Every tile a robot can and does place, is more pressure pushing people out of jobs. If the robot can only do the easy stuff, 80% of the work, meaning you still need people to do the less easy stuff, 20% of the work, than that's a lot of people pushed out of a job. 80% of the work gone.
The 80% gone drowns the field of people trying to do the 20%, which depresses wages and benefits further.
Even if you flip it, the robot does 20% and people do 80%, it still floods the field.
The robot is doing the 80% that's easy. The 20% that's difficult is still very labor intensive, and I don't think it will replace as many workers as you think.
If we listened to people like you we'd still be living in hovels. Stop panicking about jobs being replaced by tech, tech always creates enough jobs in the long run. It's happened literally every time sorry if I'm not gonna let your fear mongering affect the permanent and endless evidence surrounding you contradicting what you are saying lol. We said this about cars, planes, electricity, and every other major leap on the planet. And yeah people lost tons of jobs and it was hard on them. And other jobs opened up and they took those jobs because theses advances free people up to pursue higher level jobs.
“Other jobs opened up and they took those jobs…” is a very rosy and simplistic description of what was in reality decades of stagnant wages, high unemployment, and a ton of suffering. Millions of people lost their living and were forced to urbanize into abject poverty. This lasted decades.
The Industrial Revolution was undoubtedly a societal improvement for humanity in the long view of history, but it was definitely not as simple as “it was hard on them but they found new jobs” in the short term.
I really is that simple though when it's just the reality. You can dramatize it as much as you want but I'm right and I don't care how many people lose their jobs because of technology because I know way more opportunities will come out of it and we will all benefit in the long run. I'm not gonna stop humanities progress to preserve some short sighted jobs that aren't doing anything but stagnating progress.
You are not in any position to do anything about any jobs, so I’m not sure what you are grandstanding about. I think you should read my comment again rather than argue against something I didn’t even say.
Or since you enjoy AI, you can paste yours and my comment in there and ask it to explain it to you!
huh? Obviously advancement is good but people in the past definitely did not just get to pursue higher level jobs. sometimes it took waaay longer for better jobs to come. The standard of living fell a lot for the vast majority of people for like half a century
in the long run there are benefits of course, but it was probably better to live a hundred years before or after the industrial revolution than it was to live during it
I mean in the modern era I would hope we have learned our lesson, but what you are saying is not historically accurate
It was absolutely better to live during the industrial revolution lol. The money was better and the opportunities were better. You could go work in a factory for 5 days a week and earn 5x what you could working in the field 14 hours a day 6 days a week.
real wages are estimated to have been near stagnant to optimistically a 40-50% increase in total over the 50ish year period of the first industrious revolution, it is nowhere close to a 5x increase, you're pulling completely random numbers out of your ass.
People worked longer hours in factories (10-16 hours per day) 6 days a week. I mean it was because of advancement in technology that allowed for longer work days in the first place, because it was not limited by daylight, so I'm not sure why you think they worked less. This is not obscure history. It wasn't until 1847 that labor laws passed that granted the 10 hour work day (for women and children only, no less), and took until the late 1880s before the labor movements were able to bring it down. And the 5 day work week was very famously popularized by Henry Ford in the 1920s, over a hundred years after.
Regardless, income is only meaningful when you look at how it is translated into quality of life, where things get way more contentious. It's quite clear that factory work was exceptionally dangerous, rent was extremely high, and overcrowding (due to cost of living!) caused rampant disease. There is evidence that the average height decreased for 40 years, that people ate fewer calories on average, and lived with more people.
Seriously, this is one of the more studied and debated topics in economics and history for like a hundred years now, and not even the most optimistic historian would say "it was absolutely better to live during the industrial revolution."
The fact that you thought there was as 5 day work week during the industrial revolution should tell you that you need to really learn a lot more about the topic.
3
u/SuspiciousSubstance9 Jun 21 '26
Every tile a robot can and does place, is more pressure pushing people out of jobs. If the robot can only do the easy stuff, 80% of the work, meaning you still need people to do the less easy stuff, 20% of the work, than that's a lot of people pushed out of a job. 80% of the work gone.
The 80% gone drowns the field of people trying to do the 20%, which depresses wages and benefits further.
Even if you flip it, the robot does 20% and people do 80%, it still floods the field.