Any indication the government is preparing for this?

Disillusioned democrat

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
15,904
Life as we know it - get born, go to school, get a job, pay tax, buy stuff, have a kid, repeat as necessary - is going to change radically over the next 20 - 30 years.

It will change the relationship between citizens, the state and corporations dramatically.

It will change housing and transport requirements forever.



20 years seems like a long time now, but realistically it's only 4 full term governments - and experience in the past few decades has not demonstrated our democracy to be agile and full of leaders.

Getting it right could be fantastic - more leisure time, a fair and equitable way to share the benefits of low-cost, high-quality production, a greener approach to living and a general improvement in the quality of life...get it wrong and it could become a dystopian nightmare where the only protection is the fact that corporations need enough people to have enough wealth to afford their products, so a huge unemployed population lives a subsistence "hand to mouth" existance, fully dependent on the state's largess based mainly on corporate taxes.
 


Congalltee

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
6,124
Where’s my hover board that 1985 predicted for me?

People should boycott supermarket “fast” checkouts, demand real people in banks after midday, print off their boarding cards, and ask for a hand search of any electronic result.

Russian hackers will end this nonsense.
 

eoghanacht

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2006
Messages
32,410
An Irish government being that far sighted, are you mad?
 

Nebuchadnezzar

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
11,025
Life as we know it - get born, go to school, get a job, pay tax, buy stuff, have a kid, repeat as necessary - is going to change radically over the next 20 - 30 years.

It will change the relationship between citizens, the state and corporations dramatically.

It will change housing and transport requirements forever.



20 years seems like a long time now, but realistically it's only 4 full term governments - and experience in the past few decades has not demonstrated our democracy to be agile and full of leaders.

Getting it right could be fantastic - more leisure time, a fair and equitable way to share the benefits of low-cost, high-quality production, a greener approach to living and a general improvement in the quality of life...get it wrong and it could become a dystopian nightmare where the only protection is the fact that corporations need enough people to have enough wealth to afford their products, so a huge unemployed population lives a subsistence "hand to mouth" existance, fully dependent on the state's largess based mainly on corporate taxes.
Automation will remove most people from economy other than as consumers. The balance of power between labour and capital will tilted increasingly in favour of capital. The basic principle of equality will also be threatened by major technological advances in medicine and human enhancement. I think the effect upon democratic systems will probably be negative, perhaps very negative.
 

Disillusioned democrat

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
15,904
Automation will remove most people from economy other than as consumers. The balance of power between labour and capital will tilted increasingly in favour of capital. The basic principle of equality will also be threatened by major technological advances in medicine and human enhancement. I think the effect upon democratic systems will probably be negative, perhaps very negative.
That's the basic crux - where will the state line out on this.

The vast majority (so in theory those with the greatest democratic power) will be unemployed....they will depend on the state collecting corporate tax at levels unimaginable today.

The fact that OUR government collects the lowest rates of corporate tax and indeed struggle to collect what's owed is a worrying indication into the mindset.

"Productivity" needs to be taxed - highly counter-intuitive.
 

Spanner Island

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
23,973
Life as we know it - get born, go to school, get a job, pay tax, buy stuff, have a kid, repeat as necessary - is going to change radically over the next 20 - 30 years.

It will change the relationship between citizens, the state and corporations dramatically.

It will change housing and transport requirements forever.



20 years seems like a long time now, but realistically it's only 4 full term governments - and experience in the past few decades has not demonstrated our democracy to be agile and full of leaders.

Getting it right could be fantastic - more leisure time, a fair and equitable way to share the benefits of low-cost, high-quality production, a greener approach to living and a general improvement in the quality of life...get it wrong and it could become a dystopian nightmare where the only protection is the fact that corporations need enough people to have enough wealth to afford their products, so a huge unemployed population lives a subsistence "hand to mouth" existance, fully dependent on the state's largess based mainly on corporate taxes.
We're actually probably in a stronger position than countries with heavy industries and which are over dependent on manufacturing stuff...

China is going to be f***ed if cheap automation takes off...

They'll have to be very nice to their people to keep them occupied if they don't want them getting bolshie...

Either that or distract them with wars and conflicts far from China's shores... which probably can't be ruled out as wars are a great way to distract people...
 
Last edited:

bokuden

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 23, 2010
Messages
11,250
Life as we know it - get born, go to school, get a job, pay tax, buy stuff, have a kid, repeat as necessary - is going to change radically over the next 20 - 30 years.

It will change the relationship between citizens, the state and corporations dramatically.

It will change housing and transport requirements forever.



20 years seems like a long time now, but realistically it's only 4 full term governments - and experience in the past few decades has not demonstrated our democracy to be agile and full of leaders.

Getting it right could be fantastic - more leisure time, a fair and equitable way to share the benefits of low-cost, high-quality production, a greener approach to living and a general improvement in the quality of life...get it wrong and it could become a dystopian nightmare where the only protection is the fact that corporations need enough people to have enough wealth to afford their products, so a huge unemployed population lives a subsistence "hand to mouth" existance, fully dependent on the state's largess based mainly on corporate taxes.
I have said repeatedly, that the entire social model has to change. The dole, basic pension, FIS and all other basic social payments should be scrapped and repleaced with a universal basic income of approx 200 euro p/w. Everyone should pay tax on earnings above 180 euro perweek. This would allow and encourgae people to take up part time work, support themselves while they get a small business up and running, get a couple of gigs, or care for their family/go into further training and education etc, plus it would stimulate local economies, thus helping the national picture
 

Roll_On

Well-known member
Joined
May 27, 2010
Messages
17,544
I think poor countries have a long while to go yet before this stuff becomes cheaper than labour. I once worked on a project based in China and my Chinese based counterpart 'value engineered' my proposed conveyor belt out because he reckoned it'd be cheaper to pay 40 lads to pass the product to each other for X number of years, and they would be forced to p1ss themselves as there would be no pee breaks. And that's China, you have Bangladesh where Chinese firms go to get comparatively cheap labour.
 

bokuden

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 23, 2010
Messages
11,250
That's the basic crux - where will the state line out on this.

The vast majority (so in theory those with the greatest democratic power) will be unemployed....they will depend on the state collecting corporate tax at levels unimaginable today.

The fact that OUR government collects the lowest rates of corporate tax and indeed struggle to collect what's owed is a worrying indication into the mindset.

"Productivity" needs to be taxed - highly counter-intuitive.
Remeber, capitalist economies depend on people buying stuff, so they will have to find some way of getting the money to keep flowing through society. This is the great contradction of capitalism: as wealth congregates in ever greater amounts in the hands of fewer people, there's less wealth to go around, unless more money is made up or people go into debt. I think we are being majorly forced into becoming indebted.
 

Surkov

Well-known member
Joined
May 31, 2016
Messages
4,910
Life as we know it - get born, go to school, get a job, pay tax, buy stuff, have a kid, repeat as necessary - is going to change radically over the next 20 - 30 years.

It will change the relationship between citizens, the state and corporations dramatically.

It will change housing and transport requirements forever.



20 years seems like a long time now, but realistically it's only 4 full term governments - and experience in the past few decades has not demonstrated our democracy to be agile and full of leaders.

Getting it right could be fantastic - more leisure time, a fair and equitable way to share the benefits of low-cost, high-quality production, a greener approach to living and a general improvement in the quality of life...get it wrong and it could become a dystopian nightmare where the only protection is the fact that corporations need enough people to have enough wealth to afford their products, so a huge unemployed population lives a subsistence "hand to mouth" existance, fully dependent on the state's largess based mainly on corporate taxes.
By 2055 oil will be running dry, globally. What are the implications of THAT?

Western cities will look like Pyongyang. And that's on a good day! :eek:
 

petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
31,072
This is something I've been interested in/slightly concerned about for some time now.
It seems that robot "carers" are actually better for people with some kinds of disabilities, for instance children with autism are less stressed by them (something to do with eye contact apparently) and people with dementia trust them more than they do other people.

Along with the fact that automated factories can make more automats, for various tasks, and that AI is not far off being able to carry out many of the previous "higher level" jobs that we said would take the place of the repetitive, manual tasks that robots do better than us, it's hard not to suppose that the capitalist system which needed large numbers of human workers is coming to an end.

One of the left wing candidates (so who lost) the last presidential election in France had proposed a social security tax on robots which were manufacturing anything that would otherwise have been made by people. That way not only would it not necessarily be in a company's financial interest to replace its workers with automated equipment, but it would also mean that there would be no loss of SS revenue just because a factory had fewer employees.

It didnt really get traction because Macron was going to put the country back to work, etc etc, and was sort of dismissed as pie in the sky, but I thought it seemed like a far more long term issue that at least needed to be discussed.
 

bokuden

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 23, 2010
Messages
11,250
This is something I've been interested in/slightly concerned about for some time now.
It seems that robot "carers" are actually better for people with some kinds of disabilities, for instance children with autism are less stressed by them (something to do with eye contact apparently) and people with dementia trust them more than they do other people.

Along with the fact that automated factories can make more automats, for various tasks, and that AI is not far off being able to carry out many of the previous "higher level" jobs that we said would take the place of the repetitive, manual tasks that robots do better than us, it's hard not to suppose that the capitalist system which needed large numbers of human workers is coming to an end.

One of the left wing candidates (so who lost) the last presidential election in France had proposed a social security tax on robots which were manufacturing anything that would otherwise have been made by people. That way not only would it not necessarily be in a company's financial interest to replace its workers with automated equipment, but it would also mean that there would be no loss of SS revenue just because a factory had fewer employees.

It didnt really get traction because Macron was going to put the country back to work, etc etc, and was sort of dismissed as pie in the sky, but I thought it seemed like a far more long term issue that at least needed to be discussed.
Was that Melenchon? Remember, Macron scraped through to the second round by proposing huge state investment in infrastructure, and the fools who voted for him bought his BS. It will not happen next time, unless the French economy takes off.
 

Nebuchadnezzar

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
11,025
I have said repeatedly, that the entire social model has to change. The dole, basic pension, FIS and all other basic social payments should be scrapped and repleaced with a universal basic income of approx 200 euro p/w. Everyone should pay tax on earnings above 180 euro perweek. This would allow and encourgae people to take up part time work, support themselves while they get a small business up and running, get a couple of gigs, or care for their family/go into further training and education etc, plus it would stimulate local economies, thus helping the national picture
I think universal basic income is inevitable and probably a good idea however it may change the nature of relationship between state and citizen in a fundamental way. Up to now most people contribute a share of their income or wealth towards the state for the common good. The individual tax payer has a direct interest and right to comment about what is done by the state with their money. With universal income with perhaps most people not actively engaged in production the state will distribute money that it has primarily collected from large corporations and ‘give’ it to the citizen. That change may result in a shift of power from the citizen to the state and/or corporations.
 

bokuden

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 23, 2010
Messages
11,250
I think universal basic income is inevitable and probably a good idea however it may change the nature of relationship between state and citizen in a fundamental way. Up to now most people contribute a share of their income or wealth towards the state for the common good. The individual tax payer has a direct interest and right to comment about what is done by the state with their money. With universal income with perhaps most people not actively engaged in production the state will distribute money that it has primarily collected from large corporations and ‘give’ it to the citizen. That change may result in a shift of power from the citizen to the state and/or corporations.
My point would be that everyone would become a tax payer. The role of who contributes what has fundamentally changed anyway. look at the MNCs for example. They contribute a big chunk of the government coffers. They also provide employment for a lot of Irish workers. In return, The government makes the state very suitable for them. That's why Varadkar's waffle about "having the freedom to set our own tax rates" is just that. So, get them to contribute to help create a stable society of well trained workers and good infrastructure, and that's what many of them want. There's a reason why they are moving to places like Denmark.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
29,064
Twitter
No
I'd quite like to meet the robot who will take my role in the workplace. It would have to be programmed to bang its head repeatedly on a desk and shout 'oh for sh1t's sake not this f*cking zombie nonsense again'....

Robots would probably be very puzzled by what my colleagues do, much of the time, as it is illogical, Jim.
 

Disillusioned democrat

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
15,904
I think poor countries have a long while to go yet before this stuff becomes cheaper than labour. I once worked on a project based in China and my Chinese based counterpart 'value engineered' my proposed conveyor belt out because he reckoned it'd be cheaper to pay 40 lads to pass the product to each other for X number of years, and they would be forced to p1ss themselves as there would be no pee breaks. And that's China, you have Bangladesh where Chinese firms go to get comparatively cheap labour.
It's very, very cheap.

I'm looking at a project at work right now that could replace a team of 8 finance "admin" roles (cash allocation, statement publication, credit management, etc.) with a software robot that'll work 24/7, cost €20k in project cost and €15k in licenses and will be able to do 400% of the work the team of 8 do.

I'm extremely squeamish about signing it off because once we start it's hard to know where it stops and the human costs will be huge, but I suspect the CEO will be looking for a less squeamish manager if I don't.
 

Disillusioned democrat

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
15,904
Remeber, capitalist economies depend on people buying stuff, so they will have to find some way of getting the money to keep flowing through society. This is the great contradction of capitalism: as wealth congregates in ever greater amounts in the hands of fewer people, there's less wealth to go around, unless more money is made up or people go into debt. I think we are being majorly forced into becoming indebted.
That's the "hand to mouth" element I mentioned in the OP - many lives will be reduced to just being a consumer.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
29,064
Twitter
No
Oddly enough the one part of my and my colleagues' roles which could actually be automated with a huge saving in cost and administrative time the bosses show absolutely no interest in.

Despite the fact it is achievable now. There's a weird psychology in offices, almost like a law, that one must not depart from the methodology that was accepted before.

S'pose I shouldn't care really as its all just keeping the paperwork moving in one way or another. Although we've gone a long way towards eliminating the paper. So it is just keeping the digital records in emailable motion.
 

Catalpast

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
25,560
Remeber, capitalist economies depend on people buying stuff, so they will have to find some way of getting the money to keep flowing through society. This is the great contradction of capitalism: as wealth congregates in ever greater amounts in the hands of fewer people, there's less wealth to go around, unless more money is made up or people go into debt. I think we are being majorly forced into becoming indebted.
We are already doing that

- check out Blanchardstown Shopping Centre....

As for the Rise of the Robots its already well under way

You will still get a job - but it will be for shorter working hours and less money

The State will compensate you with Health Care, Education for you or your kids, free house, subsidised Medical Care, Travel allowance

- er hang on a minute...:shock:
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top