Robots Take Over the Warehouse

Given the advances in systems like this and the already inplace designs that large businesses like Amazon use to handle their high volume almost exclusively online based order taking and processing I will be very surprised if we don't see that level of automation coming to our nearest retail and grocery stores in the next 20 years.

Think about it for a bit. How far off are we from having big retail centers set up to run exclusively off of a online all digital ordering system where you place your order online then go to the nearest distribution center and go up to a Kiosk and enter your order info and a few minutes later everything you ordered pops out all boxed and ready to go without ever having seen or interacted with a single human employee while there?

Imagine what it would be for cost savings having to only needing to have 5 - 10% of your total building floor space set up for public access and only needing 10% - 20% of the present workforce to keep the behind the scenes systems running smoothly while being able to handle as much or more total sales transactions per unit of time.

Also factor in the overall reduction of theft, and frivolous liability lawsuits and other related issues as well. People can't steal what they can't get access to and they can't get into trouble as easily when all they have is a small area with good surveillance coverage in place.

TcmTech should host comedy central.

10-20% of employees should attend and be laughing at the 80% standing in the unemployment line.

As soon as machines replace all of the workers and only owners are left.

Then the 10-20% becomes the 1% and then they all can be laughing.

More sales ? If only 20% have jobs, then there will be less sales, you can't buy if you don't have have employment to generate income.

Technological revolutions don't create a larger work force, they reduce the amount of employees needed to do the same work.

Less workers with discretionary income equals lower economic growth.

Those few with employment will be needed to financially support those with zero employment through higher taxation.

Here is two examples where technology replaced workers:

( First the 20%, then the 80% )

1. A company employes twenty engineers, these workers use slide rules to calculate, then the electronic calculator is introduced, then the company determines that ten engineers using calculators can perform the same amount of work that previously required twenty workers.

2. A company has fourty secretaries using typewriters to handle various paperwork duties, then the personal computer is introduced, then the company determines that only twenty secretaries are required to handle the equivalent amount of paperwork.

In both A & B the companies that manufactured slide rules and typewriters are out of business, all of their employees are out of work, not counting the workforce reduction in all of the related businesses that supplied the manufacturer and those on the receiving end that made financial transactions with the former employees.

If you sat down with members of both groups and asked them if they had marketable skills, both groups would say they did.

Members of both groups were replaced with autonomous devices.

Well, if it's any help, I hear there are autonomous robots that will replace the 1% as well....so

https://www.google.com/?ion=1&espv=2#q=robot+controlled+business&safe=off&tbm=nws

And who made those autonomous devices and how rich did they get for doing it?

Contrary to what many want everyone else to believe these days no one's entitled to a job and never was. That's how life works. Keep finding places you can survive or perish.

As for taxing the working to support the non working enjoy it while you can because at same point it will stop and it will stop hard.

Every society that did it eventually reached a breaking point and their financial and economic systems switched paths and simply left the old way behind to founder and die no matter how much those in charge and those on the take screamed about it.

The people at the top controlling things literally lost their heads during the changeovers and those who were benefiting from them that weren't also beheaded or imprisoned were left to either starve or find a way to reintegrate.

Life and living are dynamic not static. Either you evolve your skill sets and move with the changes to compete to find a place where you are of value in the system or you lose and die.

First, I am not sure how to copy sentences and paste them in italics, so I will try to provide my humble opinions on each of your statements, while I am not trying to insult your intelligence, some of these may be simplistic.

For the time being, I am satisfied using the basic functions of word, and as time goes on I will expand my skill level.

A. The inventor of the device and or the group of engineers that designed the device and who gets rich ? Whomever owns the intellectual property rights to put the device into service. As an example: An inventor constructs a water wheel and the grist mill owner puts it into service and reaps the commercial benefits of the operation. Where Edison invented the lightbulb and GE reaps the profits. How rich they got is unknown.

B. The answer here could turn into a purely political discussion ( I under that cr4 doesn't allow that venue. Although I think they should have a forum for it ) I have talked to many people who feel that they are entitled to just about everything simply because they live in our country. To survive or perish is a true statement, other than working an individual needs to change and grow just to keep life interesting.

C. Another political answer, as it took an act of Congress to create benefits for those that don't, it will take another act of Congress to rescind it. This is in relation to those that can, but won't, all provided by those that can and will.

D & E are political answers, so if the admin chimes in then I will comment there.

F. This is a true statement and I wholeheartedly agree.

From what I have seen in my life for every corporation that owns the rights to an invention there is someone who owns them himself or a small group of people who worked together to create said device or systems that co owns them.

In fact I think it's one of the largest driving forces in our economic and manufacturing systems that we have. Large corporations tend to buy up whatever they can with more intention to keep competition locked away than they do to implement newer and better ways.

Whereas the small independant guy is pushing to get his product out and on the market to gain from it. I know that how I feel about it. I could care less about whether or not something I invented puts one or 10 million out of jobs if what it nets me is enough of a payoff that I don't have to work for the rest of my life. IE the same goal everyone else wants as well.

Early in life I had the fantasy of making the world a better place. Forget it. My fantasy now is making my life as comfortable as I want for as little future effort as possible without compromising my morals and ethical standards.

Obviously no one's working hard to make my life better, unless there's profit to be had from me, so I have very little reasons want to work hard to do the same for some stranger I never met or knew.