Scientists Warn the UN of Capitalism's Imminent Demise

[bastonjock]

14 hours ago, Jollygoodfellow said:

Exactly. If you search youtube for automatic food production factories it's all automated with machines and robots.

Ive worked in places like that  they call them Fast Moving Consumer Goods  the machinery is controlled plc s they arr small processing units  all hooked up to an array of sensors and switches  they are programmed using logic 

[Jack Peterson]

1 hour ago, Guy F. said:

The largest reason for high medical costs in the US is administrative (paperwork) expense. Between 20% and 50% of doctors' expenses result from the necessity of dealing with the differing requirements of 1,000 different insurance companies. The answer is single-payer health care. Medicare operates on only 4.5% of its cash flow.

So here we go again,  Nothing to do with the Topic, just another Freakin Political Mumbo jumbo from over the damn  Pond 

[bastonjock]

Anyhow back on subject , The lefty commy pinkos ,have been warning us for decades that capitalism is over 

So whats new about a few scientists saying  it , other than a lack of gunfire 

[Mike J]

On 8/29/2018 at 11:31 AM, JeSsDaDdY said:

It's only a matter of time until robots are cheap and advanced enough to replace non-skilled laborers on a mass scale.

In the Philippines they would have to put two robots at end of each isle in the large grocery stores.  Fortunately the robots should not be expensive as they only need to stand there and not really do anything except communicate with each other. 

[sonjack2847]

1 hour ago, Mike J said:

It's only a matter of time until robots are cheap and advanced enough to replace non-skilled laborers

The problem I see with that is there will be less people who can afford to buy goods.There has to be a point of saturation.

[StayAtHomeDad]

 

3 minutes ago, sonjack2847 said:

The problem I see with that is there will be less people who can afford to buy goods.There has to be a point of saturation.

Yeah, I see your point. But, another thing to consider is that a lot of people who work in low paying jobs aren't the customers of the companies for which they work. I mean, employees at McDonalds or Walmart (just examples) might patronize the companies that employ them, but how many Starbucks employees will shell out $5 for a cup of coffee. Probably not too many I think.

Another example is mall employees here in the Philippines. Most of them find it hard to afford Jollibees more than once or twice a month, much less buy their clothes at Robinsons or SM. Next time you go to SM, ask one of the salesladies how often they shop at SM. I bet the answer will be "never" or very rarely (maybe if there is big closeout sale or something.)

Malls in the Philippines might not be the best example for workers being replaced by automation. But still, if cashiers here start requiring too high a salary, it's not unreasonable to think that automated checkouts and kiosks will find there way into malls and department stores even here in the Philippines.

I guess my point is that businesses that rely substantially on customers with lower incomes might suffer because of a mass loss of jobs to automation/robots. But, businesses that cater to mid-to-high-level income patrons will probably prosper. Trust me; if McDonalds thought for a minute that automation would cut their potential customer pool to a point where it would impact profits, they would never even consider self-checkout kiosks or robots. But, the bottom line is that McDonalds really doesn't mind too much if they lose some lower/no income customers. Like I said, those customers aren't buying/spending enough to make paying huge minimum wages worth it for them.

Of course, if too many people get replaced by automation or robots, the social problems could be considerable. But then again, if that happens, the prison industry is very profitable these days. Cheap labor and all. Oh well, I don't know the answers, but it's something to think about.

[GeoffH]

1 hour ago, sonjack2847 said:

The problem I see with that is there will be less people who can afford to buy goods.There has to be a point of saturation.

 

This is why I think some people are starting to talk about a 'universal basic income', I'm really not sure that's a good (or even adequate) solution to the problem but at least people are discussing the problem.

[Dave Hounddriver]

3 minutes ago, GeoffH said:

This is why I think some people are starting to talk about a 'universal basic income'

Sounds like communism.  No need to work hard, just show up and collect my basic income.  Capitalism is the incentive that drives many people to work harder.  I would not have worked at my job for as long as I did if the pay was not to my liking.  Anything less and I would have been gone long ago.

 

[GeoffH]

3 minutes ago, Dave Hounddriver said:

Sounds like communism.  No need to work hard, just show up and collect my basic income.  Capitalism is the incentive that drives many people to work harder.  I would not have worked at my job for as long as I did if the pay was not to my liking.  Anything less and I would have been gone long ago.

 

It's not my idea of a good solution like I said...  but hopefully the discussion will generate a better one.

[sonjack2847]

1 hour ago, JeSsDaDdY said:

Of course, if too many people get replaced by automation or robots, the social problems could be considerable.

Yes then the higher earners will have to pay more taxes which could have an affect on their purchasing power.