Resolved: The advacement of technology will significantly harm the job market.

When it comes to change, people are naturally a little weary. Such has been the case with most major social dynamics concerning the economy and the Job market. Anything that people feel like will result in the loss of jobs, people will automatically become a bit skeptical. The same dynamic is seen toward immigration, and significant economical changes in a specific state. Well, my goal in this debate it to quell those worries by showing how technology will help, rather than hurt the job market! I will be covering my opponents arguments within my own arguments.1) Technology works alongside humans, and creates more work!My opponent posts a video of a car factory busy at work mass producing vehicles. What you may also have noticed in the video is a couple of humans walking by in some of the frames assisting with some of the work. It is simply impossible right now to have a business run on pure technology, and that is because the human aspect will almost always be needed in conjunction with the technology, especially in a warehouse environment. The machine helps with the work, but without multiple people to tell it exactly what to do, it doesn't operate nearly as effectively. As someone who works in a warehouse, let me elaborate a little more clearly on how this works. Let's take a Wal-Mart distribution center, that has some of the coolest technology working to ship out the hundreds of thousands of different boxes being sent out to each of it's distributors daily. Most have 15-20 miles (1) of conveyor systems, a couple hundred fork lifts, computer systems used to properly convey all information accurately, and an advance computer scanning system that finds labels and sends each box to it's specific store automatically as a box passes through. The technology is incredible, but what is more incredible is the need of a human to operate and control all of this equipment, which leaves wal-mart distribution centers almost always hiring. They need someone on these forklifts pulling pallets from trucks to load on the conveyor belt. People labeling boxes appropriately and sending them to staples stock, or to break-pack employees who pick out individual items a store requests. They need supervisors, managers, and HR representatives for all the employees in these individual areas, that leaves distribution centers constantly hiring. The best part is some of these jobs that have higher responsibility in maintaining this expensive technology, also end up paying higher. Let's take your average distribution warehouse job- In Utah, it pays out starting at 16.50 and hour, and is an exceptionally easy job to get as long as you meet the physical requirements. Distribution centers around the states also pay competitively according to the states individual economy. Now let's get back to the car factory point, because it may be true that some companies use technology in a way that requires less humans than others. If you look at the description in my opponent's first video however, it says the following: "In answer to the many who have commented "how many people have these robots put out of work" the answer is 0. The factory was built in a town which had high unemployment after the Soviets left, and the production line is a small part of a plant which employs several thousand."Also whenever new technology is created, it requires people building this technology. That is a whole other job market that opens itself up for potential jobless people looking for careers. It's easy to see a small portion of a company where technology advancement looks amazing, and jump to the conclusion that the robots are taking over. The same could be said from someone taking a tour of a wal-mart distribution center looking at the amazing conveyor/scanning technology, but at the end of the day, great technology works best in the hands of great employees. 2) Are machines a feasible replacement to humans?Jonbonbon in the last round points out some benefits machines have to humans, which can be true, but there are also a lot of benefits humans have over machines. Machines that are used constantly or frequently get wear and tear, or break down. This requires human assistance to provide maintenance. This maintenance can be costly, especially if repairs are needed or parts need replacements. Also Burger Bot won't make the best burger; To have a machine move parts of a sandwich around is interesting, but it's not the most enticing principle ever. When I go to a burger joint, I choose where I go based on the taste and quality of the patty. How many people are interested in paying for a burger that was just thrown together without a human to verify it is the right temperature, the vegetables were in good condition and not rotted, the ketchup/mustard bottles are full and actually giving the right amount of sauce, etc, etc. Leaving a machine in charge of making food can be a very dangerous idea when talking about FDA inspections and customer service relations. Technology can potentially cost more than an employee. Let's use the burger bot example again, and say you had to pay a pretty penny to get the technology in the first place. Is buying the technology for let's say 50k, spending all the money constantly doing maintenance, and funding all the extra electricity bills, and potentially having messed up burgers. It is worth the money to do this when you can pay a fast food employee less than 25k a year, give them proper training to add the human touch?3) Customer Service RelationshipsHow does this play in customer service roles? Let's talk about Sophia. How many times have you yelled at your GPS because it is taking you a route that you know is longer, or doesn't account for construction in certain areas? How many times do we blame our phones for auto-correct messing up a sext and ruining our date? My opponent points out that phone operating companies being automated makes a smoother process, but how many times have you tried to use your voice with an operator system to tell it what you need so it can try to direct you where to go, just for it to push you through to the wrong department because it 'mis-heard you' or asks you annoyingly to repeat yourself many multiple times? Quite simply, while technology like Sophia is very interesting, it is bound to run into many of the same problem areas other technology quite often runs into. In the video with Sophia posted by my opponent, it's easy to see that Sophia is answering interview questions with typed out lines, fed by the producers. But how would this work realistically in a stake n shake? I tell the machine "I want a Caramel Shake with French fries", and it potentially hears "I want a Caramel Shake with extra ice". It's going to be a problem without a human presence to verify that everything is working properly. The logistics behind how this can work flawlessly are ultimately unknown by my opponent and myself, as much of this technology is only being tested and not released. But in the customer service industry, this may bring up a lot of problems. Imagine the impact technology will have on the technology impaired, or the elderly! People being forced to talk to computers when they have difficulty understanding them and how they operate. While having technology is awesome for people in the wal-mart or McDonald's checkout line that want to stream line the process with the machines, it remains un-realistic to think the human option of customer service will be completely ruled out from the endeavors. With all these potential errors that technology can provide (and often does, again referring to the GPS and cell-phone examples), is it really accurate to predict self-driving cars and machines that perform heart surgery are going to be flawless and provide less accidents? Further would you as a consumer trust yourself in the hands of a licensed profession surgeon who has done what he/she has done for years and has a degree, or a machine that can have any number of things go wrong with it. All it takes is for the power to go out and the patient is screwed, where as a doctor with knowledge and expertise in his field can improvise and use tools that don't require technology to perform the surgery. While it is easy to fantasize about the wonders of technology, we also have to be realistic in how we approach them and their over-use in the modern day world. A human presence will not become obsolete, and while it is true that technology is impacting the world, I am a firm believer that technology will only ever work alongside humans effectively.1. http://www.mwpvl.com...