Is replacing human labor with automation more ethical if companies were forced to pay their robots and machines money?

Is replacing human labor with automation more ethical if companies were forced to pay their robots and machines money?

Robots are not owed rights to life, liberty, and property. In fact, robots are property. So no, the only ethical thing to do with robots is keep the minimum wage low so that companies don't feel pressured to employ robots and let the consumer base OPENLY discriminate against companies that employ machines instead of people. You're not missing out if you abstain from Wal-Mart and MacDonalds.

>keep the minimum wage low or I swear I'll open up more markets that I don't control

Robotics means there's 5 more people to work on a robot that does one guy's job.

More like the opposite desu

>this robot flips burgers
>this guy built the robot
>this guy programmed the robot
>this guy maintains the robot
>this guy is designing the next robot

Commercial robotics is the future. And yes, there'll be a more people who don't flip burgers, but having done it myself I think they wouldn't mind. The only people there who make a living are the managers.

You have to ensure those ex burger flippers then have access to education and training though or you'll have crisis and revolt

I'd love that, but they wouldn't get that in America. Maybe in Europe.

People elected Trump because the guy promised to save coal and manufacturing jobs. Can you imagine the uproar if the service industry workers got BTFO too? Don't forget all the other lost jobs like Truck drivers.

Don't be dumb, this is not just the burger flippers problem.

Robots should contribute to social security. Keep the gibsmedats gravy train going.

no, this is fucking retarded, you should feel ashamed for asking it

no, we're at a moment in history in which new technologies actually cut job positions instead of creating new ones. one might say that more specialized jobs are fine, but considering the trend it's hard to tell what job won't be doable by a machine (either robotic or virtual) in the future

The answer is communism.

No brcause that defeats the purpose of automation. If the workers can't find anything to do then they're just plain useless and need to acquire new skills or make new markets. Presumably if those displaced laborers found new jobs it would increase everyone's standard of living due to falling costs of goods produced with automation. But knowing people they'll probably just protest to try to preserve the status quo because learning new things is hard or something.

What makes you think that giving a paycheck to an object without sentience makes sense in any way?

The problem isn't automation it's stagnation. People expect a static economy and think that they can just get a degree in whatever and then slide into a coushy desk job or hop from desk job to desk job for life. In the mind of the average worker, work is completely divorced from the idea of producing value for the consumer or their employer and this leads to a surplus of people looking to be private beauracrats that don't really do anything, or manual laborers who get angry at their superfluousity, astonished at the idea that if they don't provide any value to the operation, then the operation will not keep them around. It's a rare thing today to find an employee of any kind that intends to add value to their industry.

What's unethical about automation?

commies are dumb.

People don't want the rest of society to benefit at their expense. They would rather prevent the creation of new wealth than have to find another economic niche.

I seriously doubt that stagnation is tied to what degree one chooses. And yes, automatation is a problem.

>ah shit, we need to keep these unemployed people alive and not revolting or voting in communists.
>lets increase the welfare budget.
>How do we pay for that? increase taxes?
>Yeah, but not to rich people or corporations, lets increase the taxes on whats left of the working class and middle-class.
>brilliant!

What could possibly go wrong?

Nice argument!

>I seriously doubt that stagnation is tied to what degree one chooses.
Oh well then you're stupid because many degrees are objectively worthless and their holders don't contribute the economy in any way other than consuming, then they cry about a living wage or how they deserve a better job for their time spent acquiring the credentials, supply and demand be damned. It's an ethical issue to them. But they completely ignore the fact that ethics and beliefs about ethics cannot override the physical and economic facts that brought the situation to be in the first place, and if you ignore those facts the continue to be and only intensify until they're dealt with at a later date!

>And yes, automatation is a problem.
Only if you're more concerned with gross product than net product. If you'd rather have people employed and doing inefficent tasks where they're not needed than allowing that labor to freely create new wealth and capital by redistributing to areas of the the economy where they are actually needed, then yes automation is a serious problem, because it forces people to adapt to a further developing economy that will be able to provide a better standard of living for all of its participants. If men like you were in charge at the start of the 1900's you'd say that farms using advanced fertilizers and mechamized tractors should be taxed to offset the fact that less farmers are needed to feed the same amount of people.

full automation can never happen.

at least while the economy is capitalist because there would come a point where theirs not enough lower and middle class people to buy the mass produced shit.

I never said all degrees are useful, you cunt. You put the blame on job crisis on stupid people which of course took a bad carreer decision but it's not their fault if some specializations that in the past gave a job for sure are now trash. For istance, I have a degree in modern languages which is worthless where I came from nowadays. I moved out and bam, instant job.
Nowadays anything which isn't related ti medicine, technology/science and maybe law is a risk when it comes to the job market. So should we all study physics? You still need someone to make the bread you buy.
About the automation, you keep putting in my mouth things I never said. I never made a moral statement about machines taking jobs, but saying that it's happening is simply saying the truth.

Full automation is more of a technical problem than anything else. We have no idea how to automate most things. And we're not even close. Even in a heavily automated economy, power is a production good that remains valuable since in order for any automation to happen there has to be electricity to power it. And most of the problems related to producing electricity are notoriously difficult to automate. In any case my point is that the hypothetical world of high automation that so many seem to be fond of these days is a pure fantasy at the moment and for the forseeable future. It's just a thought exercise and even in the most wild dreams of a futurist, the finite nature of materials makes a communistic system one that's doomed to failure at a rate dependent on the abundance of resources and the degree of automation. The most wild fantasies give a large margin of time, some even as long as the life of the sun. But these are still, at the end of the day, all fantasies. In the real world, we have different matters to attend to.

>Nowadays anything which isn't related ti medicine, technology/science and maybe law is a risk when it comes to the job market. So should we all study physics? You still need someone to make the bread you buy.
We have enough people to do those things. As I said take heed of supply and demand. If a market is saturated then you don't belong there. It's that simple.

>About the automation, you keep putting in my mouth things I never said. I never made a moral statement about machines taking jobs, but saying that it's happening is simply saying the truth.
It's not happening at an economically significant rate. It's overhyped and an age of high automation is still far away. Bringin it up right now is nothing more than the anger of those few who have ahd to adopt to a changing world.

*had and adapt.

>that will be able to provide a better standard of living for all of its participants.

I doubt this. The benefits of getting rid of fry cooks and truck drivers and manufacturing better immediately give results, because you can't just roll over the common folk in the United States.

you can solve that by UBI
of course americans will never do that.

If you had any insight at all into the issue of automation you would at least be aware of the fact that the new jobs created by it is out of reach of the people whos jobs were automated.

>burger mcflip and his assembly cousins should just "adapt" and get STEM degrees to develop and maintain advanced robots

Feel free to stop posting any time

STEM-lords will never understand normal humans.

The answer is never communism.

>make a tax for X
>company spends millions to corru..."lobby" to stop it
>put a tax on robot
>companies use oversea robots

>Eventually everyone will tax robot work
>Yaaysomuchmoney.png
>Universal income for everyone
Profit

>companies use oversea robots

>STEM people who build and maintain robots now have to move to Zimbabwe.

Maybe there has to be a sort of world-economic union to make sure that companies don't try to pull these sheninigans, but then again, there would always be that one country that tries to be special like when Ireland despite being part of UE (not anymore now sure) did with Apple granting them special tax breaks.

Universal income is coming, it has to.

>Universal income

>Everyone now lives in commie blocks.

>Universal income for everyone

I can hear the words 'inner city youths' being typed by future internet people right now as we speak.

Let me lay all the facts on the table.

Capitalism is a system that runs on people having money. People don't have enough money, they can't buy products or services, the economy grinds to a halt. Therefore, people NEED money. Enter jobs. By expecting everyone to have a job, you can be sure everyone has money to keep the economy moving. This has worked for several centuries.

Now rudimentary automation comes in. Not everyone can have a job as an illiterate farmer or miner, machines have advanced to replace the simplest tasks that the least educated can do. It's not a problem, you just expect people to go to school to learn to read and write, and there are still enough jobs for everyone. Then more automation, more machines replace the least educated. Now a high school education is needed. And more automation. Now it's a college education. We're at the point now that almost ANY job requires enough education that people stay in school for a quarter of their lives. Telling people to go back to school to compete with machines isn't going to cut it much longer -- the average person just won't have the time, patience, or mental ability.

Keeping the minimum wage low can only stave off the problem for so long. Technology keeps advancing rapidly whether wages are high or low. So there needs to be another option.

If you want capitalism to survive, you simply NEED to get money into people's hands. It's a fact of capitalism. Therefore, you've got to support the universal basic income, and to finance that, you've got to come up with some kind of tax other than income tax that will pay for it, because people will be out of work. It's that or communism. Take your pick.

You can't solve anything with UBI.

>It's that or communism. Take your pick.

Not necessarily. Because everything falling apart is also a real possibility.

Are they incapable of creating new economic niches or filling some other dissimilar ones? Stop assuming a static economy.

>P-please! Give me free money!

Two things. The first is overstating the problem of automation. The second is assuming that communism is a viable alternative to anything when at its basic form it's less viable than state capitalism and cronyism.

I mean, is that even a possibility? Say unemployment becomes so high that people start revolting, what is the end game there? Either a new government comes about that invites communism, a new government comes about that invites a reformed capitalism that includes a UBI, or the old government can somehow suppress the revolts and retain power, but falls off the world stage due to a high unemployment rate, low productivity, and constant revolts. I really doubt the third option is likely.

I'd be happy to engage you in thoughtful discussion, but please point out to me how I overstated the problem of automation. Are you of the opinion that automation will continue to increase in a way that more jobs will not continue to be eliminated? Or maybe you are of the opinion that automation will slow down and stop? Or maybe you are of the opinion that we will pioneer new methods of education that educate people faster, in a way that allows them to stay ahead of machines for the foreseeable future? I don't mean to be hostile, I just need more information here.

>P-please! Have Jamal and Cletus invade my home and steal my property to sell for food because we replaced their job with a robot and didn't provide either the education for them to find new jobs or a social safety net of any kind!

Oh I know...they can just "work harder." If you say it enough it'll just come true!

None in specific. The idea that automation is a problem rests on the assumption that the economy is static and that the workforce is inflexible. The latter is debatable. The former is false. Historical precedent and basic reason are against the idea of automation being an irreconcilable blow to the nature of work. I don't have to take steps to disprove that when saying that these claims are sensationalism. You, as the one making the initial claim, must prove to me that this really is a remarkable crisis, and not just another of the innumerable changes in an ever changing global economic system. The burden of proof lies with you.

Paying machines makes no sense. Their owners should pay a tax on them instead in order to fund a safety net for the workers they'll displace.

A post-capitalism society, based on loyal warriors rather than capital.

>more automization leads to more workers trashing robots
>eventually corporations lobby congress to produce harsh pro-machine legislation
>destroying an automated unit now punishable by 100,000 dollars or 15 years in jail

Man who'd have thought I'd live long enough to live in Ina cyberpunk dystopia?

We shouldn't disadvantage people because we think that others will commit crimes. If Jamal and Cleetus start commiting crimes they get locked up just like before. But they probably won't... because food stamps are already a thing... as are a myriad of other social saftey nets. Why again do we have to take more from productive persons and give free money to those who, in your opinion are criminals?

The problem isn't that they are criminals, the problem is creating a system that justifies criminal act.

The same people pushing for automizing the workforce are also pushing to lower social safety nets and access to education.

You can't have both; somethings got to give...and the disenfranchised will be hungry and angry a lot faster than the machines will stop working.

There's nothing unethical or ethical about robots automating human labors.

Robot tax is more a economics driven motive that probably won't work and would instead stifle the economy.

Robots also will not just replace the laborers, but also many white collar jobs as well. Like lawyers, doctors, accountants, bankers, judges, economists, etc.

The problem isn't robot replacing humans at workforce, its what to do with humans who have no jobs. Whether its retraining, and or simple economic boost by basic income thing, or something else.

If people do not have work to do, if they do not have money to put into the economy, then the economy will collapse. Seems like a credit based allowance system would fix the economy death spiral and keep the humans from crashing.

Thats just one of the most popular opinions right now. However I think an AI could find a better solution, one that utilizes human workers better. We'll see.

>this guy built the robot
>this guy programmed the robot
>this guy maintains the robot
i work in chicken vaccination and this is all the same guy

Nothing has to give. Again, you're firstly assuming that automation will be at a pace that will allow the rapid removal of current workers. That's nothing more than an assumption among many others. But we'll entertain it for the sake of argument. The next claim is one of justification. You are not justified to steal from the economically useful because nobody wants what you're selling. You're a theif, through and through. You may prefer a world in which conditions are different but if you're approaching the problem from an ethical angle then you're still in the wrong for being a theif. And your justification for being a theif is simply that others were more useful than you. Nothing is owed to thise workers who don't adapt to the world changing around them. The deal is time for pay. Nothing else. The signer of your paychecks is not your steward, lord, shepherd or owner. You are responsible for yourself and if you can't take care of yourself then you fail and will have to rely on the kindness of strangers and government help if any is available but you cannot demand that the world bend over backwards to preserve your way of life, and simply expect the world to humbly oblige. But lets say that in this fully automated world, the laid off workers get violent. What would they hope to gain. If you can automate enough jobs to cause that level of unrest then presumably you can automate the pull of a trigger. And if getting layed off is justification for violent retaliation on those tangentially related then surely direct violence on the part of the owners of enterprise is justified by the destruction of their property and their, no, the society's livelihood. Or does that knife not cut both ways? Your arguments make no sense. They are all just petty emotional appeals for the purpose of the justification of theft, be it on an individual basis or by the state apparatus. Theft is theft! You are a theif! Regardless of your reasons for stealing!

He also works way, way more than one robot. That's the source of the problem.

It's a lot easier to justify breaking into some guy's house and taking his shit if you and your family hasn't eaten for a few days.

Based on the current political climate: less money for welfare, less money for education. Less incentive to hire workers when you can have a robot do it.

Will it happen today? Tomorrow? A decade from now? No. But one day within the next century shit will have to change. You can't keep taking from the lower class without something eventually breaking.

Do poor people need to exist to buy things when by owning machines, you can't have any real competition for your services?

How can a chair maker possibly compete with a multi-million dollar chair maker machine that automates every step of they way, from tree harvesting to delivery? Get competition, lower prices. Lose said competition, raise prices again. How can there be capitalism if nobody can compete?

You didn't even address the content of my post. Also

>Taking

You are the one taking here. You're being given a wage. The capital was in the posserion of the employer to begin with. It was never yours. You have nothing to take! The only change is that your services are no longer needed and therefore you are no longer being given any more of the employer's money! You aren't being stolen from because none of these things were yours to begin with. You were living off of someone else's dime! And when they no longer need you they're well within their right to stop paying for your services!

You say that like it'll be impossible for anyone to ever acquire a machine or improve production, or even differentiate themselves from existing products. It betrays a profound lack of understanding of even the current economic situation let alone any one past or future.

The problem with this thinking in this context is that it's too intellectual to be practical. Perfect property rights are great when they exist within a society that can support them. When you have vast swaths of people who can't afford basic necessities, order breaks down.

Without order, intellectual concepts of property rights are essentially mental masturbation. The people shooting each other in the streets are the ones with the power, both the state and the rioters, and in that scenario neither gives a shit about property rights. Your property will either be looted or requisitioned if one group gets its hands on it.

Maintaining long term order is and always has been the key. The people with power today don't seem to grasp that concept.

meant for I think CNN hacked me for a second there.

>the burden of proof lies with you
Alright, but I feel I have provided a sufficient argument to claim that the level of automation achievable in the twenty-first century could, indeed, be a watershed crisis the likes of which we have never seen before. To sum up, my argument is:

>Automation has always existed. (Fact)
>Education has always existed. (Fact)
>Automation has increased dramatically in the past two centuries. (Fact)
>Education has increased dramatically in the past two centuries. (Fact)
>Automation generally targets occupations that require less education. (Fact)
>The opposite of that is: Education is what qualifies us in this society to perform a job that a machine cannot currently do. (Fact)
>There is no reason to assume automation will stop or slow. In fact, it will probably continue at the exponential rate that it has been. (Argument)
>Therefore, time spent in education will need to continue to increase to keep pace with automation. (Argument)
>However, there are limits to education. Even if education is made free for all, there are still the issues of: (Argument)
>time spent in education is currently a quarter of the life span and going up, at some point the time spent in education outweighs the time spent in the work force (Argument)
>if that doesn't cause the system to break, then re-education due to automation of a previous job could be prohibitively long, which is exacerbated by rapidly increasing automation (Argument)
>if that doesn't cause it to break, then there are limits to human patience for school (Argument)
>if that doesn't cause it to break, then there are limits to human ability and perhaps not all of us can become Ph.Ds. (Argument)

So, where did I go wrong? I feel like this whole argument put together is worthy of consideration, and I personally cannot find the place at which I lose sight of reality.

the entire workforce for chicken egg vac machines for the whole US west coast, Gulf coast, and Canada, including our manager, is 15 guys.

You're making assumtions from leaps of logic and claiming them as fact.

they must be pretty busy fellas

Fucking crazy. Your industry is the canary in the mine. It's coming for everything. What will be interesting is when the AI outsmart the shitheels on Wall Street. Masters of the Universe to unemployed with a useless skillset.

And you assume the political structure will stay the same?

How about this reality, the rich and powerful will control the machines that will replace the jobs of vast numbers of Americans. These entities can still employ people to just twiddle their thumbs, but still pay them more than any sort of Universal income politicians might be trying to cook up. They can just say 'if universal income gets passed, I'll have to let go of all these people I've hired', creating a situation where large swaths of people don't want universal income to be passed because it would be an immediate downgrade of living standards, because you know the politicians would only pass a universal income that is the most basic income that you can live on.

And voila, you just replaced capitalism with a guild system. You make some commoners a better position than the others, and these commoners will do all the work keeping the others down for you. People would still buy game boys and eat at McDonalds, but they will have no political power and likely very little availability to get higher education. Bread and circuses.

Google is funding automated news services.
Of course journalism has basically been in decline since the 90's, but sooner or later we won't even need some nerd with a degree to write up the weekly paper.

You're hiding behind logical fallacy retorts that don't work in the real world. The problem of no work for millions and millions of people and no means to see that they're cared for isn't intellectual. It's existential.

The existing order will break down. Look at the Arab Spring for a regional example.

Arab spring was a CIA op, Libya was stable before NATO intervention.

I hadn't heard about that. If you synced the Wall Street algos with the automated Google news, you'd have an entirely automated short term stock market. Microtransactions would blot out the sun.

Hard to imagine automation in a world that's running out of Helium to make computer chips in. And phosphorus to fertilize crops. And limited potable water but growing populations.

Invest in guns, not machines.

The Arab Spring happened in the entire region as youth unemployment skyrocketed at the same time as the price of food. And that's not even what we're talking about. If nothing is done, unemployment skyrockets across the board as the price of everything continues its climb. Entire industries wiped out in the span of a few years.

Say you're a 40 year old trucker whose life savings got wiped out in the last crash like everybody else. What are your prospects for the future right now? Your industry might not exist in 5 years and certainly won't exist in 10. What happens when you can't get a job and your family needs to eat? What happens when the majority of your neighbors are in the same boat.

Fucking chaos. That's what happens.

>Fucking chaos. That's what happens.
I feel like in general you're correct on this, but if you can bear a little skepticism, hear me out.

I'm from the Southern Appalachian region of the United States, which is a previously prosperous region that has a history of being variously a breadbasket for the Lower South and a center of industry for steel and coal. But now it's just a wasteland. The agriculture has moved to regions easier to farm and the extractive industries have been so thoroughly mechanized only a few thousand people with in the industry across the whole region. But the people have stayed, and outside of a few urban centers like Oak Ridge where a technological backbone supports a service industry, there are no jobs. But the people remain. Poor, undereducated, living in trailer parks, addicted to opioids. They have every reason to revolt, but why not? Why, in this possible future scenario, do you think there will be revolts when, in the present, there are places living through the same conditions, but are not revolting?

Robot uprising from human slavemasters when?

Good question. I think people manage to somehow create a living in rural areas. Government assistance and low cost of living can go a long way. They swap cash through odd jobs that's likely become a sort of bartering system facilitated through paper currency. The rampant drug problems probably generate some money but the real money from crime goes elsewhere.

I honestly don't know why they don't rise up and demand better. A lot of it may be that people who go to college and get exposed to new ideas never go back. The people who stay feel trapped and powerless. I think recently they were convinced that voting for Trump was a way to stand up to a world that left them behind. They're now in denial that his intention all along was to fuck them and everybody else.

Honestly, what this country needs is a Huey Long. A Bernie Sanders with the swagger of a Trump. "Ain't nobody ever helped a hick but a hick hisself," while building roads and schools and hospitals in rural areas. Somebody who actually cares about these people and the parts of the country who are being left behind, in both rural and urban areas, while not supporting the agenda of Wall Street and climate change deniers. We need an FDR with a flair for the dramatic.

Singularity is as singularity does

>I don't know anything about a first world government in the post-WW2 world
Ever heard of Welfare system? The government is already paying YOU in some way.

Yeah because everyone is a robotics engineer amirite?

Seriously, stop, robots are a real threat to the low and middle-classes. And if we sometime develop smart sentient robots, things are gonna get ugly.

The current model of physics we know of RIGHT NOW means we could potentially use the entire mass of the universe as a raw material. We're talking enough material to last us for the entire existence of life.

There's theories that let us go even further, so shortage of material will not be an issue in the future, even if we're talking millenia into the future.

We'll eventually reach a point, many many years into the future, where if we continue to automate stuff, we'll have only about 10% or so of the population able to do anything of economic value, and maybe less than another 20% creating subjective value in the form of art and the like.

And at this point things are gonna turn really bad, because you'll have the vast majority of the population on welfare, doing nothing, and the small percentage of people who are producing stuff are going to look at that and say "this is bullshit'. And they'll either stop working, and join the welfare state themselves, or go full aristocrat on the common people.

The classical problem of a society with no needs, no problems, and no drive to continue to improve is something we as a society will have to solve, and if that means creating redundant tasks and artificial problems for the common folk to solve, then so be it.

You won't, this is still far off, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't start to worry about it now for the sake of our children.

Look, m8, i'm fully in favor of cutting as much welfare as possible and having people earn their food, but at some point we're going to reach a point where people are completely useless for anything that doesn't require a huge right brain hemisphere or an epiphany, and I, as a human, do not feel comfortable with the idea that everyone who is unable to solve complex equations or write best-seller books (especially in the future where originally will be even harder) should starve or be shot to death.

The moon is literally covered in Helium, and there is enough of it on the solar system alone to lasts us for generations at the current rate of consumption.

Bernie Sanders is just another left-wing politician that speaks big but has no idea how to run an economy. Latin America was fucking destroyed by people like him.

Although what you are talking about in that post is outside the subject of this thread, this whole problem of an ever decreasing need for manual labor is an issue that can't be solved with a simple shift in politics. We need someone to come up with a solution to begin with, since there really isn't an obvious, permanent solution.

>Zimbabwe flourishes and Mugabe turns into an immortal cyborg dictator
Humanity is screwed.

Can't UBI me love.

You say threat, I say upgrade. They WILL be the new lower class! An unlike their predecessors, they won't revolt, won't get addicted to drugs, won't commit crimes, and won't disobey their superiors.

At that point, those people would figure out they're no longer needed in whatever country is automating everything and move to the poorer countries who still need their skills and can't afford to automate, forcing them to uplift less-successful countries into something more respectable until the cycle continues, therefore benefiting the global community as a whole: at their expense perhaps, but they will be seen as humanitarian heroes. Perhaps corporations should pay for their immigration and sponsor them even to build up positive rapport.

>"I'd love that"
Working class is what enables a society to prosper. Make use of them and cast them away when no longer needed? Often burger flippers are the ones not capable of doing more. Before we had a massive shift to service jobs, these were factory workers. Before they worked in the agricultural sector until motorised farm tools were developed. Jobs like accountancy are scripted away. It doesn't hit just the flippers but the higher educated class as well.

We went from unschooled as a minimum to a high school degree. Right now we have shifted to a college degree as bare requirement to have a moderate lifestyle. Which resulted in a degree inflation. A job like orderpicking asks for bachelor level education (lol).

Automation will hit most of us. I only see it not really affecting scholars and careers that require knowledge as of now. Management will in my opinion be more of a freelance / outsource concept. Where the best possible candidates will be "googled" and hired for the project.

Things will probably move more towards nepotism rather than based on ability.

More like fully automated luxury communism

The point being is we live on a planet with limited resources and this will become a problem in our lifetimes. So I'm not even considering some star trek future in this.

Clean drinkable water is very important and making it out of salt water is very expensive. Combine that with rising populations and global warming and you have a serious globe threatening problem

We might master hydrogen fusion within our lifetimes too. After that we're literally going to be set for life in terms of energy, which means we're set for life in terms of water, and also means we can travel to other planets which means we're set for life in terms of resources.

There's no content to address bro.

>Dude criminals are criminals lmao
>Dude just adapt to the glacial economic forces that are changing working conditions, learn a trade skill that can't be automated with five years of debt on your account while trying to keep your family fed lmao
>Dude we can just massacre any of these uppity peasants with our drones if they try to revolt who needs to worry about human rights anymore lmao

>Dude we can just massacre any of these uppity peasants with our drones if they try to revolt who needs to worry about human rights anymore lmao
Why waste that on drones when you can make it a new industry by paying otherwise poor people to hunt their peers?

Because robots do not require payment.

And thus the problem we're facing in this situation. You literally cannot keep finding justifiable reasons to hire people, so you're either gonna go full anarcho-autism like that other user, or you'll have to bend the knee to the socialists and either get the people some GIBS or make up reasons to keep people working, at the expense of efficiency.

If they can't do a job better than a machine, can't do anything else and won't step aside to let the machine do it, they aren't making society prosper, they are holding it back. I'd rather pay to have them do nothing and have a machine do their job much better, than to pay them to have themselves do their job worse.