>In the next few decades, about 56% of all salaried workers in Cambodia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam could be displaced by automation and advanced technologies, such as 3D printing. That’s the conclusion of an extensive series of new studies by the International Labour Organization (ILO).
>Mass-scale displacement won’t happen overnight, but it’s already in the works. Robots, for instance, are increasingly handling the labor previously done by low-skilled workers in industries such as automotive and electronics manufacturing. For governments and employers willing to educate and train workers for new, high-tech jobs, the shift could benefit all as it raises productivity and wages. But employers and countries that continue to rely on low-cost manual labor as their chief competitive advantage risk being left behind in the global economy, the ILO said.
>Of the five industries examined by the studies, workers in textiles, clothing, and footwear were the most at risk. The sector encompasses 9 million jobs across the ASEAN member states the report covers, the majority held by women. These jobs often entail simple manual tasks that are becoming easily automated, such as cutting fabric.
>In Vietnam, the ILO report documents, one clothing manufacturer that invested in automated cutting machines last year was able to replace 15 workers for each machine. In 18 months, it will prove more cost-effective than continuing to employ the workers. Fewer workers are needed, and those employed each manage three to four machines.
>Automation won’t necessarily proliferate across the ASEAN countries, according to the ILO. The spread of robotic sewing machines, or “sewbots,” will likely happen in Europe and the US, as companies seek to bring manufacturing and production closer to their main consumer markets. Adidas recently unveiled a new robot “Speedfactory” in Germany, and plans to shift production from China.
>>80381595
http://qz.com/727102/robots-are-set-to-take-the-jobs-of-millions-of-asian-workers-in-the-coming-years/
Radiant Doors-Micheal Swanwick.
Read it.
In the future those left behind(99% of humanity) will be only to survive as torture subjects and sex slaves of the Owners.
>>80381753
This sounds a kink fantasy.
Why outsource when robotic plants can be built anywhere? Why not closer to the consumer base?
Good.
Give those chinks a taste of their own medicine
Chinese will never beat our economy now MUAHAHHAHAA
>>80382184
And all those Asians will end up here in the US, Canada, and Australia. We will be the real losers
>Believing the machines taking our jobs trope
>Believing there's only a finite amount of work to be done
>>80382285
The future is 90% of humanity unemployed in shanty towns and ghettos, selling their bodies and dreams to the elites in hope of escape.
These are the last few good days we have.Enjoy them while they last.
>>80381595
They will come here as refugees
>>80381595
>Cambodia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam
non issue. sounds like americas allies in the general area are hard up . im sure china might help a few if they stop being faggots
>>80382108
This.
As 3D printers become more utilizable, we'll have a shift in supply chain, logistics, and operations. We'll have a web of local manufacturing hubs, instead of central manufacturers with a web of warehouse hubs.
>>80382449
this.
>>80381753
No.
>>80381595
Let me red pill you on this. Don't believe the liberals "tek err jebs" strawman. It is in fact the liberals that think jobs equate to standard of living. They go so far as to have the government create jobs to boost the economy, which is the worst pyramid scheme.
>>80382532
That would be nice, but it's not going to happen.
incoming red pill.
I don't care, as long as the robots that make my shoes are aware enough to feel the pain and despair of their tedious environment
Not sure if
>cool!
or
>ruh roh
>>80382449
Im getting tired of these edgy contrarian faggits, who cant even support their own stance with evidence, or even a simple explanation
>>80384198
http://economics.mit.edu/files/10865
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/06/technology-and-unemployment
It's a very nuanced issue and I'm not sure what to think about it, but there are compelling arguments on both sides.
Robots taking over jobs is the product of a perfect free market. With automation, the efficiency will rise. To say that it'll be a bad thing, would be like saying information systems stagnated the growth of the economy. It turned out the opposite.
You see, the economy is based on supply and demand. With demand, in a free market, comes supply if possible. Companies hope to supply when there's a demand. If we have replicators with the abilities they had in StarTrek: TNG, that provides infinite supply. Now suppose the replicators are capable of replicating themselves, with no degradation. Infinite supply of infinite supply. As long as people are able to obtain free replicators, nobody will have demand for tangible goods (with the exception of retards that don't understand that replication on the molecular level IS the real thing). So now you broke the supply and demand equation for tangible goods. You're left with a market based solely on intellectual goods, services, and a fraction of replicator limitations. Now add robots into the mix and you've got services covered, and you're left with intellectual goods and a small market for rare limitations of the replicators. The economy will still exist.
Here's where it gets interesting though. How much demand for intellectual property will there be? Companies will have to convince consumers they want things, much like in the United States we're being bombarded with ads convincing us we need to live beyond our means. However, the only bearing that will have on us, is how much we work.That's because everybody will have necessities taken care of, and it will be up to them whether or not they want to work extra for their extra wants. In other words, if everyone has everything, there's no demand, therefore we don't need supply. Why would we need jobs if we have everything we need anyway?
cont.
>>80381595
yelp, more 'refugees' i guess.
>>80385284
Good post overall.
I agree that genuine post-scarcity will probably be a good thing--or at least we'll all be quite comfortable and as healthy as medical technology can make us while we bust our asses working for positional goods, which all in all is not such a bad place to be, t.grad student.
>To say that it'll be a bad thing, would be like saying information systems stagnated the growth of the economy
Didn't they?
Not entirely srs, but there's at least a colorable case that most people aren't noticeably better off than they were in 1972. Although that case becomes a lot less colorable once you ignore positional goods.
It's not atomic either, it's actually a progression of not needing to work as much for more. As automation increases, efficiency rises, costs go down (in a free market), and quality rises. Essentially, we'll have a better quality of life because we would not have to work so much or so hard, and we'll have more means.
Yet, because of crony capitalism and blue pilled ideals, we simply work more for exponentially more. Then we're told that we NEED jobs. We're convinced that there's a magical, static percentage of our population that must be employed for everyone to have a healthy lifestyle.
Honestly, life is pretty good when you have people spending their careers developing the most ergonomic design for a bottle cap. Now think about it this way.. suppose they were more focused on the design from the consumer's perspective than the manufacturer's perspective. Suppose they were less concerned about the most convenient design for a product to be manufactured, cutting costs via materials, and were more concerned about how conveniently the consumer could use the product.
That's what we'll have with automation and robots.
>>80382285
This is why we need good politicians BEFORE it happens.
Go out and vote, and/or get involved in some guys campaign (for example Rick Tyler).
>>80386129
People will still be employed, just doing different things. Positive way of looking at it, we will have more people working in our space program or doing other important long term work.
Negative way of looking at it, we will have thousands of people developing VR porn
>>80386804
We're also going to have a generation of pussies post automation. National service would fix that
>>80386046
Well, in a free market, you wouldn't have portions of the economy that become less efficient and relatively more expensive. Take for example the housing market. Hear me out.
Most people would say that there needs to be some regulation with the housing market, or you'd be stuck with predatory lenders. I say the opposite. Aside from all the red tape, entrance barriers, and extra costs and fees the government causes by interfering with that market, they also provide the authority to lenders to make predatory loans and take the properties as collateral when the consumers can't afford the exorbitant fees. If it wasn't for that intervention, companies would have to be safer in providing loans. They would only loan to people they know would pay them back, or they would find inventive ways to sell houses to people.
But instead of cutting back the authority of lenders by not intervening in 'civil' monetary disputes, the establishment decided it was a good idea to add more litigation to fix a litigation problem. It's a huge trend. Look at Ma Bell and all the government sanctioned monopolies. They were predatory, so the government decided to add litigation, instead of backing off the consumers that were being hurt to begin with. Now we have something even worse: government water. It takes me a month to set up a water account, and 30 seconds to set up an insurance account. Sorry for the tangent. But this goes to show that a free market works, but nobody realizes it because they don't understand how deep a free market goes. Consumers would be able to protect themselves. Instead, they're forced into unfair deals, and the companies are able to do it with impunity.
Finding more uses for Robots every day.
>>80386804
I essentially already said that if you read all my posts. Though, I can argue that thousands of people working on VR porn isn't a bad thing. Even if you feel it's degenerate, at that point I'm not convinced we need population growth. The ones that care about real procreation will have kids that care about real procreation. Either way, it doesn't harm us, and I don't think everyone needs to tell people what they can and can't do.
>>80387440
You're not wrong, but this strikes me as tangential to the main point. Some goods are positional: their value comes from being the best, or the tenth best, or whatever. By definition, there can only be so many--you can't ramp up production without devaluing what's already there. If every man has a Lambo, great, but then billionaires will seek out and build hyper-Lambos.
Housing is an interesting case in that its supply is indeed heavily constrained by zoning rules and suchlike. But there's no constituency for abolishing zoning--do it, and you'll just get private HOAs fulfilling exactly the same functions of keeping the atmosphere nice and the poors out. Some goods you can't just make more of.
And like I say, this is not necessarily a bad thing. To some extent, this is the world we already live in. I could live better than millions of peasants and itinerant laborers throughout history by doing odd jobs for five hours a week, if we measure "living well" by shelter and caloric intake and health and so on. But (even though I live more frugally than most of my colleagues) I want some nice things--a bed and an air-conditioned room, dark beer, steak, a good-lookin' wife (good-lookin' women are the ultimate positional good)--so I work full-time at a comfy desk job. It's not great, of course--only slightly better than Dilbert shit--but it sure beats swinging a pickaxe for ten hours a day in a Birmingham coal pit, half-blind (I wear glasses) with rotting teeth and an early death from bacterial pneumonia.
So that's one way things could go well. But things could go very badly if we don't figure out ways to gin up meaningful-seeming employment besides providing food, shelter, etc. I think the dysfunction of American black communities, and indeed some American white communities as well (see that Angus Deaton paper about rising death rates) is largely because they haven't figured this out.
"CHING CHERNG ER JEEEERRRBS"
>>80389398
And, of course, this all assumes that sufficiently intelligent robots (or the first people to get their hands on sufficiently intelligent robots) don't decide that the rest of us would be better used as fertilizer.
