freediver
Gold Member
Offline
www.ozpolitic.com
Posts: 47364
At my desk.
|
This has been going on for a few centuries now. The impact on wages has been all good. Those robots don't build and maintain themselves. The critics make an implicit assumption that with robots, we will create the same amount of goods with less human labour. The reality is that we use the same amount of human labour (whatever is available) to create an ever expanding array of goods - more of what we already had, and new products that could not have existed without the robots. These products are all for our benefit. They only exist because we can afford to buy them, and the robots make them affordable.
In the past, for one man to have an extravagant display of wealth (eg a yacht or mansion), it required many people living on the poverty line to build and maintain it. But by historical standards, we all live in mansions today, because there is far less human labour required to build one.
In the past, the majority of the populace was kept busy growing enough food. Today, only a few percent of the population is needed to keep everyone fed, thanks to robots.
Every time this happens, there are doom and gloom predictions that the people who lose their jobs to robots will be discarded as no longer necessary. But this is merely a reflection of the lack of imagination of the pessimist who can not see any way for the spare labour to be put to good use improving the human condition. What actually happens is that the lost jobs are replaced by new, easier, better paying, more fulfilling jobs.
Robots do not do our thinking for us. They do the dangerous jobs, the boring and highly repetitive jobs, the heavy lifting jobs, etc.
|