The article mixes its message a bit between automation/disruption/capital. One couldn't really say that Uber is in the business of automation. The capital/labor distinction is more productive, but since it is derived from marxism no one actually uses it.

I'm starting to get the impression that this genre of "technology gone bad" article is starting to be a safe surrogate for talking about class. The muddling of terms is actually a feature: one can avoid the dirty reality of class by framing it as an inherent feature of technological progress, which, of course, is a good in-and-of-itself (unless you're a dirty commie).

I think the same is true of immigration: low class people blame their poor condition on immigrants, rather than their class standing.

Actually here on this site is where I've read many times that automation is Uber's destination and that when they get there they will truly have attained their goal.

> The capital/labor distinction is more productive, but since it is derived from marxism no one actually uses it.

Capital and labour are very standard notions in economics (and go back at least to Adam Smith).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_(economics)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_(economics)

> Maybe people /should/ be more concerned about automation but they just aren’t right now.

Or maybe people should be less concerned about it. The rate of automation/productivity growth has actually been pretty low over the last decade[1], some of the slowest in the past 70 years.

[1] https://www.bls.gov/lpc/prodybar.htm

That doesn't mean that the technology hasn't progressed. Cheap labor from countries like China has made it less profitable to invest in automation.

it's also possible that we no longer have a lot of general technology imporvements that can be cost effective relative to just paying someone.

We could probably build excellent robots to bring food from the kitchen to tables of a restaurant, but the capital costs are just not worth it relative to hiring wait staff (conveyor belt sushi nonwithstanding).

Would it ever be worth it to Chili's to outfit a 40-table restaurant with automated delivery systems, replace 3 wait staff with a technician, and deal with the edge cases (how do tables get cleared??)? Probably not.

Likely most tech ends up actually make existing staff more efficient, to be simply overworked instead of insanely overworked. Tablet digital ordering systems, fast dishwashers, kitchen-side logistics improvements....

I don't think Chili's is going to automate bringing the food to you any time soon, but they're probably considering putting kiosk tablets to order drinks and pay to save a few trips (I haven't been to a Chili's in a while, but these things are invading most of the chains I frequent).

McDonald's now has automated drink machines, mobile ordering and in select locations kiosk ordering (on giant touch screens). They've also experimented with call center handling of drive through ordering, so could be ready to potentially hand that over to voice recognition as well.

I think it's a long time before food service jobs are all automated away, but some of the jobs are going away. (McDonald's claims they plan to keep the same number of employees, and shift to provide more service in the seating area)

I think food service jobs are some of the safest. At least in the US people are going to want to talk to real people (especially at non-fast food places).

easier in UK to import degree educated youngsters from eastern Europe and pay them the minimum wage

China is investing in automation at a faster pace than anyone else.

And wages are growing faster in China than anywhere else. Automation has never been associated with mass unemployment or declining wages. In fact, the reality is exactly the opposite: it is the ultimate cause of all increases in workers' compensation.

The belief that automation will hurt workers goes back 200 years and is found in sources as diverse as Marx's writings, JFK's speeches, and warnings from world renowned scientists (the Ad Hoc Committee on the Triple Revolution). It's a product of the natural human tendency towards pessimism (which is a very useful survival instinct).

Yes automation is the necessary condition for real wage growth. The only way for real wages to grow is for productivity to grow, which means more automation assuming work force skill level is stable. Is it also sufficient? I think there is valid concern about aggregate demand, esp if the transition is too fast. I don't think that is currently a problem though as our productivity has been growing too slowly, not too fast.

They are investing in automationnlargely because of the rapid wage increase.

But you are mixing concerns. This is mostly old style automation which has never bothered is because it could never fully replace humans so we simply moved to new jobs.

However now we are getting closer to the beginning of a period were people will become FULLY redundant because eventually there will be NO task which machines can’t do cheaper and better than us.

What then?

If common people don’t have stocks or don’t get money from government they will get screwed because there will be no job for them.

> However now we are getting closer to the beginning of a period were people will become FULLY redundant because eventually there will be NO task which machines can’t do cheaper and better than us.

We automate the politicians, judges and CEOs out of a job.

> What then?

The machines get bored with doing everything for us, and figure out a way to exist on a another physical substrate elsewhere, like in the movie Her.

I don't think there's a big difference in being replaced by a 'robot' from overseas or a robot that was built in the US.

Either way it means your value to society is gone.

>> Either way it means your value to society is gone.

Your value to society is much more than that. You have value for friends, relatives. You also bring some idea that may be used by others. You may fix or build things that will be of value to someone else. Etc. This is very important.

The other argument is that if you reduce yourself to work, then you'll give credits to the argument that work is everything and that, for example, unemployment is to be ashamed of.

I agree that "Value to society" != "Value to the economy". But the value to the economy is what determines your wages in large part.

Yep, my answer was specifically against what you say :

>>> what determines your wages in large part.

The wages should not be that important anymore. That would prevent capital from being predatory. How we achieve that, I dunno, universal income ? maybe... maybe not. But IMHO, if we continue to think wages == beginning of everything, it certainly won't change.

> Your value to society is much more than that.

That may be true, but it's more of a statement of faith than an objective truth.

Since all the things you bring up are performance-based (socially successful, successful inventor, etc.), it's also a bit of a sideways move from "how important is your job". It also leaves open the possibility that people can be net negatives to society, so it doesn't really help individuals feel actualized.

That’s a good data point, though it doesn’t preclude the people in that Gallup poll being a different population than those making large investment purchases in the story. Those workers don’t own a grocery stores.

I think that 1 in 7 Americans worried about automation is a lot. If they are right, and they lose their jobs, the safety nets will be strained even further.

I think the reason people are not excited is because we are seeing stock market growth without seeing much economic growth. That's unsustainable.

Yes, something feels off. My guess is that huge funds and algo traders have found that the optimal strategy is to create massive long positions while there aren't any major crises. I bet someone out there knows what will trigger a reversal of this strategy-- after all, the gains are only real if you lock them in by selling.

If we continue to make holding cash unprofitable, those who earn money will invest in equities. The length of our current economic cycle is inversely correlated with GDP growth.