How should a country like the USA deal with the eventual increase in use of automation in factory...

>Probably the same way that all technological innovation has effected economies: by using the cheaper goods that automation creates to enter service industries.

>implying automation won't do to the service industries like the ATM did to the bank tellers.

>implying you can turn truck drivers and car assemblers into engineers.

It's probably a lot further off than you'd think. Even the most retarded of the retards can think beyond the parameters of industrial robots.

Automation isn't an issue at all, it'd a red-herring cosmopolitan-minded people resort to so they don't have to deal with the much realer problems of outsourcing and immigration. On that point, both outsourcing and immigration prevent automation from ever being economically competitive. Companies don't like the high capital costs (either of building a robot or leasing one) inherent of automation, especially compared to wageslaves.

Which is why automation only became a concept in the 1940s and 50s, when America's economy had tariffs, immigration quotas and unionism.

You still need a person behind the wheel actually just in case some shit happens. Auto-pilot still needs a co-pilot so the jobs would still be there.

Technically this "robot trucker maintainer" would still be in the truck just that he will need more skills doing that role since he has to watch the robot, deal with it's issues, if something goes wrong he takes the wheel

So higher pay because more skillset and probably better working conditions and worker welfare being taken into consideration

Automation is real ya dingus, us manufacturing output continues to grow while the number of people actually employeed in manufacturing continues to drop.

He didn't say it wasn't real, he said it wasn't an issue worth worrying about in comparison to others.

Wages are how we distribute the wealth to the masses. If wages aren't sufficient then we should distribute the wealth by other means.

Fullly automated luxury gay space anarchocommunism with Chinese characteristics

>muh automation

I really hate this marxist meme.

MUH AUTOMATION

space exploration will be the next human activity Imagine people willing to go to the moon for mining

That's not what wages are.

Can't wait to use my Chrysanthemum boipucci to leech off some technocrat.

>Wages are wealth
U wot

>Probably the same way that all technological innovation has effected economies:
Including the Industrial Revolution?

Maybe now, but sooner or later robots will get cheaper than migrants.

>You still need a person behind the wheel actually just in case some shit happens.
[Citation needed]

Yes they are. That's the entire subject of this thread. How do we give the masses enough money to live without wages or salaries?

Because on way in hell will people be comfortable with an autonomous robot truck driving massive cargo for a very long time.

Productivity is always a net benefit to an economy. Real Productivity (P) is the net increase in inflation-adjusted value produced (V) relative to what one average worker produces in an hour (V/X) (or another timeframe).

Nonetheless, it comes at a cost. A capital (K) cost.

So, in general, as long as P > K, we are good.

Automation has consistently been shown to have P > K. That may change in the future, but until then it will continue and complaining about it won't change anything.

Wages aren't wealth, as the user in this post thinks

Regulations stipulate that. Not necessity. In time they'll be removed just like horse drawn carriages were.

The hell are you talking about? Without wages a large segment of society wouldn't be able to live. If they are out of a job then they need some other way to pay for living expenses. Does you intentionally being difficult have a point?

Nice neoliberal economics/brainwashing. You can't use maths for humanities, stop trying to.

What are you talking about?

The user I linked thinks wages are the same thing as wealth. I don't care about the validity of his argument. Just that he makes a basic error in his first sentence.

>You can't use maths for humanities,

Idiot proles should stop relying on "job creators" for sustenance, and start investing in robots themselves and become little petit capitalists or create their own jobs.

You can't. Humans are not rational and don't follow rational rules. Everyone seems to get this but the economists.

Economics is rooted in maths, it's not feelz

The terms are used correctly. Wages are how a lot of people acquire wealth, wealth they spend on living expenses.

For the sake of argument, can we chuck out some definitions. Le's say that income is the amount of money one recieves per year. It is a rate of aquisition. For simplicity, lets say it consists of three parts;

1) Income recieved from labour (i.e. wages)
2) Income recieved from investments (i.e. returns/savings)
3) Income transfers (i.e. government payments/taxes if negative)

Wealth, on the other hand, is how much someone has. It is a stock. It comes about by summing all you have and subtracting all you owe.

As such, wealth and income are two different things. If you won the lottery, you could have a high amount of wealth but a low income. If your some hotshot lawyer that went bankrupt, you would have low wealth but a high income.

Not him, but he just explained that
>Wages are how a lot of people acquire wealth, wealth they spend on living expenses

>wealth they spend on living expenses
What? You mean income?

Wealth, what someone has, is usually gained from income. Most people use this to buy stuff.

/pol/bait

>You can't use maths for humanities
Leave

Besides the autistic philosophers, who else uses it. There is a reason that the humanities have moved towards a more, language and cultural view of the world

no economist assumes humans are rational actors and your assumption of such only proves you've never studied economics in your life

try READING A FUCKING BOOK

This, funny enough. Give each man enough to survive and let him spend it however he wishes.

Sorry, no state allowed

But wealth inequality has literally zero economic impact, income inequality is the issue

>can think beyond the parameters of industrial robots
this is why you need an engineer and a couple of technicians to program, provide maintenance, and setup the robots from time to time, but still 6 men + robots can easily replace whole factory floors in the textile and manufacturing industries

>Idiot proles
idiot proles can barely save for their retirement, investing in industrial machinery and acquiring (likely by hiring) the knowledge needed to operate them is well beyond them

You are very narrow minded. Do you think people will feel the same way after a whole generation has grown up with robots piloting the vast majority of vehicles on the road? Probably not. It might not be feasible right now, but in 30 years companies will start pushing hard to eliminate the meatbags that they are forced to pay due to outdated legislation.
Besides, elimination of jobs is not the only problem. Why should they pay truckers anything more than minimum wage if they're doing nothing 99% of the time? Wages will fall and people will be forced to find part time work to make up for it.

They should invest in a robot that will make them income instead of saving for retirement then just spending the saved money. The point is, you can't rely on "job creators" to get by.

my point is that any form of investment is more complicated than simply stashing cash in the bank, not everyone is going to make it even if they should, i don't disagree with your point, i simply don't see it happening as things are now

not only that, but in industries where the work environment is more controlled (factories) robots will quickly create unemployment and those people are going to increase the supply of manpower available to the industries still requiring blue collar jobs

UBI, Universal Basic Income. On top of healthcare, housing, utilities, food, and transportation.

I don't know, but we'd better figure it out quick, because the proles are getting angry.

Electing Trump was the first shot they fired. I hope the geniuses in industry and tech do better at stopping more extreme anti-machine measures than they did stopping Trump.

>no economist assumes humans are rational actors
What about Von Mises and the Austrian School ?

You don't do any reasoning here. The problem is not about a shrinking economy, it is about employment disappearing, leading to wealth withdrawing from communities and accumulating into the upper class. The question was about how we negate this process.

>MUH UBI
Thankyou for supporting a right wing policy

Wealth inequality is literally economically irrelevant

Oh, and there is zero chance the world goes back to nationalising anything. The facts are in, and reality has a neoliberal bias

>tfw you are starving in the streets but at least the economys going good

But that would be relevant. Income inequality is the one that matters

Even if it is, the question is not about that, so what the hell is your point? Feeding the troll I guess, memeconomists all over the place.

But it is not. If one person holds all wealth and all others have none, people won't be able to spend jack shit so you don't get an economy. Bringing down wealth inequality makes more people able to purchase more goods (the whole idea of the middle clas??), and that is just the first order effect. Second order effect is that people with wealth will be able to open businesses, get educated and contribute to innovation etc. etc. But you are probably some libertard, not even sure why i'm bothering.

>But it is not
Well it is. There are countries with high wealth inequality that have both low income inequality, and high stability, high social mobility, high education, high whatever else you care about

>blah blah I'm a retard from reddit
Literally doesn't matter if income inequality is not high

Underrated answer

which is why the stock market is up.
Trump's a corporate's wet dream.

Just wondering do you have any actual manufacturing experience?

t. controls engineer

ooh, what industry senpai?

The same way an economy always deals with automation.

Some people get mad because they lose their jobs, and then they find another job and carry on with their lives.

>AI is totes the same as a mechanical loom goys trust me

Depends wholly on what you mean by "AI".

Because it's one thing managing to program a car to drive better than humans do, it's another think to create a computerized species of living creature with strong A.I.

But robots are alredy taking the service industry too you dumb fuck

You're stuck in the past. When robots start moving into the service industry there really isn't anywhere for people to go. We already have problems with tons of people getting educated but failing to find careers that make use of their education. This will only get worse if nations suddenly need to push a few million adults through schools/training because their old jobs were made obsolete by machines.

>People on this thread saying that we will just move to the service industry
Have you guys paid any attention at all to the world we live today?

Reminder that domestic robots already exist, so do cashiers, or other shitty jobs.

Hell robots already dictate better treatment than physicians and make better transactions at the stock exchange.

>We already have problems with tons of people getting educated but failing to find careers that make use of their education.

Which has nothing to do with machines.

Do you think a guy educated in art history has a problem finding a job because machines are taking over?

No. That's not why.

You can plug your ears and wail all you want. It won't change things. The rate of underemployment goes down depending on the level and type of education, but 30% of MDs (the lowest percentage) report that they are underemployed.

payscale.com/data-packages/underemployment/education-level

I find it hard to believe that this source is accurate.

The short term answer seems to be some sort of subsidies either directly to people or to companies for hiring more people. The issue with retraining is that eventually there may no longer be jobs avaliable even post retraining.

Long term answer is a complete shift in the way we think about economics. Once the means of productions becomes so separated from a population several things can happen. One the population can decrease with economic harm. Two wealth can become extremely concentrated which brings it's own issues . Finally industries such as entertainment will become more important as it becomes one of the few things people do better than machines.

reminder automation isn't a threat to capitalism

The reason is that it's easier to ride the bullshit money train when your work can't be evaluated on any basis other than the vague BS the tenured class comes up with.

Then you have the problem of the almost complete illiteracy when it comes to proper use of statistics.

This. The men who own the robots will become the new aristocracy and everyone else will be their serfs.

Well it could actually be much worse because the aristocrats needed the serfs for their wealth.

No one used the term "wealth inequality". You are being super dense.

>the water flow determines water level and-
>we aren't talking about water level, we are talking about water flow
>the two are related
>no they aren't, they are completley different terms, we are talking about water level, not water level, not water flow

In reality, yes, but that's not why people voted for him.

What measures do you think they'll take once they realize they've been duped? It won't be pretty.

as much as I want to believe, they fell just as easily for George W. Bush's lies and they'll fall for the next actor/useful moron who tells them that the cause of all their problems is brown people and the solution is more tax cuts for the mega-wealthy

Nothing, just let the machines to the really hard labor like building cars and keep humans doing the rest of the work.

Fuck efficiency it destroys the entire system.

I think the point of the problem is "What if there are no more jobs?"

Since all low skilled jobs are being replaced with automation, then it seems that it is impossible for all those people to go back to school to be robot engineers.

And even if they did, it would depress the wages of all the existing robot engineers til it becomes a low skilled job.

except for the part where modern government will not allow for this

Actually this
Once the birth rate isn't jacked up by illiterate poor people and minorities, the effects of automation replacing low skill labor become far less disruptive

Ban robots.

first step: get rid of "war on cohl" hicks

Unlike this retard I agree with your assessment However, I would argue that P won't be greater than K for most service related positions within 10 years. We already fired all the toll booth people. Whole restaurants are being automated in San Francisco. Hell a new beer place opened up in my town that only has one employee. He just gives you a Bracelet with a computer chip in it and it tracks all the beer you drink and it's just self serve with 45 taps.

This is not true at all. Wealth has huge impacts on income.
>what is capital gainz?
Asset appreciation, interest on debts, dividends, investing at all...
Most truly wealthy people have the lowest "income" based upon labor input. It's all wealth.

No, see

Decrease working hours.

Who says robots won't eventually be able to be robot engineers whose cost in electricity is less than what it takes to feed a person soylent green.

Most of the 1% income is from salaries