GarryP

If we assume that most of those cars will end up being robotaxis, the parking demand is reduced, not increased.

You might, but those who have grown up online? Do you think they will be that enamored of the physical meeting, particularly if we are talking real AR solutions (not skype). I have a feeling that's another bit of conventional wisdom that will progressively dissipate.

Plus, of course, automation of the sales function....

Once again, the tech/service company creates automation X which allows company Y to get rid of Z hundreds of staff, paying for the automation. If the global economy then goes into a nose dive - well nobody said capitalism was smart.

As has been explained, if there are no more jobs you are capable of doing, if automation can do all that you can do, you are by definition unemployable.

Beoz

RoboTaxis pricing the same as a train or bus. Cool. That will work, but I think you may have over estimated the pricing model.

Yes even those who have grown up online. If you are going to spend millions on a system, you aren't going to buy through a website without meeting the faces behind it, several times.

Of course that will all change when the machines make the decisions for us. Skynet will rock.

Bit of a shot self in foot moment there Garry. Z hundreds of staff no longer have money to keep both X and Y company a float. You getting this yet?


Bit like the effect the decimation of the textile and farming industry had on jobs. Again I will ask, what changes from here?

GarryP

Hey look, no sooner have I said that online will start to take the place of physical public transport journeys and ....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...=.7306a5f2dad3

You don't seem to be able to work out the ordering on this. Z hundreds of people losing jobs is after X & Y have exchanged money. And the government will probably be blamed first as well (probably for not cutting taxes if right wingers are involved).

You getting this yet? Or have you run out of feet to shoot yourself in?

Try rereading what's been written if it hasn't sunk in, it's not that complex.

Shard

Why don't you understand the potential of smart machines Beoz? You keep asking what's different this time, a little reading on AI in 2016, 2017 onward will inform you considerably. It's not all going to be constrained by traditional lack of investment. As Garry keeps pointing out you need to understand scale and minimal marginal cost. No Facebook or Amazon without that, despite your very worthy 19th century economic axioms.

scrubbedexpat098

I'm stoked with this automation work, mainly because I like watching How It's Made on discovery. Chocolate chip cookies and bagles next week, can't wait

Beoz

.... and? We know people work from home, we know people have meetings via skype and webex (I told you earlier). What you didn't tell us that your article also cited bad servicing and ride sharing for its decline. When it suits you right?

Meanwhile, speaking of travelling. Well would you look at that. Economic conditions caused the blip in passenger numbers, not Skype or Webex.

And look at that again, business classes are well and truly back on track since the GFC.



No No No. Its not a single cycle my friend, its a repeat cycle. So where ever you are in the cycle Z is before X & Y. There your theory is screwed.

Surely this must be making sense? How's that foot? 2 shots must hurt.


Re-read what? You've not explained yourself yet. What happen to all those farmers, what happen to all the textile workers. Why did we survive?

Beoz

The potential is amazing. The potential was amazing when the designed the tractor. Nothing happen did it?

To understand scale you need to understand the business behind technology. We don't make shit if it doesn't sell. Its as simple as that. Do you think tech companies will do it for charity or for fun? Get real.

GarryP

You aren't related to Trunbull, are you?

The article specifically stated that the decline couldn't be mainly attributed to service quality - but you really didn't want to face the proof of your incorrect understanding, did you?

Lies, damn lies, and dodgy axes. Take a look what happens if you don't fiddle two axes.


Now you have both the economy and business seats declining at the same rate with the GFC, but only economy really climbing out of the doldrums post 2007.


Actually it's YOUR cycle that's screwed. X sells automation tech to Y who can then undercut the competition. So if the Z staff can no longer afford as many of the service/widgets of Y, which companies do you think go to the wall - those with a lower cost base, or those still employing Z workers?

So its the automation that wins out, and even more Z workers are unemployable, with the Y automation companies doubly able to take that work. It's first mover advantage magnified by economic downturn.

Here's a clue, I know for feedback loops. All you are going to do is turning your own feet into swiss cheese.

It's been explained to you, several times by now.

uk_grenada

Dont forget [see postscript :-)]

Beoz

Why do you do this to yourself. You keep bleating on about automation killing jobs. I keep smashing your theory. You keep coming up with no proof. I keep providing factual evidence.

Lets keep it simple. What happen to the farmers? At least try and answer that.

Shard

You're not so much smashing any theories as deluding yourself. Rather than dredge up historical statistics from a former age, why address why in a competitive market place firms will not implement technologies that give them a cost advantage. The argument that they don't want to impoverish their potential customers is invalid.

Beoz

I have addressed it many times. Lets do it again. Firms would rather implement technologies that make money, not save money. Remember, saving is finite, making money is infinite. The finite takes a back seat to the infinite.

Its quite the opposite. Technology companies do want to impoverish their customers. They want the money in their customers bank accounts, moving to their own. The problem is, if their customers have no money, there's no money to shift.

As we know, the first thing technology companies wind back when economic hard times hit is R&D, and they revert to maintaining the existing customer base.

If any of what you say has an ounce of truth, and a large portion of world finds themselves without money, the last thing they will be buying is technology, and as a result, technology development stagnates because the technology companies are without money too.

Are you starting to see how this works?

BTW, how are those farmers doing?

Beoz

Well what do ya know. Someone at news.com.au has been reading this thread and caught on to a few posts around the 500 mark.

Did we not talk about in-store experiences earlier?

Baby Boomers and Pre-Boomers want good customer service and a checkout process that is nice and simple.
Generation Y and Z had different needs. They want shops to provide them with “in store experiences” — that is the much vaunted “excite and delight” retail mantra of reeling in the dollars by wowing the customers.
For instance, Harvey Norman’s new flagship store in Auburn, in Sydney’s west, includes barista and cooking demonstrations, virtual reality gaming exhibits, GoPro workshops and in-store video game sessions against famous gamers.

Amazon: What bricks and mortar retailers need to change to stop drift online

GarryP

That's just Gerry Harvey trying to spruik his new store (it seems important to him, heard the ads?) and keep investors from running away as Amazon comes to clean his clock. It's more wishful thinking than anything.

What he wants people to believe is that oldsters without much nouse will go into his stores, and wowed by 'demonstrations' and blatant lies by spotty teenagers, will pay him 30% profit margins. Problem is, of course, electronics is a commodity game and the margins of online stores are much less - so practical reality is people showroom and don't hand over the cash (not a debate, look at Dixons & Comet in the UK).

Beoz

Errr. Gerry Harvey had no input into this article. Nice try though.

The shift is on. You can be a Dixons or Comet if you like, or you can evolve and provide the in store experience with the prices to match online - and those price matches are happening, if not bettering the online model. Go into any Bing Lee store and hold up the online price. If they haven't already beaten it, they will.

How we doing on the farmers?