I think jobs are worth $xx per hour. If the minimum human legal wage is greater than that, the job goes either unfilled, moves to China, or gets filled by a robot

You are absolutely right. The people who push for $15 wage will hurt themselves

I'm not worried at all about robots and automation. I am concerned however that government will get involved and interfere with the marketplace reorganizationd

I don't think "jobs" such as raising children and caring for elderly relatives will ever become more than semi-automated. For other types of work, increasing automation implies that the lifestyle of current retirees may gradually spread to the general population.

If we pay people more and more for less and less work, we eventually get to the point of asking "Why are we bothering to train someone to work a half hour a week?" And what reasonable businessman would want to pay a high labor cost for something that a robot can do cheaper.

I await your analysis. As I said, I don't find it philosophically attractive, but if automation can produce enough goods for every one of the 9 billion people on the planet to have a good standard of living with little human effort, I'm not sure how it works out.

One of the books that I think of in this respect is Asimov's "The Naked Sun" which had the planet of Solaris having 10,000 robots per person. Of course it had an astonishingly low population. Interestingly the predecessor "The Caves of Steel" was dystopic with an overpopulated planet with high crowding a rigid social structure. The population of 8 billion is just over that of today's. We're doing a lot better than he thought we would.

Glad you liked the piece! I do argue that the exponential growth in technology will mean change coming over years rather than decades or centuries. This means friends of freedom and reason will need to apply principles to new situations and make the case for freedom anew.

I actually plan to write something on the guaranteed income idea in the future, opposing it as an error on several counts. To come!

It is ironic that those who push for higher minimum wages will be a major force helping to replace humans with robots unless, as is pointed out below, governments place enough regulations on the use of robots to make them uneconomical, thus forcing marginal businesses and franchises to shut down. But the goal of so many leftists is to make themselves feel good while ignoring the actual impact of their policies.

I would add to the comments below that the need for individuals to change what they do when technological and economic circumstances change also highlights the importance of individuals understanding that they are the entrepreneurs of their own lives, not just of some particular enterprise. Change will come quicker in the future for many so this understanding is especially important now and especially for young people.

If you look at the economic history of of the US, you'll notice that the Robber Barons were operating in a DEFLATIONARY economic environment of their own making. When Carnegie began making steel, it was around $120/ton; by the time he retired, it was around $15/ton. The same went with all of the products that they sold. That's the only way they could get away with cutting workers' wages during economic downturns; deflation was continually making things cheaper. Even today, just look at the cost of computers. When I bought my first one, it cost $3,500. Today, I can buy one a million times more powerful for less than $300. Stop worrying about short term disruptions, and focus on the long term opportunities. That's where the sweet spot is.

My personal experience with automation may shed some light on why it shouldn't be stopped or even slowed down. I once worked as a bank auditor, where we used spreadsheets, literal huge sheets of paper with rows and columns. We could only use pencils when we worked with them, because if an error was made, we'd have to erase whole sections of the sheet and re-calculate all the numbers in the affected columns and rows. You can imagine how we felt when Visicalc came out (followed by Lotus 123 and Excel). Rather than needing a calculator and a huge block eraser whenever a mistake was found, all we had to do was correct the offending error, and everything in the affected columns and rows automatically re-calculated. Productivity skyrocketed, even though the manufacturers of block erasers were adversely affected. Another example comes from when I was in engineering school. At the time, we had to use slide rules (there were NO calculators). When we wanted to draw a curve or surface, we needed to do first and second derivatives of the functions in order to determine what the curve or surface looked like. Today, you can type in the function, and the calculator automatically draws the curve or surface. Notice that both innovations were potent productivity tools. Whenever I get the urge, I may do things the old fashioned way (not too often), but when I'm working, I use the latest technology available. There are NO guarantees in life, except the opportunity to change with the times. Bring on the robots.

There are many who've been displaced from various industries because of innovation. Those who choose to stay in their fields must change the way they do things; rather than working a steady job, the successful ones turn to becoming artisans and entrepreneurs, not attempting to outproduce the automated factories, but making one of a kind artistic pieces that carry a premium price. The unsuccessful ones cry in their beer. The world we're entering is one that demands more and more entrepreneurship, not less.

Directive 10-289-2015 will probably impose a tax on robots bi enough to destroy their cost advantage over the $15/hr min wage. I can tell you that we are preparing for the $15 min wage in our small mfg business by:

1) automating and reducing employee count, or
2) having more things made in China and reducing employee count, or
3) closing

Somebody will have to 'feed' the robots. They will need programming and maintenance. And as shown in the video you link to, the robots are saving a lot of walking around by people, but they still are only delivering what they are programmed to deliver to a person they are programmed to deliver it to.

Perhaps robots will enable us to work 20 or 30 hours per week vs. the supposed standard (today) 40 hour week that exists now. That 40 hour week is the result of industrialization, which is a form of robotization (if that is a word).

My father had a really good job in the 1940's working for the railroad. He worked 10 hours per day, 7 days per week and was paid $1 per hour. In 1945 $70 per week was really good pay. When the railroads began to use diesel-electric engines and replaced the coal-fired steam engines, men like him were able to work shorter hours, fewer days, and at higher pay. By the 1950's railroad men had what is now considered normal 40-hour work weeks.

Robots are really just another form of industrialization and I have to think that will be good for us.

Thank you Dr. Hudgins for bringing up this issue.

I say we shouldn't get too fearful of robots taking our jobs. There's no real way of knowing for sure where it will all end up. I've worked in manufacturing computer and process systems since 1972 and that included a wide variety of automation. Automation actually spurred growth and increased employment.

Lets take an historical walk shall we? Did the steam engine end shipping? Did the tractor end farming? Did automated cow milking end dairy farming? Did the automobile end travel?

What we should be fearing is those who would end automation in fear of losing their jobs. I like this hypothetical example: Suppose the US had gone entirely socialist after the Civil War. Imagine a young Thomas Edison having to approach the Ministry of Science and Invention with his light bulb idea only to have it crushed under the weight of the oil lamp and candlestick unions to save their jobs. If poor Thomas made a fuss he'd find himself on the hand pea shucking line in a poorly lit agricultural warehouse. Later he would be joined by Nikola Tesla and Henry Ford for attempting to disrupt other "employment opportunities".

I'm just glad robots have advanced enough that some businesses can now use them, rather than simply close, when faced with these idiotic laws. But I still expect more businesses to close than robotize. (Which I suspect is the real goal. The Left hates the fact that people still have the option of eating fast food.)

As for the people displaced, welfare will take care of some until the system collapses, but I really hope as many as possible will find black market work instead.

I discussed this situation with another Randist (one who is not in the Gulch), who commented that Ayn Rand said that everyone should live a 'productive' life, not that they must 'have a job'. I found this an interesting touchstone to apply to the image of a post-affluence world.

Given that everyone has an affluent lifestyle, provided by a robotic workforce, only a small number (5%? 10%?) of the population would need to work. These people would work in innovation, thinking up qualitative changes to our environment (which changes would then be implemented by robots). But the rest of the population can still be productive in art, entertainment, and sports.

I predict that most of the population that can be productive will not choose to do so, however. We will probably end up with another 20% or so who are productive but not employed...and the rest of the people will be an audience for life and not participants therein.

Jan

There are jobs that make you stupid!, repetitive and downright boring...those are the jobs for robots.
Just think, someday when they become aware and begin to think on their own...we'll be accused of slavery and they will want social justice...sound kinda like full circle? one more time around.

The role of electronic innovation is to eliminate labor by humans. What will humanity do when the robot singularity occurs? We all become artists, musicians and fiction writers? Think about it.

This subject is well covered and discussed in detail by Sowell's "Basic Economics" book. I have the 4th edition in English and Spanish, but he just came out with a 5th edition. The 4th was so good, I don't know how he can improve upon it. But I digress, simply read his book and the answer is clear.

But all costs go down; income required goes down; people work less. Just keep government out of it

Perhaps we could look at the amount of human labor it takes to support my own life. I say that number is going to decrease in favor of robots That means humans would have to price themselves higher and higher. Bottom line is that I would have less work to do also making my income needs lower while keeping my living standard the same.

I think those days are not to be repeated as robots become smarter and smarter. Rote jobs are replaced en masse but new jobs are created one at a time

Robots can make some labor more valuable. BUT. Robots have advanced now to just replace human labor more and more, especially the labor if "entitled" workers. The higher the minimum wage, the fewer workers there will be and the more ribots