This Was the Year the Robot Takeover of Service Jobs Began (gizmodo.com) 207
merbs writes: Out of the three major sectors of the economy -- agriculture, manufacturing, and service -- two are already largely automated. Farm labor, which about half the American workforce used to do, now comprises around 2 percent of American jobs. And we all know the rust belt song and dance, beat out to outsourcing and mechanization. Which is largely why some 80 percent of all American jobs are service jobs. And this year, quietly but in the open, the robots and their investors came for them, too.
There's a case to be made that 2018 is the year automation took its biggest lunge forward toward our largest pool of human labor: Amazon opened five cashier-less stores; three in Seattle, one in Chicago, and one in San Francisco. Self-ordering kiosks invaded fast food and franchise restaurants in a big way. Smaller robot-centric outfits like the long-awaited auto-burger joint Creator opened, too, and so did a number of others.
In Las Vegas, our service job mecca, hotels' and casinos' widespread plans for automation in everything from bartending to waitstaff to hotel work led one of the city's most powerful hospitality unions to the brink of a 50,000-person strike last summer before a successful negotiation was reached... Combined, they act as a set of markers on a trendline we can no longer ignore. We face the prospect of major upheaval in the last dependable pool of jobs we've got.
There's a case to be made that 2018 is the year automation took its biggest lunge forward toward our largest pool of human labor: Amazon opened five cashier-less stores; three in Seattle, one in Chicago, and one in San Francisco. Self-ordering kiosks invaded fast food and franchise restaurants in a big way. Smaller robot-centric outfits like the long-awaited auto-burger joint Creator opened, too, and so did a number of others.
In Las Vegas, our service job mecca, hotels' and casinos' widespread plans for automation in everything from bartending to waitstaff to hotel work led one of the city's most powerful hospitality unions to the brink of a 50,000-person strike last summer before a successful negotiation was reached... Combined, they act as a set of markers on a trendline we can no longer ignore. We face the prospect of major upheaval in the last dependable pool of jobs we've got.
Unemployment rate at 50 year low (Score:2)
Re:Unemployment rate at 50 year low (Score:5, Informative)
- The DOD now has over 2.8 million active or reserve on payroll
- The DHS has 229k they also use a massive number of full time contractors (let's assume 100k)
- The TSA has 60k (they also use up to 1 million additional contractors)
- The DoE is 13k employed another 120k consultants/contractors
- Police departments employ over a million people
- Fire has over 1.1 million
- Half a million prison guards, but it looks like there's 3 times as many workers at prisons as guards... so let's say 1.5 million prison workers
- Can't find the count, but adding heads at defense contractors (Lockheed, Honeywell, etc...) I come up with about 10 million people
- There are at least 2.2 million people removed from the count because of incarceration
- There are 10-20 million people working jobs not directly for the military but that wouldn't exist if not for the military. This includes things like gas stations near base.
- There where about 1.2 million federally funded road construction jobs in 2018
- There were probably about another 1.2 million jobs producing road construction equipment and supplies.
There are a total of 180 million working age (not working eligible) people in the U.S. meaning 20-64 years old. It took me 5 minutes of using Google to get this far.
I didn't even get creative, but I'd imagine that the U.S. government now employs at least one of 3 eligible Americans or simply removes them from the job market.
Let's also consider that the labor force participation rate was 62.9% last year. That means of the 180 million, only about a 100 million are actually trying to work.
Remove another 4 percent or so from the count as they are unemployed. And about 28 million are part time workers (working less than 35 hours a week). So, we're now down to about 68 million full time employed workers.
I also see that on average 1 in 3 workers are part of the gig economy which I have no idea what that really equates so. Someone says it's 16 million another one says it's more like 60 million.
No... the unemployment rate is absolutely horrible.
Re:Unemployment rate at 50 year low (Score:5, Insightful)
So what you are saying is the US government should use more automation and sack as many people as possible and this will solve the problem.
Automation does not seem to be the problem, how you distribute the income of automation does. So do you automate to the level where you have no workers and thus eliminate all workers as customers and thus do not need any automation because you have no customers.
Really the only problem how to distribute the rewards of automation. We all know the psychopathic 1% wants it all, not most, ALL and for the rest, well we are consumables to be used and abused, to feed ego and lusts. That is the reality of the conflict, a class one, the exploiters, the psychopaths vs the normies, the exploited.
Labor force participation rate sucks though (Score:3)
You have to go back to the early 1980's to get such a bad labor force participation rate though... It's been pretty much like that since 2009.
Re: (Score:2)
If you believe the official numbers, you're fooling yourself. I haven't checked into it in detail for awhile, but every time I did they have jiggered the numbers in a new way. I understand that those who follow the numbers carefully do have a way of tracking what's happening, but the numbers reported as "unemployment" bear little to no relation to reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And give him .. a nonconcurrent Sentence, for crimes. Against punctuation
Re: (Score:2)
Oh right. They wouldn't just throw you in fail for not paying taxes.
They can't throw everybody in 'fail'.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
a) The government protects jobs from robots and other countries don't and the U.S. economy weakens due their insanely high labor cost and overall inefficiency
b) Robots do the majority of the work and decrease the costs of living for the average American low enough to survive off of deficit funded welfare
The jobs will be automated or the companies will lose their asses to the companies in other countries who automated.
"I'll be back..." (Score:2)
"...with your order in about five minutes."
Happened to me (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
subsidies (Score:5, Insightful)
We can continue to provide government subsidies [thoughtco.com], charge high import tariff on farm products [heritage.org] to make sure the farm industry can replace workers with robots, while blaming China for the lost jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
At last, AC, you have solved my problem: I will become a professional hypocrite - it is obviously the job in highest demand in America!
And the big question must be... (Score:3, Interesting)
How will people earn respect
Please reply with your ideas, ideally without trolling. I would especially like to hear anything beyond the extremes of Death Universal Basic Income. Neither of these allow for self-respect.
Re:And the big question must be... (Score:5, Insightful)
.
To use language that might draw the ire of some but which I think accurate, it is mostly the 19th-21st Century construction of masculinity in some places that equated earning your own living with self-respect---before that, what most people admired were aristos or gentlemen who by definition didn't. I mean, being self-supporting was considered desirable and worthy of respect, but it wasn't the sine qua non for self-respect. Making self-respect dependent on a job was in some way an opiate for the men who had to do them to live, and though I think opiates can be fun when not necessary, they should be treated with care.
.
The only shame I can see in being supported is in the pain of those doing the supporting....
Re: (Score:2)
Death, maintenance, and art. A shit-ton of people are going to die in poverty because they are unnecessary (and the elimination of service jobs is happening suddenly with no time to adapt) and the ones that don't die will maintain the machines the rich need to be rich or will make art (TV, movies, music) the wealthy consume. I would hope that the ability to create things like food and shelter would experience some democratization, but I doubt it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
ideally without trolling.
I see that you are new to the internet. Welcome!
The problem seems intractable. In the past, we expected people to move up the knowledge curve as technology undermined the bottom. Now, technology is moving up the curve, and people will not in mass numbers be capable of moving further up to outpace it.
Slow motion social collapse, possibly. Or maybe there will be some novel thing to come in and provide jobs only humans can do for billions. However that does not seem so very likely, and nobody has identifie
Re: (Score:3)
There needs to be a separation between work and respect. This has been vitally needed for a long time, but it's not profitable to those in power...and profit here doesn't really refer to money, it refers to power and esteem.
The problem is that not all jobs CAN be automated. So some people are going to need to work. And the amount of work needed is greater than people will do without exterior motivation. (Also the goals. Now that I've retired I only program half to a third as much, but what I program is
Re: (Score:2)
What's the real difference between an automated hamburger maker and a sandwich vending machine?
A human had to make the sandwich and stick it in the vending machine. Presumably they got paid to do this.
Re: (Score:2)
Originally that was true, though I'm not sure it currently is. But it took a lot fewer people to make the sandwiches that ended up in the vending machines than the people who used to make the sandwiches. One of the things that changed was that the hours of availability increased dramatically, even though the quality decreased. So more sandwiches were sold. So *PERHAPS* the total number of sandwich makers remained the same...but I doubt it. The people making sandwiches in the cafe's had a lot of down ti
Re: (Score:3)
When a machine in China can sort trash automatically using ML and cameras (in testing) and can recycle this waste into materials using minimal staff, then deliver those materials to factories which can produce manufactured homes for pennies on the dollar today.... what will happen to housing prices which is where most people in the world store their money today?
When a meat can be produced by machine instead of from animals and programs like those sponsored by the Gates Foundation or
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless the rich are extremely stupid, (which, clearly, many are) they know the robots can't make profit unless the unemployed have enough money to pay for what the robots (or outsourced jobs) produce.
At the moment, the plan is to have the "middle income" fund the unemployed. As the relative size of the unemployed overtakes the number of middle incomers, this strategy is failing. Not helped by the fact that the "middle income" is actually not much lar
Re: (Score:2)
Unless the rich are extremely stupid
Having spoken to quite a few rich people, I'm not sure this is not the case. Wealth != brains.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with this thinking is that many of the people in charge of these companies have been trained (by MBA programs) to believe that the "invisible hand of the market" will solve all of these problems, and they just need to concentrate on fulfilling their own greed (because "greed is good").
I have had a number of conversations with MBA graduates, and this way of thinking has been pounded into them in a way that more resembles a religion than a graduate course.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean "when"?
Labour has never had value. People don't care about how much effort something takes. People don't care how many years of experience you need to build up in order to accomplish said thing. In a world where people treat the Dunning Kruger effect as a personal accomplishment, it can be very difficult for people to see the value in your skills.
This is particularly notable for people in the computer industry (not to mention any kind of design field). "But my teenage nephew can do that
Youngins (Score:5, Insightful)
It didn't just start. I remember calling in to the movie theater, getting a person on the phone, and having a conversation about which movies were playing. Poor woman probably wanted to kill herself, and she was replaced by a tape machine - and eventually by "MoviePhone". This was just one part of an overall move to voicemail/menu systems to replace human interaction. I remember the first self-checkout line at the grocery store, and prior to that the first barcode scanner. Prior to that the stock boys had to use a price gun to put a price on every goddamn item (I know because I was a stock boy and I had to do that). Airplanes had a flight engineer. Postal workers manually sorted mail. Companies had "secretary pools" to manually copy documents (OK, that was before my time, along with washing machines, vacuum cleaners, and dishwashers). Service jobs have been replaced by machinery since we invented machinery. Maybe it has accelerated or reached some kind of inflection point, but it certainly didn't "begin" this year.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It didn't just start.
Exactly!
The examples cited in the article are silly...I mean it's silly to use them to argue that "this was the year". Automated cashiers at supermarkets? That's been a thing for ages. Yes, over time more have been popping up....but I've yet to see one that's faster and more convenient than an actual human cashier (they used to be faster when most people avoided them, meaning there was no line...but now that they are used, I find them usually quite slower than the human-run line). Self-service kiosks at fas
Re: (Score:2)
I remember liking the smell.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Before the "Whip buggy manufacturers" comments.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Before Before the "Whip buggy manufacturers" comments start pouring in, I got three questions for those posting them: "When are your replacement jobs going to be available?", "Will those replacement jobs pay enough for people to live on?", and "Will the vast majority of people be given the education they need to perform those jobs?"
If the answers to those questions involve the words "In ten years", "Why would we pay that much?", "No, pay for it yourself", or just "No" then you have some thinking to do. You cannot expect to upend the vast majority's ability to provide for themselves, provide no replacement, and expect people to go along with it. They will see it for what it is: A massive power and wealth transfer from them to you, that will impoverish them and their children for generations. They will see that, and they will fight you over it.
Yes, you may counter with "But death drones, advanced military training / equipment, and wealth", but those people will be making a choice of not how to live, but how to die. Given the choice of "Go down fighting" vs. "Starve to death / die of dehydration or sickness", many will take the "Go down fighting" option for the sole glimmer of hope, the hope of living and being better off regardless as to how small those chances may be, it provides over the idea of waiting to die.
So I have one question for you "Where's those easy to get regardless of qualification service center jobs, Mr. Automation?" "Where are they?" Until you can answer that question, you have a problem, and soon to be blood, on your hands.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Marie-Antoinette, that did not end well for your great grandmother!
Re: (Score:2)
Which is a bit of a bugger if you're already on the bottom one.
http://peterhousehold.blogspot... [blogspot.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You honesty can't think of a solution for touchscreens at McDonalds testing positive for feces?
The solution is near field communication to a cellphone you own. No physical contact. Problem solved... ...as if that were the problem in the first place. Did you try testing the door handles at McDonalds?
Good riddance. (Score:2)
Some ancient philosophers argued that slavery were necessary in order for others to have the leisure and energy to be, among other things, philosophers. They had something of a point, although full-on
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it could eliminate poverty
Eliminate poverty by putting people out of work? If I don't have to pay wages to workers because I have robots, who is going to have money to buy my products?
Re: (Score:2)
Eliminate poverty by putting people out of work? If I don't have to pay wages to workers because I have robots, who is going to have money to buy my products?
If the people own the means of production, then they're paid the dividends. You're married to pure capitalism. Get over her, she'll never love you back.
things change (Score:2)
On the up side, this is a good thing. When society realizes that there is an unmet need for a particular set of skills, people rush/train to meet the need. High demand and a low supply of qualified people means good compensation. For a while at least.
On the down
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. There has been a shortage of doctors for decades and it isn't likely to get better. Not everyone is going to rush and train to become a doctor.
Re:things change (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really. There has been a shortage of doctors for decades and it isn't likely to get better. Not everyone is going to rush and train to become a doctor.
Already accredited doctors controlled how many doctors that medical schools were allowed to train and how many new schools were accredited. The supply of students willing to become doctors is enormous and would have greatly exceeded demand - but supply was artificially constrained to ensure that existing doctors could charge higher rates.
So it was actually monopoly control of supply due to artificial constraints rather than students not responding to demand.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This would be a great comment except that there have been TWENTY FOUR new US medical schools established in the last ten years.
Do they still work based on the same principles as all the other medical schools? A type of graduate school basically (you don't have to actually have an undergraduate degree, but you had to have started studying for one), highly selective and very expensive?
The whole system in Canada & the US is set up to constrain the number of medical doctors in order to keep their wages artificially high. In most other countries, medicine is a "normal" university course that one can enrol in right after high school,
Re: (Score:3)
"When society realizes that there is an unmet need for a particular set of skills, people rush/train to meet the need."
Not really. There has been a shortage of doctors for decades and it isn't likely to get better. Not everyone is going to rush and train to become a doctor.
My younger sister became a doctor. She's amazing. When she was embarking on that route, I held my tongue, because, honestly, medical doctors get a ton of shit in the US. The insurance companies make them jump through hoops, and then patients come in and lie or whine or otherwise make their lives hell, and they're in the middle trying to do good work.
The basic problem is that anyone who can be a medical doctor worth having could also be any of a number of other high-paying jobs with lower expectations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"When society realizes that there is an unmet need for a particular set of skills, people rush/train to meet the need." Not really. There has been a shortage of doctors for decades and it isn't likely to get better. Not everyone is going to rush and train to become a doctor.
The supply of doctors is artificially limited. The intellect needed to become a doctor is lower than to become a scientist, and yet we have many more scientists than doctors.
"Are Robots taking your shitty Jobs?" (Score:3)
"Find out more... after this message from iRobot."
unlink health care from jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
unlink health care from jobs
Robot Barista (Score:2, Funny)
Robot baristas have been here for a while, right? I hope they become more common.
I hope they will have a program that will slap millennial customers who make everybody else wait while they engage in chit-chat (bro!) and take ten minutes to order when they haven't decided when they get to the front of the line, and have a zillion question about the ingredients. Also, a non-overridable function for the robot to not ask about the desire for "an alternative milk". And not throw indecipherable passive-aggressive
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry when you grew up there were only two things (milk, sugar) you could put in coffee. That sounds sad. You probably think the only two pizza toppings are cheese and pepperoni as well.
Maybe if you just answered the damn question about which kind of cream-thing you wanted instead of launching into a diatribe, you wouldn't get shade?
Nonetheless (Score:2)
" Farm labor, which about half the American workforce used to do, now comprises around 2 percent of American jobs."
And they get hundreds of billions of dollars of tax money and they still go bankrupt and commit suicide in droves because they cannot compete on the market.
It sure needs to adapt quite a bit more. If self-driving cars in big city traffic get along, I'm sure that trekkers and other machines would be able to find a field by themselves in the sticks.
Re: (Score:2)
And they get hundreds of billions of dollars of tax money and they still go bankrupt and commit suicide in droves because they cannot compete on the market.
Maybe the US could implement Canada's supply management system it likes to bash so much, thus creating a farming sector that is profitable without any government subsidies?
Re: (Score:2)
And they get hundreds of billions of dollars of tax money and they still go bankrupt and commit suicide in droves because they cannot compete on the market.
Big Ag gets most of those dollars.
86% of manufacturing jobs lost (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the thing folks, when 99% are the have nots you're probably not going to be one of the haves. But there's always pride. True story, buddy of mine's a basement dweller living at home in his 40s because he can't find a decent paying job (blue collar guy, couple of mental issues that means he can't hustle like you're expected to in 2018). If you ask him, he's middle class. And Taxed to the Max. I don't even know where he got the phrase, "Taxed to the Max", but he got it, and he's convinced he is, even though on the crappy wages he makes working part time he's not paying any taxes ourside of his vehicle registration on a 20 year old truck. This is what we're up against folks...
Re: (Score:2)
He's not imaginary (Score:2)
But you're strawmaning to avoid the issuea, which is that:
a. Automation is going to put us all out of work and if we don't change how we distribute wealth everybody but a lucky few born into it will live like shit (think Indian reservations but on a global scale).
b. Right wing politics don'
Re: (Score:2)
a. Automation is going to put us all out of work and if we don't change how we distribute wealth everybody but a lucky few born into it will live like shit (think Indian reservations but on a global scale).
b. Right wing politics don't work, you know this and it makes you very uncomfortable. Stop reading Ayn Rand and hating yourself and start looking around at the deck stacked against you. You'll have an uncomfortable free years while you work out the demons put in your head by the billion dollar propaganda machines like Fox News and Rush but you'll be better for it.
Point "b" is pretty correct but I think you're wrong on point "a". Actually there's a whole bunch of jobs we could create if we distributed the wealth better. Well, first off, even without that, we are just terrible at imagining the jobs of the future. Think of all the entertainment-related jobs we have today, which 50, 100, or 200 years nobody could imagine, and if they could (or you told them) they'd think of a society with so many of those jobs as some sort of immoral dystopia. Tell someone in 1700 that
Re: (Score:2)
I think "Property Manager" is a job. You seem to think most landlords are property managers. They aren't. They hire property managers (usually very part time, numerous services do this) that fix stuff, price the place, find tenants, etc. They just mail you a check. That's what "capitalism" is.
Re: (Score:2)
So you think being a landlord isn't a job just because you inherited the properties? To be landlord to enough renters to pay a full livable wage isn't a walk in the park. Go manage a property to see for yourself.
Most* landlords don't manage their properties, they outsource that to a company that takes a cut of the rent (or charges a fixed fee, or a mix of both). If you've ever lived in a rental building, careful examination of your lease contract will likely reveal that the owner of the building (or in some cases, the particular apartment you're renting) and the management you interact with and pay your rent to are not the same entity (person or company).
* - I mean "most" as in those "those who own the most rental
Re: (Score:2)
So you think being a landlord isn't a job just because you inherited the properties? To be landlord to enough renters to pay a full livable wage isn't a walk in the park. Go manage a property to see for yourself.
Oh, and actually nobody said being a landlord can't be a job. However if you look at the fact that, as I said in my first reply to you, that landlords usually outsource the property management to others, you have to conclude that usually, the value of the jobs related to property management is less (often significantly less, but that depends on the property market in a given place at a given time) than the value of the rent earned on those properties.
In other words, go and manage a property for someone else
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, such hard work, I'm beat.
And guess who has to replace the leaky roof or fix the plug that stopped working or replace the floor because they did god knows what to it and you'll never be able to rent it again like that...
It's not all about collecting money. It's a business like any other - there is revenue and there are expenses.
I do (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Always my same question on these stories. (Score:4, Interesting)
And how tall does the mountain of machine-made-hamburgers get before the machine realizes nobody has the money to buy them?
A very big change is right on the horizon, but I don't think anybody can even comprehend the consequences.
My solution? \
Human sized hampster wheels to generate the power for the machines. Automation AND green power.
Re: (Score:2)
And how tall does the mountain of machine-made-hamburgers get before the machine realizes nobody has the money to buy them?
A very big change is right on the horizon, but I don't think anybody can even comprehend the consequences.
My solution? \
Human sized hampster wheels to generate the power for the machines. Automation AND green power.
And it solves our obesity problem. You should kickstart this!
...and the year of robot service jobs begin (Score:2)
Somebody will have to maintain the robots....until the new generation of robotic robot maintainers is deployed...
Thought experiment (Score:3)
1) Since the Industrial revolution (and really with every advance in production technology), fewer people are necessary to create things that people value. The phenomenon is the "consolidation of the production of value." For example, instead of 10 farmers producing enough for a subsistence living with primitive technology, one farmer can produce a lot with advanced tech. Instead of 100 people required to run a store that generates 20 million a year in revenue, with advanced tech it now only requires 10.
2) So there's a "production pyramid": at the bottom, everyone makes everything they need. The next layer up it requires fewer people to make everything everyone needs. The next layer up even fewer.
3) Thought experiment: imagine the top of the pyramid. One man (or woman) can make everything everyone needs. He owns all the productive capital. How to distribute money then?
One thing to realize.
i. People are necessary to create demand, for both goods and services, and the money to buy those goods and services. Without any people and no demand, money is worthless, and the single value creator is only making things for his own consumption.
So: How to distribute money in the one creator system, at the top of the pyramid? How about 2 layers down? How about 50 layers down?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What a preposterous point. As if automation costs the equivalent of $14.99 per hour.
Guess what. If the minimum wage rising with inflation means you're outcompeted by robots -- you were doomed already.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Wages rose almost across the board after the French Revolution.
And yet poverty still existed in post revolutionary France. The glorious Soviet revolution also failed to cure poverty in the USSR worker's paradise. Discuss.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and chance of not starving.
Not starving by starving. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Typical. Jealous of those that are better off then you.
No, not jealous and not of the better off. Angry and at those who rigged the system *against* capitalism so they & theirs could win before I ever got into the game.
You going to kill someone at your job that has a higher pay grade also? How about someone that has a nicer house, a nicer car.
No, of course not. Most of them aren't actually "rich" they are just better off than me. I'm talking about truly rich folks that participated in the rigging, not someone with a nicer car. I'm talking about the C-suite, not the guy who worked for 30 years so he could afford a Mercedes.
Remember this asshole. The rich are those that employ. Who the fuck do you employ? Nobody. You are a leach.
Nothing wrong with employers. There is something wrong with
Re: Totally unrelated to the "Drive for $15" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. They also assume that only the farthest far-right folks could possibly operate a firearm. They don't realize that there are some rather civilized sporting activity which involves firearms and that sometimes a non-far-right-person with a gun.
True. I know plenty of self identifying radical lefties that own plenty of guns. They just don't advertise it or form things like militias, because they figure it would just be putting their name on another list somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Happy Holidays!!!
Re:Totally unrelated to the "Drive for $15" (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's clarify some stuff.
Have you ever seen how much work there is involved with most of these service jobs? Did you ever notice that McDonald's employee's don't spend a great deal of time sitting around? A waitress at a Friday's spends most of her time running her ass off. I can go on, but to be fair, these people work a hell of a lot harder (calorie burning-wise) than I do and they get paid about 1/5-1/20 of I what I do.
Why in the world would this be the case?
I've never looked for a job for myself using a job website, but if you look there are generally two types of jobs.
1) A long ass wallpaper of job requirements that even after 20+ years in the industry with job references from multiple CEOs from successful companies and more current (and maintained honestly) certifications than most engineers, I don't meet half the requirements needed.
2) "Desperate for money?, We'll hire anyone... and I mean anyone. We won't pay you except commission, but come talk with us"
The first type, I know I can apply to it and get it usually because I understand the way job requirements are written. I'll google the company, read their shareholder reports, find out what products I'm likely to work on and then I'll write a CV or Resume which doesn't answer the job listing but instead identifies why I'm well suited to the position they're hiring for. I've never needed to do this, in fact, it's more likely I'll call a friend of a friend of a friend and get their boss to call me instead which will place me on better terms to list and negotiate my requirements. This is I'm skilled at getting jobs. Most people aren't.
The second type... unless you have a safety net
This leaves the final type of job... "Help wanted".
When you're at a burger joint and there's a sign on the wall which says "Help Wanted", it's convenient and the employer is clearly expressing their needs. You understand that the job will pay minimum wage before you even apply but you take it because... well it's there and the terms are pretty well understood by both the employee and employer before the application is filled out.
If you're applying for a job which has a... well job application... which means they don't expect to see a CV/Resume and if you provided one, they will still ask you to fill out this form anyway, well, you know this is not going to be a great position and you also generally won't be highly regarded since... well instead of talking with you and learning about you, they instead justifiably assume there's something wrong with you... after all, you're the type of person who would actually apply for such a miserable job.
Now, most people don't know that McDonald's and Burger King have always had incredible internal educational programs and if you work there for 2-3 years and work your way up, the owner of the restaurant may decide it makes sense to sponsor you at McDonald's or Burger King University. If this happens, you can be on a great 6-figure career path. But probably less than one in a thousand workers go that route.
No. Personal responsibility is not an option.
Another example is that America builds prisons faster than McDonald's builds restaurants. This is great because the people sit around on their asses waiting for the government to open coal mines back up... even when there's simply no coal left in the mine or there's simply no one left to sell it to and even
Re:Totally unrelated to the "Drive for $15" (Score:5, Insightful)
1) A long ass wallpaper of job requirements that even after 20+ years in the industry with job references from multiple CEOs from successful companies and more current (and maintained honestly) certifications than most engineers, I don't meet half the requirements needed.
The first type, I know I can apply to it and get it usually because I understand the way job requirements are written. [after some research] I'll call a friend of a friend of a friend and get their boss to call me instead which will place me on better terms to list and negotiate my requirements.
That kind of job posting is what you see when they already have the candidate they want, but are required to post it and give others an "equal" chance at it. They don't want to switch. So they post a set of requirements that exactly matches the qualifications of the candidate they have in mind - all of them, not just the ones needed for the job. Few, if any, others will have every single oddball bit of experience the one they have in mind, so nobody comes by to rock the boat.
Sometimes it's impossible - because the actual candidate didn't have the qualifications, either, but had a fake resume. (That often happens with agencies bringing in H1-Bs. They do this so no real candidates can displace their warm body. My wife once hired one who supposedly had a masters in Comp Sci. The candidate didn't know about this, and risked her visa to point it out. My wife hired her because she DID have enough on the ball to do the job and was honest enough to tell truth to power even when it might be detrimental.)
If you do get through, and do convince them that you're a better pick, they'll have to post it again before they sign you up. So they'll make up another one exactly tuned to your history.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Try to see it more practically. Such people are here. Once we decide you can't kill them, they are here to stay and the others will provide for them in basically one of three ways:
-giving them some way of social support/welfare
-putting them in prison for most of their lives
-having stuff that they can steal.
The first option is the cheapest in terms of overall cost to the economy, the last is by far the most expensive and also the most unpleasant.
Re: (Score:2)
Try to see it more practically. Such people are here. Once we decide you can't kill them, they are here to stay and the others will provide for them in basically one of three ways: -giving them some way of social support/welfare -putting them in prison for most of their lives -having stuff that they can steal. The first option is the cheapest in terms of overall cost to the economy, the last is by far the most expensive and also the most unpleasant.
Seems to me you are arguing against UBI.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
and doesn't need labor, but rather consumers.
And if no one is getting hired and therefore earning money - where are they supposed to get the money to "consume" what you're making? You cannot cut labor completely out of the cycle. It is a vital part.