After working at an Amazon warehouse, I don't see why people would be pissed off if it was automated with robots

Yep, its pretty much inevitable until the proletariat rise up against the bourgeoisie. We have as a whole become apathetic

>but what happens to the people displaced by those robots.

They could be doing actual jobs in other sectors where they're not humanoid drones for 12 hrs a day

every sector is being taken over or optimized by robots and technology

youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

>They could be doing actual jobs in other sectors
yeah. that's assuming other jobs are available, that work for them (where do you keep the kids, can you get there via public transport or do you need a vehicle etc), suited to their skills, even in their area, etc.

its kind of unfair to treat people like disposable cogs in a machine imo, like people can just seamlessly and instantly move from job A to job B.

so they need to man up and learn a useful skill or start scrubbing toilets. (or starve to death)

the problem isn't 'why can't you just get another job', it should be 'why should we be working at all'

>they need to man up and learn a useful skill or start scrubbing toilets
that's unfair: it's kind of like scolding someone for making incorrect (but still valid) life choices. how DARE you work for a company for sixteen years, get laid off, and find that your skills suddenly aren't needed any more. why the fuck didnt you learn to code back in the 70s janice. you fucking imbecile. you stupid cunt. etc.

Attached: eHCzIGP.jpg (500x597, 56K)

There are less jobs than workers, now what?

youtube.com/watch?v=WSKi8HfcxEk

there's plenty of jobs out there now. you have to be crazy to work in an Amazon Warehouse. Especially in that part of California with its insane cost of living.

you're better off going somewhere like Las Vegas and getting a casino job where you can actually get ahead or pursue an education in a STEM major or developer role.

Attached: hypergamy.jpg (828x979, 409K)

there's lots of work to be done, but it's unrewarded under capitalism because there's no profit. 'number of jobs' is a meaningless metric because, frankly, there's a whole lot of bullshit jobs going

Attached: gquRpdC.jpg (638x850, 90K)

You can also learn how to code good and work remote or learn how to make money online and can work remotely while living in a cheap overseas city like Kiev or in Manila like something on nomadlist.

This old idea of getting a job in some factory and expecting to be taken care of for life is madness now. The socialists aren't going to fix this either. They'll just temporarily apply a patch while they themselves get extremely rich and powerful. Humans are just naturally corruptible and you can only solve these things at the individual level, which is yourself.

Attached: aoc_clone1.jpg (281x500, 120K)

Jobs are what puts money in the bank and there are less of those opportunities for people, whats your point?

>The socialists aren't going to fix this either. They'll just temporarily apply a patch while they themselves get extremely rich and powerful

Completely missing the point of socialism

> learn to code
hate to break it to you, that market is drying up fast as algorithms can do it better.
>make money online
In what venue does a computer not do it better than humans?

all i'm saying is that 'number of jobs' doesn't mean anything. driving for uber could count as filling a job, but it's unstable, doesn't give time off, you're fucked if you're ill, your insurance will fuck you, you're putting mileage on your personal vehicle, etc.

It's the future. It's inevitable. Just look at google, they're AI can make calls for you and shit. It'll replace customer service. I've seen 3D printers scaled to print houses for real cheap. And 3D printers in general will really shift the whole manufacturing market

>It'll replace customer service
i disagree. or rather, computers don't have a sense of intuition, can't make judgement calls, etc. so although they may replace people on the phone, or at the helpdesk or whatever, it's not like you're guaranteed better service as a result.

Entrepreneurship and business ownership are probably the last thing that will ever be replaced by Robots. Do you think the likes of Jeff Bezos are just as likely to be replaced by a robot, or his lowly factory workers instead?

Attached: cute_gf.jpg (1130x1547, 991K)

Oh Janice. Tits or gtfo

janice is a classy lady tho

businesses require consumers, less people with (viable) work means less consumers. You cant just have a world of business owners and entrepreneurs. Also, business management is -very- quickly being taken over by computer algorithms as big data is collected.

Fair enough, I should have clarified what I meant by "jobs" in that I meant a job that provides a living, stable income.

Classy tits or gtfo then Janice

But, how many customer service jobs are there really? Not to mention how little weight most businesses put on that side of their company. Not to mention these jobs are effectively being given to slaves at this point.

dubs of truth.

While it is mainly about operating on minimal labor hours in conjunction with customer demand. It's not entirely the Front End Managers fault in most Walmart stores. Cashier is a hard position to hire for. It pays the least, long hours on your feet, and angry customers to deal with. That in conjunction with certain fast food restaurants willing to pay $1 more an hour for less work is more appealing and hard to attract and retain loyal employees with respective talent.

Source: I'm a Walmart Store Manager

Attached: 1556040841760.png (613x1087, 1.13M)

no prob.

the thing is, a lot of work is completely useless bullshit. the guy who LERND TO CODE and who writes intrusive popup ads to advertise fart apps isn't providing some vital social value that we'd be missing out on if he sat at home all day instead. in fact, capitalism is tying him up with wasted work when he could provide better value to society if he were freed from the profit motive and could instead spend his time doing 'unprofitable' work instead.

on the other hand, there are plenty of people sitting around sponging all day - it's just that they're not poor. there's plenty of rich fuckup sons sitting around in do-nothing jobs at daddy's firm that exist only to get them out of the house so they can leech off the family fortune from the comfort of their own private office, for example.

the idea that people won't work unless you threaten their ability to shelter themselves, and feed themselves, runs deeeeeep. and it's shit, and we should get rid of it imo.

>Cashier is a hard position to hire for. It pays the least
>certain fast food restaurants willing to pay $1 more
i can think of one way to attract more people to fill a position haha. i mean isnt that supposed to be a feature of capitalism, supply and demand and all that.

>i can think of one way to attract more people to fill a position

Despite the fact that I am a Store Manager, corporate does not allow me to hire cashiers at a higher pay grade. Raises only come yearly if the Associate does exceptional for their annual evaluation.

> i mean isnt that supposed to be a feature of capitalism

But you aren't considering supply and demand from the perspective of the worker. There are people who think that being a Walmart cashier is worth the money and might not have considered that any other option exists. Sometimes, there's people willing to be cashiers, but they are biding their time for other positions in the store, and trying to escape the front end.

> that's unfair
newsflash for retards: life is not fair

yeah i'm not holding you directly accountable or whatever. sorry if i sounded that way.

when i see something that's unfair, i think it's only right to at least try to change something so it's fair. surely we can agree on this?

You didn't at all. Sorry if I came off like a dick. My job requires me to direct and assume at all times. I have a hard time leaving the office at home.

> hate to break it to you, that market is drying up fast as algorithms can do it better.
not drying up fast, but it is indeed shrinking a bit. coding itself. not IT jobs
> In what venue does a computer not do it better than humans?
at the moment, almost everywhere where creativity is a factor. from poker to FX

> when i see something that's unfair, i think it's only right to at least try to change something so it's fair. surely we can agree on this?

no. maybe on things we have control over

i don't understand. mind fleshing this out a little? i just think it's wrong, morally, to write people off simply because they made valid life choices that, in hindsight, were incorrect, and that they couldn't have possibly known at the time would be incorrect in future.

like, off the top of my head, droppping out of work to raise the kids. fifteen years later dad runs away with the office whore, leaving janice to enter the job market again, fifteen years out of date. tale as old as time, that sort of thing. saying 'well janice why didn't you learn to code' isn't a solution to anything.

Vive la révolution

computers can create music, art, books, news right now with ease. In short time, pretty much anything else. And even if that wasnt the case, is our future just producing and consuming media?

>I don't see why people would be pissed off if it was automated with robots.
I think you mean
>I don't see why people would get pissed off when it's automated with robots.