit young immigrant who can take chances with casual work and a parent who needs to shelter and feed their kids?

CLAPTON

lisyloo wrote: »

I totally agree with everything you've said.
Where we part company is that I don't think people with kids to feed can accept the casual type of work where they go to Asda with a bucket and cloth. can you not see a difference between a fit young immigrant who can take chances with casual work and a parent who needs to shelter and feed their kids?

I'm not sure we disagree here.
Most of the problems with benefits system for families are due to government actions in some form or the other, providing the 'wrong' incentives for both companies and parents.
Currrently it's unlikely that a single parent will break even working part time on casual work compared to living on benefits.

michaels

CLAPTON wrote: »

I'm not sure we disagree here.
Most of the problems with benefits system for families are due to government actions in some form or the other, providing the 'wrong' incentives for both companies and parents.
Currrently it's unlikely that a single parent will break even working part time on casual work compared to living on benefits.

So we then get to the point where we (taxpayers) have to choose to pay out more so that the single mother works rather than doesn't work or accept that we will pay her benefits and accept that she doesn't work as this is the cheaper taxpayer option.

CLAPTON

michaels wrote: »

So we then get to the point where we (taxpayers) have to choose to pay out more so that the single mother works rather than doesn't work or accept that we will pay her benefits and accept that she doesn't work as this is the cheaper taxpayer option.

I think we need to review of the perverse incentives that operate round NI, tax rates, benefit, HB , (government determined) costs of child care etc : universal credit was a start.
Personally I am for SAHMs for young children and feel that the state should finance maybe two children so they can have SAHM for the first couple of years.

Even then, my primary concern is that children don't grow up in a non working family and have incentives to learn and have preparation for life, rather than simply the cost to the taxpayers.

lisyloo

michaels wrote: »

So we then get to the point where we (taxpayers) have to choose to pay out more so that the single mother works rather than doesn't work or accept that we will pay her benefits and accept that she doesn't work as this is the cheaper taxpayer option.

The former may be cheaper in the long run as the latter is perceived by some as a lifestyle choice.

kabayiri

Did anyone catch highlights of the New Scientist show in London?

One of the exhibits featured robot bartenders able to make you all manner of cocktails. You ordered using an app on your phone.

This would be promoted as a premium feature, not trying to compete with existing bartenders on cost. The aim, as always, is to establish an acceptance from customers. Fancy London bars will use something like this as a selling point.

My robotics lecturer used to bang on about the acceptance phase. I don't think I got it at the time.

Things like Siri and Cortana are early voice interfaces designed to gain wide acceptance for the idea that talking to machines is entirely normal.

Soon, we could be talking to machines over the phone on a widespread basis, discussing insurance or booking appointments or any manner of things.