DescentBB

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/19/opini ... oming.html

It’s easy to imagine an alternate future where advanced machine capabilities are used to empower more of us, rather than control most of us. There will potentially be more time, resources and freedom to share, but only if we change how we do things. We don’t need to reject or blame technology. This problem is not us versus the machines, but between us, as humans, and how we value one another.

Normally this would be a scary thing for those of us who make a living using our hands. But I personally feel like this will be okay for us all.

The future is coming and this really feels like an unknown. But that's okay, because sometimes with the unknown; is hope.

Let's discuss the future, and your future. What would you do if the machines did everything? Where do you see mankind when the machines are doing everything?

Ferno wrote: Where do you see mankind when the machines are doing everything?

Star Trek universe.

No, really. Machines do all (or at least the vast majority) of the necessary work, humans do what they want instead of what they have to in order to survive. People can pursue interests and hobbies instead of having to take that burger flipping job. Wages become a thing of the past because machines don't need to be paid, so the money goes into a sort of welfare credit system to make sure everyone has a bed, three healthy square meals a day, reliable internet connection, and a roof over their heads, as well as a small allowance for 'luxuries'. Healthcare truly becomes free as robots perform complicated surgeries rather than overpaid doctors. Insurance is no longer needed, as vehicles are piloted by zero-error-tolerance machines rather than "Just One More Beer" O'Malley the town sot. I could go on but most of this seems to be rather obvious once you start thinking about it.

It's totally doable. The only thing we need to do to ensure this sort of world is to prevent certain people from abusing this power to benefit only themselves rather than using it to better everyone.

Ferno wrote:What would you do if the machines did everything?

I'd start a mechanic shop of sorts to design and build robots, vehicles, computers, and machinery. I'd also study more.

MD-1118 wrote:

I'd start a mechanic shop of sorts to design and build robots, vehicles, computers, and machinery. I'd also study more.

Sorry but there will be robots to do that work. Which gets to the crux of the problem. If robots do all the work, what will mankind do. Collect a check and pursue hobbies? [I can't make a point without idealogical jabs. ] Take away all the jobs and what will happen to society? Will it blossom or will it suffer from ennui and shrink away. One good thing about the robots tho...won't have to worry about the illegal immigrant problem as the robots will be doing the work they used to do.

woodchip wrote:

MD-1118 wrote:

I'd start a mechanic shop of sorts to design and build robots, vehicles, computers, and machinery. I'd also study more.

Sorry but there will be robots to do that work. Which gets to the crux of the problem. If robots do all the work, what will mankind do. Collect a check and pursue hobbies? [I can't make a point without idealogical jabs. ] Take away all the jobs and what will happen to society? Will it blossom or will it suffer from ennui and shrink away. One good thing about the robots tho...won't have to worry about the illegal immigrant problem as the robots will be doing the work they used to do.

I don't mean as a job, I mean as a hobby. The robots will be the ones churning out the mass-produced, serviceable, efficient models. I'll be the eccentric guy that makes the things with little to no practical use, like modular bipedal tanks and mobile Gallup poll kiosks with Don Knotts personalities.

funny how woody uses the topic to go on some tangental immigration rant, the others in a fantasy realm, but no one ponders where the funds will come from tor this life of leisure.......it isn't like most folks own the capital to reap the rewards of robotic production.

callmeslick wrote:no one ponders where the funds will come from tor this life of leisure.......it isn't like most folks own the capital to reap the rewards of robotic production.

You're completely right, Slick. We forgot about all the wages those robots will be making instead of us humans. The wages that big business owners will just pocket for their own greedy purposes while we ex-employees let them, so we can starve to death and be homeless since no one needs us anymore. After all, the big business owners paid for those robots out of their own pockets and definitely didn't use government-allotted taxpayer dollars to fund the switch to a robotic workforce... right? Right??

... do you see where I'm going with this?

yup, that is the way it will work. See my addendum to my last post on the inheritance tax thread. Welcome to nouveau serfdom!!!

or, MD, put more succinctly:

[off topic flamebaiting]

callmeslick wrote:yup, that is the way it will work. See my addendum to my last post on the inheritance tax thread. Welcome to nouveau serfdom!!!

callmeslick wrote:or, MD, put more succinctly:

[off topic flamebaiting]

I was thinking of something else entirely.

I think it was Walter Reuther who told the automotive companies, " Go ahead and have robots make your cars. Who will buy them?"
In short, it takes people making money to buy the products those big corporations are producing. No sales, no business.

the production of luxury goods will continue apace.


oh, and MD, you might be closer to the reality, but ONLY if folks catch on in time. I don't see anywhere near enough doing so. Too easy to blame liberals, unions and illegal immigrants.

Luxury goods does not make a economy run

sure it does, Woody, for those with the capital in the first place. You see, some folks don't really give a rats ass whether YOUR economics hold up. People still need to eat, clothe themselves, have water(that will be a saleable commodity soon), AND need 'services'. Note that the service sector is the major growth aspect of the US economy over the past 30 years.

callmeslick wrote:funny how woody uses the topic to go on some tangental immigration rant, the others in a fantasy realm, but no one ponders where the funds will come from tor this life of leisure.......it isn't like most folks own the capital to reap the rewards of robotic production.

How do you propose funding it?
Government doesn't create wealth it just redistributes that which it doesn't consume.
So how does your preferred political fraternity keep everyone happy, fed and funded?

And how does the inevitable rise of the machine get blamed for the alleged coming "nouveau serfdom"?

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:funny how woody uses the topic to go on some tangental immigration rant, the others in a fantasy realm, but no one ponders where the funds will come from tor this life of leisure.......it isn't like most folks own the capital to reap the rewards of robotic production.

How do you propose funding it?

I don't propose any funding for it for about 98% of the population. Sucks to be them(you?) doesn't it?

Government doesn't create wealth it just redistributes that which it doesn't consume.

well, it does spend to provide the environment in which wealth is created but otherwise I'm ok with the above.

So how does your preferred political fraternity keep everyone happy, fed and funded?

my preferred political party would perhaps address the problems in the economic system before we get to that point, but my personal circle of old school chums and the like merely plans to benefit from the reality, thanks. Back to the good old days when one could afford a staff of 100 or so people catering to one's every need. w00t!

And how does the inevitable rise of the machine get blamed for the alleged coming "nouveau serfdom"?

just another set of tools, nothing more. Blaming is, by and large, a loser's game. Manipulating and benefitting from the reality is what the proactive(read-winners) do.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/homele ... ar-AAbjK2B
at least technology is making homelessness and vagrancy more luxurious!

....

aaaaand this is why I don't want to start threads here.

a picture of the end point of this economic/social trajectory the nation is on is 'flame-baiting'? Seriously? Especially, when my pic drew an immediate response of validity from the person I aimed it toward? Sometimes, one has to present the end point extremes. That is how debate and discourse work.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:funny how woody uses the topic to go on some tangental immigration rant, the others in a fantasy realm, but no one ponders where the funds will come from tor this life of leisure.......it isn't like most folks own the capital to reap the rewards of robotic production.

How do you propose funding it?

I don't propose any funding for it for about 98% of the population. Sucks to be them(you?) doesn't it?

Government doesn't create wealth it just redistributes that which it doesn't consume.

well, it does spend to provide the environment in which wealth is created but otherwise I'm ok with the above.

So how does your preferred political fraternity keep everyone happy, fed and funded?

my preferred political party would perhaps address the problems in the economic system before we get to that point, but my personal circle of old school chums and the like merely plans to benefit from the reality, thanks. Back to the good old days when one could afford a staff of 100 or so people catering to one's every need. w00t!

And how does the inevitable rise of the machine get blamed for the alleged coming "nouveau serfdom"?

just another set of tools, nothing more. Blaming is, by and large, a loser's game. Manipulating and benefitting from the reality is what the proactive(read-winners) do.

Nice. Now if I can just get you to puff yourself up a bit more you might just pop!

Ferno wrote:Let's discuss the future, and your future. What would you do if the machines did everything? Where do you see mankind when the machines are doing everything?

As programs, robots, and so on continue replacing jobs, the result will be increasingly cheaper prices at the cost of employment. I think that the end result could be a Star Trek universe where most everything is free and people work just for fun, but even so there might be some uncomfortable middle ground in getting there where things still cost some money and jobs are hard to come by.

Will Robinson wrote:Nice. Now if I can just get you to puff yourself up a bit more you might just pop!

hey, I'm just presenting you with a dose of reality. If you're way of coping with it is to malign me, go ahead. I'm comfortable with what I wrote.

Jeff250 wrote:

Ferno wrote:Let's discuss the future, and your future. What would you do if the machines did everything? Where do you see mankind when the machines are doing everything?

As programs, robots, and so on continue replacing jobs, the result will be increasingly cheaper prices at the cost of employment. I think that the end result could be a Star Trek universe where most everything is free and people work just for fun, but even so there might be some uncomfortable middle ground in getting there where things still cost some money and jobs are hard to come by.

trying to view it as some sort of TV show/Movie world is actually a pretty abyssmal approach. Uncomfortable middle ground? That is your view of a world where about 5% of the population reaps the financial rewards and the other 95% serve the masters? How to you propose to provide for the expenses of this wonderful life of leisure? Let's put it another way: say that I own the stock in a corporation which uses robotics to do the vast bulk of all labor, and technology to manage the sales and other paperwork. What is the driver for me to provide a life of leisure for the 10,000 or so folks who used to do the work? I'm thinking I simply reap the profits, hire a few hundred of them to manage my needs and provide the rock bottom global wage to do so. And, given the politics extant around economics, by then we will have eliminated any semblance of a social safety net. So, what is to become of most of the former workforce? Working for fun? I don't see much 'fun' in that reality. This is the real world, not a TV show.

callmeslick wrote:....Let's put it another way: say that I own the stock in a corporation which uses robotics to do the vast bulk of all labor, and technology to manage the sales and other paperwork. What is the driver for me to provide a life of leisure for the 10,000 or so folks who used to do the work? ....

Rev. Al Robinhood and his merry militia of robot slayers that's what.

On the AMC Sunday nights right after The Walking Dead III

callmeslick wrote:trying to view it as some sort of TV show/Movie world is actually a pretty abyssmal approach. Uncomfortable middle ground? That is your view of a world where about 5% of the population reaps the financial rewards and the other 95% serve the masters? How to you propose to provide for the expenses of this wonderful life of leisure? Let's put it another way: say that I own the stock in a corporation which uses robotics to do the vast bulk of all labor, and technology to manage the sales and other paperwork. What is the driver for me to provide a life of leisure for the 10,000 or so folks who used to do the work? I'm thinking I simply reap the profits, hire a few hundred of them to manage my needs and provide the rock bottom global wage to do so. And, given the politics extant around economics, by then we will have eliminated any semblance of a social safety net. So, what is to become of most of the former workforce? Working for fun? I don't see much 'fun' in that reality. This is the real world, not a TV show.

Slick, do you honestly think 95% of the population is just gonna sit back and accept this barbarous dystopian world you envision? And where is the capital you keep vaunting going to come from? Even for someone like Bill Gates, it would be a strain to convert an entire country's industry to pure robotics. The most likely source of the capital needed for a changeover would be, as I said, taxpayer dollars. And we've seen firsthand that people can get pretty persnickety about where their taxpayer dollars go and how they benefit from them.

I really don't see some "evil corporate overlords get filthy rich enslaving the general public as we watch helplessly" scenario working out. People may be pretty dumb, but they're not that dumb.

MD-1118 wrote: Slick, do you honestly think 95% of the population is just gonna sit back and accept this barbarous dystopian world you envision?

oh, I'm willing to bet, based on what I've seen so far, they will sit back until it entirely too late. Do I envision massive upheaval? Sure.

And where is the capital you keep vaunting going to come from? Even for someone like Bill Gates, it would be a strain to convert an entire country's industry to pure robotics. The most likely source of the capital needed for a changeover would be, as I said, taxpayer dollars. And we've seen firsthand that people can get pretty persnickety about where their taxpayer dollars go and how they benefit from them.

not really, if one pares government to 'essentials', and privatizes everything. There is plenty of capital floating about.

I really don't see some "evil corporate overlords get filthy rich enslaving the general public as we watch helplessly" scenario working out. People may be pretty dumb, but they're not that dumb.

[/quote][/quote]
oh really? I hope you're right, but suspect you aren't on my more bleakly realistic days(this is one of those). And, don't misread me, I am not saying it is just the 'working poor' affected by this trend, but also most folks who blithely imagine they have the skillset to contribute. To wit, an article I just read:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companie ... ar-AAbkHVi


I think where you are having trouble with my scenario, MD, goes back to your premise of the costs involved in the conversion. There, I think the issue is that you don't realize how truly much capital is held in a relatively few hands.

oh, and my nephew is here at the house today. He's 37 and up on the whole Star Wars thing, far more than me. He pointed out, when I mentioned these exchanges, that the Star Wars utopian society was preceded on the timeline by WWIII and massive upheaval, eliminating most of the potential strain on resources and capital by unneeded labor force.


edit--same nephew was my adversary in many a playing of the original Descent, by the way.

question for slick, md, and jeff. Did you happen to read the article? and if so, what did you think of it?

callmeslick wrote:oh, I'm willing to bet, based on what I've seen so far, they will sit back until it entirely too late. Do I envision massive upheaval? Sure.

The only difference in opinion here, I think, is when the reaction occurs, not what the reaction will be. At least we're on the same chapter, if not the same page.

callmeslick wrote:oh really? I hope you're right, but suspect you aren't on my more bleakly realistic days(this is one of those). And, don't misread me, I am not saying it is just the 'working poor' affected by this trend, but also most folks who blithely imagine they have the skillset to contribute. To wit, an article I just read:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companie ... ar-AAbkHVi


I think where you are having trouble with my scenario, MD, goes back to your premise of the costs involved in the conversion. There, I think the issue is that you don't realize how truly much capital is held in a relatively few hands.

But your own article says, and I quote:

The only “algorithm” processing the data and using it to make predictions is simply the humans scanning it for correlations.

and

It isn’t the end of middle management, but it is an evolution.

What you have isn't the removal of a job position - it's the merging of it into a transformed version of another. This is just trading specialists for generalists. If anything, it's the opposite of what you're saying - more people have the 'skillset' needed to contribute to these jobs than before, because the jobs have been made simpler by machines. The article even says so:

every employee can have the tools to monitor progress toward any goal

callmeslick wrote:oh, and my nephew is here at the house today. He's 37 and up on the whole Star Wars thing, far more than me. He pointed out, when I mentioned these exchanges, that the Star Wars utopian society was preceded on the timeline by WWIII and massive upheaval, eliminating most of the potential strain on resources and capital by unneeded labor force.


edit--same nephew was my adversary in many a playing of the original Descent, by the way.

... I know you didn't just confuse Star Trek for Star Wars. Them's fightin' words.

He's right, by the way. In the Star Trek universe, WWIII and the Eugenics Wars preceded the utopian era of the United Federation of Planets. But this, too, falls in line with my earlier post regarding revolution spurred on by tyranny. Which, incidentally, resulted in a distinct lack of overlords in the ST universe, as it would in ours.

Ferno wrote:question for slick, md, and jeff. Did you happen to read the article? and if so, what did you think of it?

I did, Ferno. It made for an interesting read, as far as opinion pieces go. I think the author is perhaps misunderstanding and/or misconstruing the impact machines can and do have on us - for example, at one point she mentions "the threat posed by machines", and elsewhere she says that "customers often aren't aware they are mostly being spoken to by a machine" (I don't know about you, but it seems painfully clear to me when I'm talking to an automated service). However, there was one specific statement she made at the end of the article which I think really addresses the main issue:

"This problem is not us versus the machines, but between us, as humans, and how we value one another."

Ferno, yes, I read the article. Interesting read. Dovetailing with MD's observations on my comment/link about the loss of mid-managers in any new economy, both require SOME human employees to maintain and sort data and the like, but please return to my comment about prevailing GLOBAL wage for that level of expertise. Sorry, MD about the Star Wars faux pas! See, I AM just a luddite on such matters!

callmeslick wrote:Dovetailing with MD's observations on my comment/link about the loss of mid-managers in any new economy, both require SOME human employees to maintain and sort data and the like, but please return to my comment about prevailing GLOBAL wage for that level of expertise.

You mean this one?

callmeslick wrote: Let's put it another way: say that I own the stock in a corporation which uses robotics to do the vast bulk of all labor, and technology to manage the sales and other paperwork. What is the driver for me to provide a life of leisure for the 10,000 or so folks who used to do the work? I'm thinking I simply reap the profits, hire a few hundred of them to manage my needs and provide the rock bottom global wage to do so.

Please return to my comment about the French Revolution, as well as

MD-1118 wrote:But this, too, falls in line with my earlier post regarding revolution spurred on by tyranny. Which, incidentally, resulted in a distinct lack of overlords in the ST universe, as it would in ours.

Any majority exclusion will result in upheaval, and this upheaval will result in a change of power. Say you hire 500 to replace the 10,000. The remaining 9,500 will be upset with how things have turned out, even if the 500 aren't. Extrapolated to a global scale, again, that's 95% of the world populace. You really think - even supposing the 5% you hire back you fully - that the majority won't force a change and strip you of your power and resources?

You really can't just take everyone's toys for yourself. The others will always gang up on you and balance things back out, one way or another.

MD-1118 wrote:Any majority exclusion will result in upheaval, and this upheaval will result in a change of power.

actually, that is not historically true. What has happened over the past thousand years or so has been a mix of wholesale change mixed with a retrenchment of the power of the overlords. Ugly situation either way.

Say you hire 500 to replace the 10,000. The remaining 9,500 will be upset with how things have turned out, even if the 500 aren't. Extrapolated to a global scale, again, that's 95% of the world populace. You really think - even supposing the 5% you hire back you fully - that the majority won't force a change and strip you of your power and resources?

not if the 5% have bought and paid for the government and it's military might(including the needed human force). Also, not if the 95% are so weakened by starvation, thirst and disease as to be merely ineffective(for an example, see the Irish under British rule in the 19th century).

You really can't just take everyone's toys for yourself. The others will always gang up on you and balance things back out, one way or another.

if they don't die off first, maybe. But, history shows that to NOT be any sort of certainty, if the masses don't pay attention early enough.

callmeslick wrote:actually, that is not historically true. What has happened over the past thousand years or so has been a mix of wholesale change mixed with a retrenchment of the power of the overlords. Ugly situation either way.

How often has it been the same overlords? How immediately have the new overlords progressed to the same level of tyranny? How long has it taken for the general public to rise up and overthrow their oppressors?

The key to maintaining a tyrannical seat is to keep just enough people just complacent enough to keep them from revolting. The problem is that, without fail, every single tyrant ever has let their avarice override their judgement at some point and pushed the oppressed past the breaking point.

callmeslick wrote:not if the 5% have bought and paid for the government and it's military might(including the needed human force). Also, not if the 95% are so weakened by starvation, thirst and disease as to be merely ineffective(for an example, see the Irish under British rule in the 19th century).

The 95% are going to realise what's going on before they are "weakened by starvation, thirst, and disease". That will probably be one of the first signs, when they can't even afford McDonald's! As for the military, they're a lot more loyal to the public than you think... and when it comes to government, you'd be a fool to think the corporate world doesn't already have it in their pockets to some degree.

callmeslick wrote:if they don't die off first, maybe. But, history shows that to NOT be any sort of certainty, if the masses don't pay attention early enough.

The only way enough people will die off for there to be no chance whatsoever of a revolt would be a) for the overlords to whittle the mass populace down over time in a subtle fashion, as they are doing now, or b) for them to preemptively and systematically eradicate everyone they don't want with tactical strikes on a global scale. The second method is not an option for a single country.

MD-1118 wrote:The key to maintaining a tyrannical seat is to keep just enough people just complacent enough to keep them from revolting. The problem is that, without fail, every single tyrant ever has let their avarice override their judgement at some point and pushed the oppressed past the breaking point.

well, admittedly, 'let them eat cake' only gets one to a bad end, most of the time, but there are, in modern times other dynamics in play. Also, certain 'tyrannies' have been maintained for really long periods of time. As to the exact makeup of the overlords, the British peerage didn't change all that much from 1500 to 1900, now did it? It is worth noting, though, that the Brits were the absolute masters of keeping the level of avarice right at the edge of excess and manipulating the lives of the subjugated(read up on the Gin Mania, or the various Beer taxation schemes, along with the Irish famines, which were generally man-made knowing full well the victims of the exercise).

The 95% are going to realise what's going on before they are "weakened by starvation, thirst, and disease". That will probably be one of the first signs, when they can't even afford McDonald's! As for the military, they're a lot more loyal to the public than you think... and when it comes to government, you'd be a fool to think the corporate world doesn't already have it in their pockets to some degree.

mercenaries solve that issue neatly, and we've already put in place the concept of a non-conscripted army here. Since I'm looking more at a global reality, such loyalties would be even less, and at massive percentage of the 95% couldn't afford McDonalds now. Yes, I agree about the 'corporate' ownership of governance, but in many cases, 'corporations' are masks worn by the real players. And, controlling the will of government paves the way for the rest, so has been the only real step taken thus far, as would make sense.

The only way enough people will die off for there to be no chance whatsoever of a revolt would be a) for the overlords to whittle the mass populace down over time in a subtle fashion, as they are doing now, or b) for them to preemptively and systematically eradicate everyone they don't want with tactical strikes on a global scale. The second method is not an option for a single country.

apparently, you have a rosier view of the planet's level of population sustainablility at this very moment than I do. Although folks freaked, needlessly, over Ebola, there are a host of other pathogens for which the planet is VERY ripe. Those would include resistant strains of enterobacters, shigella, staphylococci and ever-mutating viral strains. Coupled with modern travel and commercial shipping, a worldwide plague would do the job of whittling the populace down substantially without any need for shots being fired.

Slick your scenario won't happen until the bill of rights is a distant memory.
Our troops are not brainless tools of the elite and won't be transformed into such as long as we get free speech and right to assembly and hold elections under those freedoms.

You have to control public discourse like the Chinese do (are trying to hold on to ) before the 5% can control the armed authority. Thankfully there are still enough of the free folk around.

callmeslick wrote:trying to view it as some sort of TV show/Movie world is actually a pretty abyssmal approach. Uncomfortable middle ground? That is your view of a world where about 5% of the population reaps the financial rewards and the other 95% serve the masters? How to you propose to provide for the expenses of this wonderful life of leisure? Let's put it another way: say that I own the stock in a corporation which uses robotics to do the vast bulk of all labor, and technology to manage the sales and other paperwork. What is the driver for me to provide a life of leisure for the 10,000 or so folks who used to do the work?

I never said that you would. I'm saying that prices for common goods would become cheaper and that technology would become more available until it no longer has value. And that can have the opposite effect than what you're describing. Suppose for $5 I could buy a solar panel that would power my home for the rest of my life. Then I no longer need to pay you for electricity.

callmeslick wrote:Working for fun? I don't see much 'fun' in that reality. This is the real world, not a TV show.

You should try it! Sometimes people call it a hobby. But even now you should try to find something you enjoy doing that for some reason people are willing to pay you to do. If I no longer needed to work, I think I'd keep on doing what I'm doing.

I don't mean to say that everyone would do this. I think that many people would seek reward stimuli artificially via substance abuse, video games, and so on, but then again, maybe we'd be smarter about those things in the future too.

Ferno wrote:question for slick, md, and jeff. Did you happen to read the article? and if so, what did you think of it?

I think that people who say that machines will some day replace most jobs are forgetting that sometimes having a human doing something is inherently more valuable. For instance, even if a machine could perfectly replicate a home-cooked meal, it still wouldn't taste the same as having it prepared by a love one. So restaurants, with humans and everything, I think are one thing that are going to be around for a very long time, at least for higher end ones.

I see the food service industry as being the first to go fully automated. It's happening right now -- I see the drive thru section at mcdonalds here using a robot to pour drinks.

Next thing to go will be the transportation/valet industry. Between the prototype driverless cars and the fully autonomous trucks at mines, expect to see that industry being jonnycabbed in the next ten years.

Ferno wrote:I see the food service industry as being the first to go fully automated. It's happening right now -- I see the drive thru section at mcdonalds here using a robot to pour drinks.

McDonald's will be, but I really wouldn't even call that a restaurant, much less a high end one.

Jeff250 wrote:You should try it! Sometimes people call it a hobby. But even now you should try to find something you enjoy doing that for some reason people are willing to pay you to do. If I no longer needed to work, I think I'd keep on doing what I'm doing.

Thanks for the concern, but I have plenty of hobbies and enough other things that take my time and brainpower, but I'm fortunate to be able to AFFORD to do those things, as I wish, when I wish. My point was that would not be supportable on the capital available to 95% of the people.

I think that people who say that machines will some day replace most jobs are forgetting that sometimes having a human doing something is inherently more valuable. For instance, even if a machine could perfectly replicate a home-cooked meal, it still wouldn't taste the same as having it prepared by a love one. So restaurants, with humans and everything, I think are one thing that are going to be around for a very long time, at least for higher end ones.

I agree, but only to this extent: to those who can afford the service, fine cooking and other deluxe services will always provide decent livings to those fortunate and talented enough to be sought out to provide them. For the vast number of employment scenarios, the role of humans can be replaced to a great degree, and in sheer manual labor type jobs you end up with a pool of labor exceeding demand. I hope I'm proven completely wrong in this trajectory and especially my view of the likelihood of it continuing, even accelerating. Like I said earlier, this is one of those bleak realism days for me.

Jeff250 wrote:

Ferno wrote:I see the food service industry as being the first to go fully automated. It's happening right now -- I see the drive thru section at mcdonalds here using a robot to pour drinks.

McDonald's will be, but I really wouldn't even call that a restaurant, much less a high end one.

actually(and mainly irrelevant) Mickie D's is having a serious corporate issue going on around trying to be more of a restaurant,
and the franchise holders want no part of it. Getting real ugly and stockholders apparently are getting whacked for it.