As Amazon expands use of warehouse robots, what will it mean for workers?

it means more homeless families and bezos can buy another $500 million yacht.

As Amazon expands use of warehouse robots, what will it mean for workers?

If you have seen the movie Nomadland you know seasonal warehouse work and living in your vehicle is the last stop before homelessness for many Americans in this late stage capitalist economy.

With the automation wave and Trump/Musk economic proposals coming along I am truly fearful for the welfare of the American people.

Not exactly, Peter. The homeless families could work now for a warehouse robot producer. But if that doesn't happen, then the orders at Amazon shrink and the new Bezos yacht will only be a smaller $300 million one. Something like that....

Luddite moral panic not required. There are many limitations on what these systems can do. And as most first world countries have blocked migrant workers, there are staff shortages everywhere. Particularly in Japan and Brexit Britain. Trump's deportations will worsen the shortages in the US.

robots making robots…. in the dark.

It means we can stop all the Chicken-Little mewling about population decline

It means we can stop all the Chicken-Little mewling about population decline

How does it less working people solve the problem of having a higher and higher percentage of the population no longer economically active and dependent of the work of a segment of the population that is projected to decrease in number for decades to come?

So many base level jobs are being replaced with automation which means that tons pf people may not find work. The driver is the increasing cost of employing real humans and the perceived efficiency of robots and automation. There is a cost to society though.

How does it less working people solve the problem of having a higher and higher percentage of the population no longer economically active and dependent of the work of a segment of the population 

How does having even more unemployed people not exacerbate the issue of having to pay for the segment of the population that is no longer working?

How does having even more unemployed people not exacerbate the issue of having to pay for the segment of the population that is no longer working?

And therefore you have disproved your own claim. Warehouse robots means more unemployed people, so the worries about population decline (that reside on lack of economically active people necessary under the current system to support those that retired) are not solved, instead the problem is exacerbated even before the population itself declines (since people at an age where they would be considered economically active will not be).

And therefore you have disproved your own claim

How so? My claim is fewer people will be required when 50% of current jobs will have been made obsolete within the next 10 to 20 years. More people would result in more people collecting unemployment insurance which would only put more strain on the public coffers. You’d have the elderly…AND the increased number of unemployed to support. THAT would exacerbate the issue of the government not having enough funds to support public safety net programs such as welfare, unemployment insurance and pensions. How exactly does having more and more people taking from the public coffers support the public coffers?

How so?

The problem is the lack of economically active people to support the current system. Saying that young people will become economically inactive means the problem will be present sooner.

My claim is fewer people will be required when 50% of current jobs will have been made obsolete within the next 10 to 20 years.

Which in no way does anything to solve the problem that fewer people working means insufficient funds available for those that retire. The problem was never that there would be too many jobs for too few people but that there will be too few workers to keep the system afloat.

More people would result in more people collecting unemployment insurance 

Which is a consequence of automation, so the problem becomes worse with more people collecting insurance.

How exactly does having more and more people taking from the public coffers support the public coffers?

You are contradicting yourself, the current trend is for more and more people to become inactive because of age, with less and less economically active population. If that economically active population can't work that only means that the schedule for the problem aggravation just become faster.

Lets exaggerate the current situation right now so it becomes more clear.

0% automation and everybody works until retirement, so reduction on the number of young people can still maintain the system for longer.

100% automation, so nobody can work and people retired are still supposed to receive their pension, except that nobody is contributing so there are not enough funds, the system collapses right now instead of still many years in the future.

Your point is that making the problem much worse right now would prevent it from getting to that point in the future, but since the problem is already present that is no advantage, no benefit. Is like saying you will no longer have to pay for fire insurance if your house burns today.

Which in no way does anything to solve the problem that fewer people working means insufficient funds available for those that retire. The problem was never that there would be too many jobs for too few people but that there will be too few workers to keep the system afloat.

The "system" being that which currently supports 125 million people. Fewer people means fewer services, fewer schools, fewer hospitals needed. Short-sighted, short term solutions create long term problems, such as importing labour that will soon become unnecessary then as such will be a further burden on the public coffers. Japan can print money to offer the elderly UBI to sustain them without having a drastic effect on inflation. There are solutions besides importing labour which will soon become obsolete and therefore double the strain on the public coffers.

Your point is that making the problem much worse

No, my point is that an increase in immigration for the purpose of supporting "the system" will end up costing "the system" dearly within the next 10-20 years when those jobs (meant to support "the system") become obsolete and those workers would then be added to the elderly who require support from "the system"

That would be a short-sighted "solution" that would exacerbate the problem of not having enough money in "the system" as you would increase the number of those taking from "the system" rather than contributing to it.

The "system" being that which currently supports 125 million people. Fewer people means fewer services, fewer schools, fewer hospitals needed.

Thinking that less productive people would solve the problem is precisely this short-sighted approach, pretending that lack of need of labor automatically means lack of need of economic support for the system is where you are completely mistaken.

Japan can print money to... 

To do everything and solve nothing, pretending that printing money can replace actual economic production could not be more wrong. Absolutely nobody that knows about economy thinks this could solve the problem that is coming to Japan with higher and higher percentage of the population depending on fewer and fewer economically productive people.

No, my point is that an increase in immigration for the purpose of supporting "the system" will end up costing "the system" dearly within the next 10-20 years when those jobs (meant to support "the system") become obsolete and those workers would then be added to the elderly who require support from "the system"

Which, again, in no way justifies thinking that less people being able to work right now can mean an advantage for the crisis. When someone pokes huge holes in the "solution" you propose this is not refuted by saying another solution may have problems as well, especially when the problems you identify are not actually problems at all, immigration is not problem free, but that people will get old in decades to come is not one of them. This would be problematic only by pretending the population would decrease forever without ever reaching a balance, this is not a realistic scenario. In reality the problem is projected to continue for a few decades before the much higher proportion of retired people is reduced naturally by life expectancy and the deficit is reduced, immigration only needs to help during those decades, after which the balance can be maintained with the people that naturally become economically active inside the country since population reduction balances.

in no way justifies thinking that less people being able to work right now can mean an advantage for the crisis

*fewer people now means having fewer people on the dole in the near future. Having more people on the dole together with the elderly population which no longer works exacerbates the problem of the strain on the public coffers

A 50% reduction in jobs means 50% of the labour force will no longer be needed. If that 50% were to be imported then Japan would be importing a huge burden in unemployment insurance costs which wouldn’t be very prudent

since population reduction balances

Yes! The population naturally balances out to a sustainable number. This is what is currently occurring in Japan. The government is being short-sighted clamoring for a population increase. Likely because they only focus on the short term issue of needing more money now. More money for fewer services needed besides supporting the elderly is not needed. What they “need” is more money for lavish drinking parties and government programs from which to siphon their grift windfalls. The pension program could easily be supported by UBI propped up by printing money which would have little effect on inflation while supporting the economy by having more elderly with expendable income with which to stimulate the businesses they use. What’s not needed is an increase in unemployment greater than what will already have occurred due to AI and mass automation. Importing unemployment is not a prudent solution to the current demographic issue as it would only multiply the number of people in need of government assistance.

fewer people now means having fewer people on the dole in the near future

There is no "fewer people now" only fewer people working now. Why make such an obviously false argument? is it that there is nothing actually happening that you can use to defend your point? that would be a sign that the point is not worth defending.

A 50% reduction in jobs means 50% of the labour force will no longer be needed. 

And which since do nothing to reduce the people that are alive and economically productive now solves nothing and instead complicates the problem earlier than expected.

If that 50% were to be imported then Japan would be importing a huge burden in unemployment insurance costs which wouldn’t be very prudent

Again, that solves nothing about the actual problem which is the need of having more people working to prevent the collapse of the system, what you are arguing for is the abolishment of one possible solution, not solving anything. The only available solution right now is to have more people working, if automation makes that impossible that solution is out, and if automation makes working impossible right now that means the original problem is still completely unsolved and a new problem is present now to complicate things even more.

Yes! The population naturally balances out to a sustainable number. 

AFTER several decades of system collapse which is the problem that is worth preventing, not complicating as you suggest.

The government is being short-sighted clamoring for a population increase.

No it is not, it is clamoring for population balance, which is not going to happen for a long time and will have serious economic consequences. There is no need for "more money for more services" it is required "more money to support the people that are already here". This is not solved by making productive people unproductive.

The pension program could easily be supported by UBI propped up by printing money which would have little effect on inflation

You were challenged with the absolute lack of any actual expert saying this is feasible or even possible without serious consequences, that you were forced to just repeat this personal claim without giving any support demonstrates more than anything I could write how it is just a baseless recommendation without any actual benefit.

There is no "fewer people now" only fewer people working now.

Japan's population in 2010: 128,185,275

Japan's population in 2024: 123,753,041

Japan's projected population by 2035: 112–116.6 million

You were challenged with the absolute lack of any actual expert saying this is feasible or even possible without serious consequences,

And you were challenged with coming up with a viable solution for 50% of current jobs becoming obsolete within the next 10 to 20 years that doesn't rely on unsustainable population growth.

There was a study done on the dingo population of Fraser Island. When the population exeeded it's ability to sustain itself on what prey was available on the island, the dingoes began killing themselves...until their number balanced out to a sustainable level that matched the resources on the island. This happened instintively. The same thing is occurring with the Japanese population. It's instinctively and naturally levelling out to a more sustainable level. There is an economic levelling out of the world order due to globalisation. The US, Germany and Japan once dominated the world market, but with globalisation that market is being shared by more and more players. Japan is also an island nation surrounded by hostile neighbors and is only 35% self-suficient in terms of food sustianability. If Japan's shipping lanes were to be cut off in a geo-political confict involving any of those neighbors it would experience famine within weeks. What''s needed is not a bloated unsustainable population, but a focus on agriculture and food sustainability as well as a new economic model that doesn't rely on unsustainable population growth.

Japan's population in 2010: 128,185,275

Japan's population in 2024: 123,753,041

Japan's projected population by 2035: 112–116.6 million

Exactly, you again proved that your point is invalid, the current population in no way makes it less of a burden having less opportunities of work, and the projected reduction IS the problem that you never address and instead only try to demonstrate how one of the solutions will not work. That still means the problem of the unbalanced reduction of population is as serious as always and that making more unemployed people right now do absolutely nothing to alleviate it.

And you were challenged with coming up with a viable solution for 50% of current jobs becoming obsolete within the next 10 to 20 years that doesn't rely on unsustainable population growth.

No I did not, because differently from you that has never been my point. My point has always been that your proposed solution is not realistically beneficial, as clearly as you have been repeatedly unable to support it with the opinion of any expert. It is as valid as saying that printing money will solve any and all problems no matter how many jobs are available or how many people come to the country, magical thinking not based on actual economic realities.

When the population exeeded it's ability to sustain itself on what prey was available on the island, the dingoes began killing themselves...until their number balanced out to a sustainable level that matched the resources on the island.

And having less available "prey" sooner do absolutely nothing to make the situation more tolerable, instead it does the opposite, and one extra decade of problems is added thanks to what you suggest is positive.

The same thing is occurring with the Japanese population

And will come with literally decades of imbalance that will cause immense problems that should be dealt with from now if not before, problems that you invalidly think become better by bringing them now instead of the little remainiing time where the currently active population can still sustain the system.

What''s needed is not a bloated unsustainable population,

Which is what you propose, to somehow maintain an unbalanced population demographics with less people working.

but a focus on agriculture and food sustainability as well as a new economic model that doesn't rely on unsustainable population growth.

None of which involves having more automation to leave population that would be economically active unemployed, which was your original claim.

the projected reduction IS the problem

The projected reduction IS the SOLUTION

Fewer people for the 50% fewer jobs that will be available within the next 10 to 20 years. Not more people for fewer jobs, that would only mean more unemployed. So you'd be creating an additional problem by trying to solve a current one. That is you would not only have the elderly who no longer work... but the unemployed whose jobs have become obsolete.

People are countable. Therefore, it's *fewer people, not "less people".

You're welcome

Here, let me try it in crayon for you.

There is currently 60% of the population that is between the ages of 15-65 in Japan, with 30% of the population over the age of 65. So, let's say there are 60 people and 58 jobs (Japan's current unemployment rate is 2.5%. The people working those 58 jobs have to pay into the coffers to support the 2 people that aren't working along with the 30 who no longer work. Let's get more people so we can support those 32! Great idea...until 10 to 20 years pass, then only 30 people will be working and they'll have to pay for not only the 35 elderly (their number will increase) but the glut of unemployable people you've added through immigration to solve your current issue. So now you've doubled the strain on the public coffers! Well Done! Limiting UBI for the elderly alone would be one solution that would have less of an economic impact than importing labour that would only become obsolete then end up being a double burden on the public coffers.

The projected reduction IS the SOLUTION

Definetely not, you have never argued how this is in any way the solution except for the magical thinking that printing money solves anything.

Once again, the problem is the lack of people producing, so reducing the people even more solves absolutely nothing. It is irrelevant how many jobs there will be or not since there is not enough people to work to sustain the system. You have yet to address this as the problem, continuously ignoring it as if that would solve it when obviously that is not the case.

People are countable. Therefore, it's *fewer people, not "less people".

You're welcome

Once you reduce yourself to "discuss" the wording it becomes clear you already gave up trying to discuss the arguments.

Here, let me try it in crayon for you.

You keep making the same mistake. Your example only makes it more clear how you refuse to address the actual problem and make a completely different scenario that is not happening just to have something to criticize:

The people working those 58 jobs have to pay into the coffers to support the 2 people that aren't working along with the 30 who no longer work. 

And the solution you proposed in your original comment is to have 28 less jobs for the people, which obviously makes everything worse long before there is even less people able to work. How? by magic since you offered absolutely no reasoning for this to happen. If this situation would have taken 10 years in the future to develop you are proposing to accelerate the deficit without ever representing any benefit. Your solution (the "oh so good automation" is the one that doubled the deficit.

Once again, the problem is the lack of people producing, so reducing the people even more solves absolutely nothing

The increased glut of those not producing is the problem

And the solution you proposed in your original comment is to have 28 less jobs for the people,

Wrong. The issue is *there will be 50% fewer jobs**

The increased glut of those not producing is the problem

And your "solution" is to increase the number of those not producing, obviously making things worse, there is even no need for any increase of population you guarantee the problem will worsen anyway.

Wrong. The issue is *there will be 50% fewer jobs**

Because of automation, which you said was something good, because apparently you believe that having less people being productive somehow will make production better and becomes easier to support those that no longer are able to produce, it is clear this makes absolutely no sense.