a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:

I think for the foreseeable future robots will wear out and the industry
> will be more like the car industry where you have to buy a new one every so
> many years and it will then have more advanced features.
>

I agree, but cars cost a smaller fraction of income than they used to, and
the cost will only continue to fall. Robots will be the same way, I think.
That is why they will gradually replace most human workers. It will take
decades. Also, like obsolete cars and computers, obsolete robots that still
work will be productive assets. They will still be cheaper than people.

A couple of caveats:

Cars are cheaper than they have ever been, and getting cheaper still, when
you look at the overall cost of ownership. Not just the sticker price, but
the cost of automobile insurance and accidents. Accidents cause less harm
and cost less money thanks to seat belts, air bags, crumple zones and
improved roads. You also have to look at the cost of maintenance which is
much cheaper, and the sticker price divided by longevity. Cars last much
longer than they used to.

Obsolete cars remain useful for long time. My car is 22 years old. Obsolete
computers are used in nearly all ATMs and in many offices.

Here is a computer from 1948 that was still in use in 2012. It was probably
cheaper than manual accounting.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/249951/computers/if-it-aint-broke-dont-fix-it-ancient-computers-in-use-today.html

The big question is: Will the robots themselves be owned by 1% elite, or
controlled the 1%, or will they be like today's personal computers, owned
by everyone, and used by everyone? I predict the latter, and I also predict
the cost will fall because of competition by different robot makers. If I
am right, there is less danger of concentration of wealth by robots, and
somewhat less danger of massive unemployment. If I have a robot that
produces most of the goods and services I need, I don't need a job. (It
isn't quite that simple, as I said, but that is the general principle.)

- Jed

Reply via email to