Personally I think this will generate some social unrest in my hometown where foxconn has a factory. Those robots will drive millions of young workforces out of a basic job. I'm pretty concerned about the near future.
In the long term though, this seems to be the only way to go: automate boring jobs.
From the perspective of the owner, the social unrest is a temporary problem. As robots take over jobs, the potential for social unrest in the future reduces. Bosses don't have to worry about wage demands, housing, transport, kids, strikes etc.
They're unfortunately not focused on automating boring jobs, which would at least have some benefit for the worker. They're reducing variability and the need to negotiate with humans.
How long before the next jobs are eliminated, then middle management jobs, then everyone except those who own the robots?
In my country we've had miners striking, demanding pretty large increases. My default answer has been to automate the lot and put robots underground, but on the other hand...
>From the perspective of the owner, the social unrest is a temporary problem. As robots take over jobs, the potential for social unrest in the future reduces. Bosses don't have to worry about wage demands, housing, transport, kids, strikes etc.
That's not how it works. You're thinking it of the perspective of the factory owner, not the overall society.
In fact, the potential of social unrest in the future increases: all those people, brought over from their villages and left unemployed in the big city, with wages for unskilled labor going down (due to even less demand after the automation of most jobs), and no future, will not end well.
>In my country we've had miners striking, demanding pretty large increases. My default answer has been to automate the lot and put robots underground, but on the other hand...
But on the other hand, we have (as a society) exploited the work of those workers at the time that the job could not be automated (which is still the case today mostly), while paying them less that it's worth it.
"You'll work for a pittance, and if you argue about it, we will force you to using the police instead of negotiating better wages."
And that in an extremely harsh job, where a huge percentage of miners dies of cancer.
I'd ask you to read it again. I'm arguing for the workers, but pointing out why the managers are making their decisions.
It's not because they're trying to make boring work go away. Managers don't optimise for the health of society. They do it for their own gains.
> all those people, brought over from their villages and left unemployed in the big city
They're migrant workers. They have to go home after their term is complete. In China you can't just move to a new city or region.
I'm not saying it's right. I'm pointing out the perspective of the decision makers. With respect to the miners I was pointing out the obvious parallels, and why my default perspective on striking miners might not be correct.
In the long term though, this seems to be the only way to go: automate boring jobs.