TED Conversations

charlize burstein

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Debate: Technology will eliminate the need for human employees, and the unemployment rate will increase.

Technology is an easier and faster way to get a job done. It is obvious that technology increases the profitability of companies throughout the world. So why would I hire a human rather than purchasing the technology when the costs of them are the same?

Discuss the situation where you are going to choose one of them with equal conditions (conditions means the costs and several types of expenses).

+2
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Nov 22 2012: Your debate headline is a given fact, so there is actually not much to debate about.

    As more technology evolves and as more 'clever' it gets, as less need there is for human employees.
    • thumb
      Nov 22 2012: if you ignore all those that disagree
      • thumb
        Nov 22 2012: Your disagreement is invalid/irrelevant until you provide us source(s) that proves that technological unemployment is not a fact.
        • thumb
          Nov 22 2012: i don't need source to prove that the statement "not much debate about" is false. we are just now debating. the source is me, and all the people that shares my views, including but not limited to all that subscribe to austrian economics.
      • thumb
        Nov 22 2012: Thing is, Austrian economics is an _economic ideology_, that stem from the late 19th century and is not rooted in the physical reality and it certainly didn't predict or account for the technological advances of the 21st century - which makes it utterly obsolete in terms of our present technological possibilities.

        Basing the validity of our current technological possibilities through an economic ideology is utterly nonsensical, since it in no way, shape or form represent our technological possibilities.
        • thumb
          Nov 22 2012: and it has zero to do with the statement "not much to debate about". one thing is that you don't believe that argument, and another thing whether it exists.

          for example i don't agree with you. but i also recognize that you in fact do exist.

          newtonian physics is 400 years old. should abandon it too? or rather, we should judge a theory based on its actual merits. so far, austrian theory is the only economic theory with any predictive power.
      • thumb
        Nov 22 2012: "and it has zero to do with the statement "not much to debate about".

        It has everything to do with that statement.

        "one thing is that you don't believe that argument, and another thing whether it exists. for example i don't agree with you. but i also recognize that you in fact do exist."

        That is called ignorance. Or scientific illiteracy in this case.

        "newtonian physics is 400 years old. should abandon it too?"

        Economics has nothing to do with physics, your "credibility" just flew out the window.

        My work here is done.
      • thumb
        Nov 22 2012: What is this excitement all about?

        I choose 'not much' over 'nothing' so we have a little space left for believers of austrian economics and other schools... ;o)

        The given economical system prefers 'profit' over 'people' and the rest is simple math in the balance sheet.

        I don't see any significant argument why technology is not killing jobs, so if you have some, make them a contribution in your comment instead of stressing 'newtonian physics' or other non related topics alike...

        Wasn't it you who prefers arguments to be 'on the point'? Then act like it. ;o)
      • thumb
        Nov 22 2012: How do you form your beliefs if not 'looking' for arguments?

        And again, all you deliver is polemics and not a single argument to make your case clear on the topic!
        • thumb
          Nov 22 2012: you mean, in this conversation. i presented my arguments in all other conversations about the same topic. it does not count?
      • thumb
        Nov 22 2012: Sure it counts! But then give reference to those converstions and link to them, instead of beating the drum of polemics only. TED will always have repetitive topics but just to claim different arguments without naming or linking them is not 'inspiring' to those who don't see them.
      • thumb
        Nov 22 2012: polemics ...
    • thumb
      Nov 22 2012: "As more technology evolves and as more 'clever' it gets, as less need there is for human employees."

      Why would you say something like that? Gut feeling? Personnal theory? Could you provide us with further explanations about your surprising worldview?
      • thumb
        Nov 22 2012: Let me summarize what brings me to this conclusion:

        The main goal of capitalism is profit maximization and as more 'free' or 'radical' this system runs, as more this goal promotes itself.

        In general, a major thread on profit maximization is the cost factor of labour, which is cause why companies produce in low income countries supported by ridiculously cheap transportation costs and the omission of regulating import taxation. In short: The global market.

        Due to the invention of assembly line production, in which a complex product gets produced in simple step by step sequences, a human employee can be substituded by machines and robots.

        The decision to do so is just a matter of simple math of productivity, acquisition-, repair- and maintenance-costs of those machines compared to the cost of a human worker.

        Companies do not see themselves as charity projects, so if there is an overall cost benefit in a machine over a human worker, it will be taken.

        As more advanced or 'clever' technology gets, as more jobs will be endangered and substituted by it.

        The magic is simple: 24/7/52, no vacation, no illness, no strike.

        New technologies are already on the horizon. Rapid prototyping, Machines produce machines, neural network computing, artificial intelligence, artificial evolution, etc.

        At the moment machines are literally stupid yet that potential is already enough to substitute people. So what happens when they turn 'smart' and become as cheap as a Chinese migrant worker and as reliable and durable as a Swiss clockwork?

        The capitalistic economy will self-destruct itself in the race of the disequilibrium of the global market and comes to an end by viewer and viewer people earning their income by their work to purchase all of those goods with brilliant profit margins.

        Capitalism is no long term oriented concept and its vital instinct is only driven by greed.

        Look around and you can see 'it' acting as I stated all over the world. And it will become worse.
        • thumb
          Nov 23 2012: "Capitalism is no long term oriented concept and its vital instinct is only driven by greed."

          Would you have more people in assembly lines? Don't you think certain "robotic" jobs are a waste of human beings?
          I thought people took jobs to access comfort. Are you not confusing employment with wealth? In your vision of the future, it seems everybody's well fed and clothed and, since everything is free, a push on a button makes a dream come true.
          Capitalism creates wealth, or are you denying this too?
      • thumb
        Nov 23 2012: 'Capitalism creates wealth, or are you denying this too?'

        What in your view was I also denying? And where did I deny the creation of wealth in capitalism?

        You asked for 'further explanations' on my 'surprising worldview' that technology is eliminating jobs, so why are you changing the subject in your last question? This is another debate all by itself, yet not on the topic on this one.

        'Would you have more people in assembly lines?'

        Yes, because the alternative in the given system is unemployment, which does not enable people to 'access comfort' as you phrased it.

        'Don't you think certain "robotic" jobs are a waste of human beings?'

        Yes, I think so. But don't you think that unemployment is a waste of human beings too? I do, and that's why I criticize the substitution of people by robots but not having those wasteless jobs for them instead.

        'I thought people took jobs to access comfort.'

        How do you define comfort? What are necessities to you in comparison?
        In my view, the purpose of economy is to enable all people to participate and to provide a reliable and sufficient base for a living.

        'Are you not confusing employment with wealth?'

        Don't you think employment creates wealth? To me it does and this creation shall neither be concentrated for just a view nor parasitic to the cost of others. Is that an evil thought to have?

        Is my 'vision of the future', as you named it, really that 'odd', that 'fantastic' that we should stop to think about is how to get there, to move on with business as usual of which we know it will fail?

        So would you rather hit this wall or 'push on a button' to avoid this to happen?

        Why is it, that those thoughts are either greet with smiles or dismissed as communistic or Utopia?

        Have you given up on improvements already? Do you really think there are no better alternatives to the 'given system' possible? To me there are, and they are worth trying. Unfortunately we have to hit the wall first to become more open about it again...

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.