I would hire a human, because for every job that a true robot eliminates, it creates one more expensive in the form of technicians. In addition, humans are far more adaptable and easily replaced. I don’t think there is a real difference in quality of work between a man and a woman, I just wouldn’t want to hire a newlywed because I would be paying for maternity leave with months to a couple years.
I would hire a human. As somebody who's known several family members that have lost jobs, the "lets replace employees with objects we don't have to pay (or people we don't have to pay as much)" mentality makes my blood boil.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGS: Where criticism of staff is a bannable offense.
Quote from Blinking Spirit »
Quote from TheButt »
My sig is not trolling. And it's not opinion, it's fact.
And I'm not changing it. I'm not gonna be browbeated by a moderator, simply because you don't like the fact that I'm bringing to light that the staff suspends half-decent posters, while allowing trolls to run rampant.
Well, you've still got about fourteen hours before you're infracted for noncompliance. Talk to whomever you want.
A wealthy employer would purchase the robot over hiring a human if it could perform the same task and that human's total pay would equate to more after X amount of time than the robot's initial price tag plus expected maintenance costs, where X is less than the amount of time the robot will be operable for. Knowing these particular figures is essential to answering a question like this, but you did not ask this particular question- instead, you asked if an employer would hire a robot over a human. That brings me to a question in response:
In your question's scenario, is the robot owned by its manufacturer or original buyer and "leased" out to employers (to hire it) for a given number of hours per day/week/etc.?
From a managerial standpoint, the prospect of no bickering and no slacking is pretty nice. In the end it'd come down to a cost-benefit analysis, and if they were cost inefficient, then they could still be useful as robot temps while in the hiring process.
I would probably try to avoid it, because it would hurt on the economy on a large scale. As if only me doing anything about it would matter.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Virtue, Jacques, is an excellent thing. Both good people and wicked people speak highly of it..."
1. What's the liability for the job for a human doing the work?
2. What's the upkeep cost?
$320k for a robot is a lot. If this means hypothetically for a business to allow a robot to do some extremely dangerous work like radiation work it is worth it. Part of the issues with liabilities and getting sued extends from dangerous jobs.
However, there are still jobs that require a person to repair the machine, make sure if the robot screws up that the job gets done, hacker prevention, and other such jobs related to keeping the robot functional. So I'm not too convinced with the hidden costs whether the robot is the "cheaper source of labor" or not.
There's a big difference between an automated arm doing the work of a line worker, and another doing something like building a house. Without a level of "artistry" for specific skilled laborer jobs, robots aren't going to replace people until programming evolves to get human level AI or close.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I don’t think there is a real difference in quality of work between a man and a woman, I just wouldn’t want to hire a newlywed because I would be paying for maternity leave with months to a couple years.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
In your question's scenario, is the robot owned by its manufacturer or original buyer and "leased" out to employers (to hire it) for a given number of hours per day/week/etc.?
I would probably try to avoid it, because it would hurt on the economy on a large scale. As if only me doing anything about it would matter.
2. What's the upkeep cost?
$320k for a robot is a lot. If this means hypothetically for a business to allow a robot to do some extremely dangerous work like radiation work it is worth it. Part of the issues with liabilities and getting sued extends from dangerous jobs.
However, there are still jobs that require a person to repair the machine, make sure if the robot screws up that the job gets done, hacker prevention, and other such jobs related to keeping the robot functional. So I'm not too convinced with the hidden costs whether the robot is the "cheaper source of labor" or not.
There's a big difference between an automated arm doing the work of a line worker, and another doing something like building a house. Without a level of "artistry" for specific skilled laborer jobs, robots aren't going to replace people until programming evolves to get human level AI or close.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.