Gyroscopic Investing

1NV35T0R (Greg) wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:

1NV35T0R (Greg) wrote: I certainly would feel good knowing many things are covered for me with robotics and that if I didn't want to work, I could still live a reasonable life. For those that want more, they can get more by doing tasks that robots can't. I would think this would also alleviate the stress of many people who worry about providing for a family with their jobs, losing your job wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, and you could work on the hobbies you had as a child that had only a slim chance of making you money.

Certainly you know this better than most, but such a society would need a *lot* of people skilled in all the various fields of robotics to avoid crashing to the ground. The social contract would basically be, "You can live a life of leisure and pursue your passions while the robots take care of the basics, but you need at least a minor in electrical engineering."

Doesn't everybody major/minor in engineering? It's pretty much the best degree ever so I don't see why this would be a problem for everyone to do .

I would agree though, if you had one robot only taking care of 5 humans for example, you need a lot of people that can repair, maintain, parts manufacturers (or 3D printed parts ), etc.

I dont think there would be need for more human workers at all. If there were, robots wouldnt make economic sense. If more high skilled workers are needed to build and maintain robots than the number of workers that those robots replace, then using robots would be a money losing operation.

doodle wrote: I dont think there would be need for more human workers at all. If there were, robots wouldnt make economic sense. If more high skilled workers are needed to build and maintain robots than the number of workers that those robots replace, then using robots would be a money losing operation.

Out of curiosity, how many robotic machines have you built?

From the perspective of someone who has built many, I can confidently state that robots offer both tangible economic benefits and also the necessity for grueling maintenance and repair routines. As long as those costs are lower then the benefits, robots make sense. Even more so if there are non-economic considerations such as humans being unwilling or unable to do roboticized jobs.

Wonder if a robot would stop tinkering with the Permanent Portfolio??

Slashdot currently has a nice discussion about the topic

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/01/23 ... class-jobs

based on this article:

http://news.yahoo.com/ap-impact-recessi ... nance.html

Concerning robots repairing robots: it's all a question of dexterity and superb perception and believe me, we (the robotics researcher community) are working hard to achieve that and it will be achieved not too long in the future!

Pointedstick wrote:

doodle wrote: I dont think there would be need for more human workers at all. If there were, robots wouldnt make economic sense. If more high skilled workers are needed to build and maintain robots than the number of workers that those robots replace, then using robots would be a money losing operation.

Out of curiosity, how many robotic machines have you built?

From the perspective of someone who has built many, I can confidently state that robots offer both tangible economic benefits and also the necessity for grueling maintenance and repair routines. As long as those costs are lower then the benefits, robots make sense. Even more so if there are non-economic considerations such as humans being unwilling or unable to do roboticized jobs.

None, but im making a simple economic argument. If it takes two highly trained workers to create and maintain a robot that replaces one worker, then they wouldnt make economic sense. The last quote i heard was that many factory type robots cost about 3 to 4 dollars an hour. That tells me right off the bat that not much human involvement is needed...

doodle wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:

doodle wrote: I dont think there would be need for more human workers at all. If there were, robots wouldnt make economic sense. If more high skilled workers are needed to build and maintain robots than the number of workers that those robots replace, then using robots would be a money losing operation.

Out of curiosity, how many robotic machines have you built?

From the perspective of someone who has built many, I can confidently state that robots offer both tangible economic benefits and also the necessity for grueling maintenance and repair routines. As long as those costs are lower then the benefits, robots make sense. Even more so if there are non-economic considerations such as humans being unwilling or unable to do roboticized jobs.

None, but im making a simple economic argument. If it takes two highly trained workers to create and maintain a robot that replaces one worker, then they wouldnt make economic sense. The last quote i heard was that many factory type robots cost about 3 to 4 dollars an hour. That tells me right off the bat that not much human involvement is needed...

What if that robot that takes two workers to build and maintain can do the job of 20 men? What if the robot that costs $4/hour produces $40 of value and replaces multiple workers who were paid $9/hour or more?

If you're making a simple economic arguments, there are many many circumstances where robots produce a net savings or profit compared to using human labor.

Pointedstick wrote:

doodle wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: Out of curiosity, how many robotic machines have you built?

From the perspective of someone who has built many, I can confidently state that robots offer both tangible economic benefits and also the necessity for grueling maintenance and repair routines. As long as those costs are lower then the benefits, robots make sense. Even more so if there are non-economic considerations such as humans being unwilling or unable to do roboticized jobs.

None, but im making a simple economic argument. If it takes two highly trained workers to create and maintain a robot that replaces one worker, then they wouldnt make economic sense. The last quote i heard was that many factory type robots cost about 3 to 4 dollars an hour. That tells me right off the bat that not much human involvement is needed...

What if that robot that takes two workers to build and maintain can do the job of 20 men? What if the robot that costs $4/hour produces $40 of value and replaces multiple workers who were paid $9/hour or more?

If you're making a simple economic arguments, there are many many circumstances where robots produce a net savings or profit compared to using human labor.

Of course. That is why the argument that we will all find jobs making and repairing robots a bit far fetched. Robots must displace workers in order to be economically viable.

It is the same concept as EROI....in other words the ratio of the energy delivered by a process to the energy used directly and indirectly in that process. Robots have to have a positive EROI so to speak or they don't make economic sense. Labor input into building and maintaining robot must be less that the labor displacing output....in most cases. Obviously, certain dangerous or impossibly jobs or applications don't apply. I am talking robots though that do factory work or accomplish other mundane repetitive tasks.

doodle wrote: Of course. That is why the argument that we will all find jobs making and repairing robots a bit far fetched. Robots must displace workers in order to be economically viable.

It is the same concept as EROI....in other words the ratio of the energy delivered by a process to the energy used directly and indirectly in that process. Robots have to have a positive EROI so to speak or they don't make economic sense. Labor input into building and maintaining robot must be less that the labor displacing output....in most cases. Obviously, certain dangerous or impossibly jobs or applications don't apply. I am talking robots though that do factory work or accomplish other mundane repetitive tasks.

And that's why I joked that such a roboticized society would need to be full of electrical engineers! Clearly robots would obsolete a lot of jobs, but they're not, in my opinion, going to obsolete the jobs of the people who design, create, program, and maintain them. If that happens, we're getting into sci-fi dystopia territory.

Pointedstick wrote:

doodle wrote: Of course. That is why the argument that we will all find jobs making and repairing robots a bit far fetched. Robots must displace workers in order to be economically viable.

It is the same concept as EROI....in other words the ratio of the energy delivered by a process to the energy used directly and indirectly in that process. Robots have to have a positive EROI so to speak or they don't make economic sense. Labor input into building and maintaining robot must be less that the labor displacing output....in most cases. Obviously, certain dangerous or impossibly jobs or applications don't apply. I am talking robots though that do factory work or accomplish other mundane repetitive tasks.

And that's why I joked that such a roboticized society would need to be full of electrical engineers! Clearly robots would obsolete a lot of jobs, but they're not, in my opinion, going to obsolete the jobs of the people who design, create, program, and maintain them. If that happens, we're getting into sci-fi dystopia territory.

Right, but that maybe satisfies the work requirements for 50 million people....or whatever.

In order to avoid the dystopia, we need to figure out a way to create an alternate economic system. I'm sure that in the coming decades this issue will be discussed much more frequently. My guess is that some form of democractic socialism will emerge as the best answer.

When should we anticipate significant increases in U.S. unemployment as a result of the robots taking over?

Right now, unemployment levels are a little ahead of the long term averages.  I would assume that when the robots take over we would see unemployment rise to 30-40% or higher.

MediumTex wrote: When should we anticipate significant increases in U.S. unemployment as a result of the robots taking over?

Right now, unemployment levels are a little ahead of the long term averages.  I would assume that when the robots take over we would see unemployment rise to 30-40% or higher.

According to the articles I have read we are on the cusp of seeing a huge explosion in robot technology. Im certain that this issue will begin to be discussed much more frequently in the coming years.

Here is a interesting recent article on this topic and how it is affecting industry http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/busin ... d=all&_r=0

A robot is really just the physical manifestation of a software algorithim.

I have been interested in algorithims for financial trading since the late 90's.  It just seemed intuitively obvious to me that automation was the future because humans are all unreliable inefficient lazy bums, but even I am surprised at how fast the trend has been accelerating.  I don't even feel like I've fully kept up with all the breakthroughs due to other life distractions, but I am adament about making sure I am not left out.  The transition from capitalism to post-capitalism is going to be grinding for a lot people who do not see this coming and prepare for it.

MachineGhost wrote: A robot is really just the physical manifestation of a software algorithim.

I have been interested in algorithims for financial trading since the late 90's.  It just seemed intuitively obvious to me that automation was the future because humans are all unreliable inefficient lazy bums, but even I am surprised at how fast the trend has been accelerating.  I don't even feel like I've fully kept up with all the breakthroughs due to other life distractions, but I am adament about making sure I am not left out.  The transition from capitalism to post-capitalism is going to be grinding for a lot people who do not see this coming and prepare for it.

Yes, how does capitalism function when capital no longers requires labor? It upends the entire system. I think we will first see the unrest in China as millions of factory laborers are replaced by faster and cheaper machines. I have heard that advances in robot technology will conform to moores law.

So just out of curiosity, if you were advising a young college student today who was not mathmatically or scientifically adept about a future career path....what direction would you steer them in?

doodle wrote: So just out of curiosity, if you were advising a young college student today who was not mathmatically or scientifically adept about a future career path....what direction would you steer them in?

I would advise them to become mathematically, scientifically, or mechanically inclined. Of course, this only applies if you're not wealthy and don't have a rich patron, but then again, that's historically what the arts and humanities have always been. Perhaps we're just witnessing some mean reversion here.

And for god's sake, learn about money. I have friends and family who went through college and have been absolutely ruined financially and have no better career prospects than before they enrolled.

doodle wrote: So just out of curiosity, if you were advising a young college student today who was not mathmatically or scientifically adept about a future career path....what direction would you steer them in?

Robot repair!!!

doodle wrote: So just out of curiosity, if you were advising a young college student today who was not mathmatically or scientifically adept about a future career path....what direction would you steer them in?

If they weren't mathematically inclined? I'd say a job difficult to be outsourced and difficult to be replaced by robots. Perhaps a nurse/medical assistant. Or counselors and such for marriage counseling, etc. There's only so much you can read online before you'd want to see an actual person to talk through your issues with while being with your significant other (this assumes they aren't talking online to someone in another country that is the marriage counselor, going back to outsourced again).

Also, live an ERE lifestyle in case things don't work out and you face unemployment from your career prospects.

1NV35T0R (Greg) wrote:

doodle wrote: So just out of curiosity, if you were advising a young college student today who was not mathmatically or scientifically adept about a future career path....what direction would you steer them in?

If they weren't mathematically inclined? I'd say a job difficult to be outsourced and difficult to be replaced by robots. Perhaps a nurse/medical assistant. Or counselors and such for marriage counseling, etc. There's only so much you can read online before you'd want to see an actual person to talk through your issues with while being with your significant other (this assumes they aren't talking online to someone in another country that is the marriage counselor, going back to outsourced again).

Also, live an ERE lifestyle in case things don't work out and you face unemployment from your career prospects.

So being that you seem to have experience in this field of robotics, what is your view on how this will play out over the next few decades? What systemic type changes do younthink are going to be necessary in order to adapt to an increasingly automated and mechanized supply chain? Also, do you think there are any white collar jobs that are ripe to be taken over by the machines?

doodle wrote: So being that you seem to have experience in this field of robotics, what is your view on how this will play out over the next few decades?

I'm certainly no futurist so I'll see what I can say about this stuff.

I see robots being created in the U.S. to take back the manufacturing jobs that were outsourced to other countries. With the manufacturing in house, we'll still need people to repair the robots which might add a few extra jobs. We'll also get probably a few more creature comforts that robots yield for us but I don't see mass robotic stealing of jobs yet. Their skill sets just are still very different from our own. There are things they do tremendously well, and there are things they still suck at. Once robots can beat us at our own games, that's when to worry about your job.

What systemic type changes do you think are going to be necessary in order to adapt to an increasingly automated and mechanized supply chain?

To not see robots as a threat to your job but leverage its skills that it is very good at to amplify your own skills/make up for your own weaknesses. I also wonder what happens to unions when robots are taken over their jobs (unless you get robot unions).

Also, do you think there are any white collar jobs that are ripe to be taken over by the machines?

I think UPS/FedEx/anything transporting materials for the supply chain will be taken over by robots and the infrastructure that supports that. I'd think a lot of Wall Street would be replaced too

TennPaGa wrote: I'm curious... what are you doing so that you aren't left out?

Getting rich, what else?   Freedom from having to work is freedom from being replaced by robots (and also the freedom not to be one of the non-rich multitudinous many).

I can't stress financial intelligence enough.  The PP is a great core, but it will not generate more capital all by itself.