Automation Displacement Quotes

The great question, however, for the poor man is, or shortly will be, that of escape from competition with labor-saving machinery

We believe that if men have the talent to invent new machines that put men out of work, they have the talent to put those men back to work.

There were a lot of manufacturing jobs lost over a long period of time and particularly after - during the Great Recession. We've had some recovery in manufacturing employment as the economy's recovered.

Robots have solved and will continue to solve so many human problems. Except for all the ones that they cause.

Despite our high rate of unemployment, 300,000 jobs go unfilled largely because many of the unemployed lack the skills needed today as a result of technological progress.

Sooner or later, the U.S. will face mounting job losses due to advances in automation, artificial intelligence, and robotics.

The optimism that many felt in the 1960s over labour-saving technology is giving way to a fearful question: 'Will your labour be good for anything in the future? Or will you be replaced by a machine?'

Technology is advancing at breakneck speed, upending old ways of doing business and resetting the social contract between employers and employees.

Man will never be enslaved by machinery if the man tending the machine be paid enough.

The Korean government is the first to declare that if you replace people with machines you have to pay a tax. It's a tax on robots. They make private companies internalise the social cost of unemployment. Social benefit is not the same as private benefit. We have to realise this.

The last 200 years, we've had an incredible amount of automation. We have tractors that do the work that horses and people used to do on farms. We don't dig ditches by hand anymore. We don't pound tools out of wrought iron. We don't do bookkeeping with books! But this has not, in net, reduced the amount of employment.

I see three forces militating in favor of growing inequality: increasing measurement of worker value added, automation through smart software, and globalization.

I don't think that all the coal miners - or even more realistically, say, the truck drivers whose jobs may be put out by self-driving cars and trucks - they're all going to go and become web designers and programmers.

I think there can be a positive sort of futurism even in a presentist society. But I think it's a kind of futurism that envisions augmenting human ability and intellect rather than creating some artificial machine intelligence that displaces us.

The impending destruction of jobs due to automation and AI technologies is definitely increasing the need for - and speed at which - we have to implement big solutions, such as a universal basic income.

I think a lot of scapegoating has been done on NAFTA. The reality is, a lot of the jobs have been lost mostly to technology. And that is something that happens well beyond the reach of NAFTA or any other trade agreement.

The call to rein in globalization reflects a belief that it has eliminated jobs in the West, sending them East and South. But the biggest threat to traditional jobs is not Chinese or Mexican; it is a robot.

I think automation will eliminate certain types of jobs - lower income, lower-skilled jobs in manufacturing. But nobody knows whether it's going to change the job basket of the 21st century, or be net positive, or net negative.

Immigrants are not the main threat to the industrialized world's workforce: robots are - or, rather, artificially intelligent robots are.

A universal basic income funded by a value-added tax, which is a tax placed on a product whenever value is added at each stage of the supply chain, from production to the point of sale, would spread the benefits of automation to a much wider group of people.

At the end of the day, the truth is that if - when - robots prevail, so many vocations will actually become close to impossible. Save for the profession of making robots, that is.

My biggest worry is that no one seems to notice that we are not going to stop the technical progress that is going to continue to displace people through automation.

I don't think that globalisation is anywhere near the threat that robots are.

Good intentions can often lead to unintended consequences. It is hard to imagine a law intended for the workforce known to Henry Ford can serve the needs of a workplace shaped by the innovations of Bill Gates.

People have long feared that mechanization might cause mass unemployment. This never happened because, as old professions became obsolete, new professions evolved, and there was always something humans could do better than machines. Yet this is not a law of nature, and nothing guarantees it will continue to be like that in the future.