The Robot Revolution Will Be Worse For Men 271
Recode's Rani Molla shares the findings of a new study from the Brookings Institution, which finds that automation will impact men at a higher rate than women. Here's an excerpt from the report: Young people -- especially those in rural areas or who are underrepresented minorities -- will have a greater likelihood of having their jobs replaced by automation. Meanwhile, older, more educated white people living in big cities are more likely to maintain their coveted positions, either because their jobs are irreplaceable or because they're needed in new jobs alongside our robot overlords. The Brookings study also warns that automation will exacerbate existing social inequalities along certain geographic and demographic lines, because it will likely eliminate many lower- and middle-skill jobs considered stepping stones to more advanced careers. These jobs losses will be in concentrated in rural areas, particularly the swath of America between the coasts.
However, at least in the case of gender, it's the men, for once, who will be getting the short end of the stick. Jobs traditionally held by men have a higher "average automation potential" than those held by women, meaning that a greater share of those tasks could be automated with current technology, according to Brookings. That's because the occupations men are more likely to hold tend to be more manual and more easily replaced by machines and artificial intelligence. Of course, the real point here is that people of all stripes face employment disruption as new technologies are able to do many of our tasks faster, more efficiently, and more precisely than mere mortals. The implications of this unemployment upheaval are far-reaching and raise many questions: How will people transition to the jobs of the future? What will those jobs be? Is it possible to mitigate the polarizing effects automation will have on our already-stratified society of haves and have-nots?
However, at least in the case of gender, it's the men, for once, who will be getting the short end of the stick. Jobs traditionally held by men have a higher "average automation potential" than those held by women, meaning that a greater share of those tasks could be automated with current technology, according to Brookings. That's because the occupations men are more likely to hold tend to be more manual and more easily replaced by machines and artificial intelligence. Of course, the real point here is that people of all stripes face employment disruption as new technologies are able to do many of our tasks faster, more efficiently, and more precisely than mere mortals. The implications of this unemployment upheaval are far-reaching and raise many questions: How will people transition to the jobs of the future? What will those jobs be? Is it possible to mitigate the polarizing effects automation will have on our already-stratified society of haves and have-nots?
Coal Miners (Score:2, Funny)
They could just learn to code. Or be robotics engineers.
Iâ(TM)m sure the ratio of engineers to replaced coal miners will be 1:1 and everybody will have a place at the table.
Re: (Score:3)
No, those jobs are already being snapped up by unemployed journalists.
Re: (Score:3)
They could just learn to code. Or be robotics engineers. Iâ(TM)m sure the ratio of engineers to replaced coal miners will be 1:1 and everybody will have a place at the table.
Hard to say. Automation has replaced most coal miners anyhow. In my area a few men, dynamite and draglines can do in days what it used to take a lot of men and months/years to do.
Worse for men? (Score:5, Funny)
They're not counting sexbots, are they?
Vonnegut say it coming: Player Piano (Score:3)
Your comment was barely modded into visibility, but I don't see why. I was actually looking for any reference to Player Piano and stumbled across your accidentally relevant "joke".
In 1952 one of the characters in Vonnegut's book threatens to replace a woman by creating a sexbot. Overall the book is shockingly prescient from before I was born... I'm still in the middle, but it's an remarkably plausible dystopia.
Re:Vonnegut saw it coming: Player Piano (Score:2)
Oh noooooo.
Re: (Score:2)
They could be - fear the impending "Sybians with legs," motherfuckers!
Robotic Men (Score:5, Interesting)
When women lose economic opportunities, marriage rates go up. When men lose economic opportunities, rioting rates go up.
Re:Robotic Men (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't riot, they elect populists who promise to bring their jobs back.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They don't riot, they elect populists who promise to bring their jobs back.
Soap box: failed. Ballot box: failed.
Guess what comes next?
Jury box. Jury box is the 3rd box.
Re: (Score:2)
SCOTUS doesn't use juries.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, we have seen increased "education" in America, and the result is Acasio-Cortez.
Education requires intelligence.
Re: (Score:2)
And, to some extent, male-female population ratios. Where there are a lot more men than women (e.g., when the ratio gets out of whack, as in some parts of the world), violence and extremism sometimes result.
Re: Robotic Men (Score:2)
Nooooooooooo! Everyone who didn't go to an Ivy League university is a toothless cracker who can't spell his own name or count to three. CNN told me so - therefore it _must_ be true!!!1!!
Re: (Score:2)
And you might even win a Nobel Prize in the process.
Re: (Score:3)
Its not all its cracked up to be buddy.. You aint missing much.
"for once" (Score:5, Interesting)
For once, bwcause, you know, women are banned from those jobs or something.
I'm 40 and never once in my lifetime has it been illegal for a woman to do a job in my lifetime. At 40 I'm at the age where whatever experience I've had is AVERAGE.
Stop pretending it's 1950.
Calm down and think (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, to be blunt, women do better academically than men. The reason's really simple: girls calm down and start studying and an earlier age than boys so they get an extra year or two of education.
Yes, this does mean we're going to eventually need to start shifting from helping girls catch up (necessary because they were discouraged from doing anything short of having babies for hundreds of years) to helping boys catch up.
The trick is doing this rationally and without it devolving into identity politics from both sides used to distract us all from economic issues. Right wing Dems like identity politics because it lets them pretend to be progressive while supporting the same supply side/trickle down economics as the GOP does. Meanwhile the subject is so emotionally charged it's easy to rile people up and point them at the polls to vote for whoever without considering the economic factors involved.
The solution is a) more education for everyone (if nothing else it'll help absorb some of the unnecessary workforce) and b) be wary of anyone who talks identity politics without also talking sound, demand side economics.
Re:Calm down and think (Score:5, Interesting)
The argument is a lie. The dominant male jobs are the trades, plumber, electrician, carpenter, brick layer et al automation in that regard requires full robotics and AI. Labourers will lose jobs but it depends on the labour, some rural industries more than others and that affects women equally, low end labour also counts the food services industry and so the impact will be equally felt by women, more so in fact because low end labour will feature major competition for places between men and women and men being stronger means women forced out ie low end labour will shift from rural to metro and with it job pressures will rise.
Of course for the psychopaths at the top, they want the labour camps, they want hold and cold minors on tap to abuse, they want war games with the peasants, they are sick fuckers. The automation discussion in the current context, is psychopathically insane, the rich buy robots and the poor die, that is the discussion in reality.
Where is reduced working hours, sharing the labour and the reward, gone with the dominance of psychopaths, the normies are just there to be used, abused, sexually exploited and killed at a whim by the rich and powerful. Don't get rid of them and the killing will start, just the way it is.
Yeah, dominante male professions (Score:3)
Moreover if you've been paying any attention there's been massive productivity boosts in all those fields. My company is throwing up a new building for a little over 1000 employees in 10 months. When I was a kid that kind of thing took years. They've had these puppies [google.com] for at least 10 years now. I'm sure you can find equivalent tech in plumbing if you know where to look.
As for carpentry, I know some blue collar guys pissed because they used to get free wood at job sites when the job w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So the contractor does that (Score:2)
Folks really underestimate how tight the supply chain's gotten and what computers have made possible. I think we were expecting flying cars by now. What we got was cheap 2 day shipping. But if you're old enough to remember sending away for something and
Re: (Score:2)
8 weeks? Has Hobby King's China wearhouse gotten better?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Those puppies would be good if everything is prepped beforehand (I assume you're used to new or commercial construction?).
Taping is the quickest part, mudding takes forever (waiting for each layer to dry).
Re: (Score:2)
Here in Asia, I just watched a dozen 46 floor highrises go up in 10 months. No robots or exotic automation. Just lots & lots of workers, some good engineers, and - most importantly - the political will for it to happen.
Also loads of corruption, inhumane working conditions and a disrgard for workplace safety.
but apart from that, good going!
Re: (Score:2)
The argument is a lie. The dominant male jobs are the trades, plumber, electrician, carpenter, brick layer et al automation in that regard requires full robotics and AI. Labourers will lose jobs but it depends on the labour, some rural industries more than others and that affects women equally,
That begs the question "does automation in that regard require full robotics and AI?"
Automation can't eliminate those jobs outright, but it can reduce their number by making those jobs easier, in the form of partial automation. For example, if homes are pre-fabbed, they'll come with the wiring built into them, meaning less work for electricians. (The work is easier if done while the walls are being assembled on a table.) And if they're being pre-fabbed anyway, they can easily be assembled in another country
Re: (Score:2)
Efforts to help buys academically started long ago. Back in the 90s I remember efforts to help them improve in maths in particular, and to try to take some stigma away from more traditionally female subjects.
There was a lot of research done in the 2000s but we are still figuring out how to put it into practice. One promising technique is to encourage girls to get involved in traditionally male spaces, so for example building Lego kits or playing football. Of course boys often enjoy things like netball too.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't really automate watching kids
Sufficent enough Alexa will change this, whether it's sufficient or not.
Re: (Score:3)
Also, to be blunt, women do better academically than men. The reason's really simple:
And there's where you went off the rails. Schools are developed with girls / women as the gold standard. Resources are all devoted to helping girls / women get ahead. Men are excluded from programs and funding on the basis of their sex. It's gotten so bad now that there are actually more women in college than men but they're still being given special treatment. Add to all that the liberal "You're a fucking white male" attitude on school campuses and you've got a much better argument than "girls... start st
Re: (Score:2)
you seem angry, need a hug?
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say the problem is that the 'for once' is extra stupid, both for being sexist and wrong. Every slowdown in manufacturing and low skilled labor has had a larger impact on men.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm 40 and never once in my lifetime has it been illegal for a woman to do a job in my lifetime.
But if you were 47 that wouldn't be true.
Stop pretending it's 1950.
Stop pretending that after centuries of discrimination, flipping a legal switch made everything equal instantly overnight.
Re: "for once" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It was still legal to bar women from practicing the law in 1971: that's the year it stopped.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, more men died in child birth. It is true that as property women were more protected, people look after their property. Now whether being safely owned out weighs the lack of freedom is a question. You could try prison as that is sorta like being owned, might even include the rape that women are traditional on the receiving end of. Definitely you will be taken care off in return for your freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
A woman can do pretty much any job a man can (military still a bit fuzzy on some but...), however, a job with high strength requirement is going to be something on average a man can do better than a woman. Thus despite improvements in equality, and the notion pushed by some that a woman can do anything the same as a man (yes there are women that area as strong as most men, but on average women biologically do not have the same strength physically, which says nothing about mentally), there are still perfectl
Re: (Score:2)
Most jobs dominated by men are crappy jobs. Women don't want to do them, if they have any choice, and since most women do have a choice, they don't do them.
Nearly all the cashiers at my grocery stores are women. I guess it depends on your definition of crappy but the job would annoy the crap out of me. To each their own I suppose. One meaningless data point in a world of meaningless data points though.
Re: (Score:2)
For once, bwcause, you know, women are banned from those jobs or something.
I'm 40 and never once in my lifetime has it been illegal for a woman to do a job in my lifetime. At 40 I'm at the age where whatever experience I've had is AVERAGE.
Stop pretending it's 1950.
Several jobs in the military are still exclusively male, by law.
Re:"for once" (Score:4, Informative)
Men must register for the draft, not so for women.
The overwhelming majority of homeless people are men.
The majority of suicide victims are men.
The majority of alimony payers are men.
Spare me the "for once" bullshit. It is as wrong as it is hostile.
Re:"for once" (Score:4, Informative)
You forgot a few.
More than ninety percent of people killed on the job are men.
Men's life expectancy is much lower partially because of worse work related stress and working conditions
Men's education opportunities are limited with less than forty percent of college students being men.
etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Once those are gone, the HR department will be gutted (hallelujah) - and that's about 90% useless women. Even if the non-office jobs go, the HR department will still severely reduced.
HR will find a way to protect themselves and probably even manage to come out with some more hires.
Don't care (Score:3)
The robots won't take our jobs (Score:2)
So I just gave a talk at LCA2019 on precisely this topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
I also thought about arguing in this direction, but then I didn't want to open the gender debate, and so I left it at "humans".
Enjoy.
Great talk but topic needed refining (Score:2)
That was an excellent talk, containing some really great analysis. The analysis was so clear and thorough though that I was puzzled why it left one very important matter very fuzzy and poorly defined --- the title and main topic of the talk, of all things!
This is the problem: the word "jobs" (or equivalently "work") means two very different things to us, and these two things have been conflated into one single idea by our history over hundreds of years. Those two things are: (1) Doing something useful in
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you very much for that excellent feedback. This talk was to a technical audience. I will be giving this talk again to a humanist audience soon, and you are absolutely right that I need to focus on precisely the point you raise!
Re: (Score:2)
Work is the something interesting most of us do with our lives. People are most satisfied when they are doing challenging, meaningful work.
Automation strips us of that and leaves mindless machine-tending or welfare in it's place.
Re: (Score:2)
Ask someone to hug you. You seem to need it.
Sex Robots (Score:4, Interesting)
Pretty sure women are going to be affected just as badly as men.
Imagine, hundreds of single men with bad game just stop feeding the egos of all these women on social media and instead buy a robot that looks like a straight 10 that will cook, clean, and well **** without complaining.
That will be a real crisis worth watching. /Sarcasm... Sort of
Re:Sex Robots (Score:4, Insightful)
We'll have robots replacing long haul truck drivers and lumberjacks well before we get rid of all the elementary school teachers. (In no small part because groups of kids will always require constant hands-on supervision)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with people when they try to imagine the future is that they carry unwarranted assumptions with them when they do it.
For example trades will be difficult to replace. Only true if we continue to build houses they way we do now. Factory built houses can be made by automation and assemble on site using low skill robots. Of course there will still be trades, because rich people will not want to live in a cookie cutter factory built house. That's for the masses. So there will continue to be a small n
Re: (Score:2)
We'll have robots replacing long haul truck drivers and lumberjacks well before we get rid of all the elementary school teachers. (In no small part because groups of kids will always require constant hands-on supervision)
Pff, a T-800 Model 101 can handle the kids easily.
$50/hour and $10,000 bonus in Texas (Score:2)
> I'm not belittling teachers here but it's relatively low paid
Is it? Let's take a state with relatively low cost of living.
Teachers are paid an average of $53,300 salary plus excellent retirement benefit for nine months of work. Summer school pays $30-$50/ hour plus a bonus of up to $10,000. So something like $65,000 in Texas. Texas teachers are required to work six hours a day, 187 days per year. That's not terrible.
Re: (Score:2)
"Texas teachers are required to work six hours a day, 187 days per year."
I actually know a Texas teacher, and she not only has to buy supplies with her own money if she wants to teach effectively, but she also has to do a lot of unpaid work as well. They don't get their summers off scot-free, either. They have continuing education requirements. When you count all of the extra work involved and subtract what's spent on giving paper and pencils to unfortunate students whose parents can't or won't supply them
Re:$50/hour and $10,000 bonus in Texas (Score:5, Insightful)
Texas teachers are required to work six hours a day, 187 days per year. That's not terrible.
I don't know what it likes in texas but here teachers generally work 3x the hours the actually teach. Unless you think reports write them selves, assignments just appear and are magically marked, lessons come pre planned and differentiated etc etc etc. Obviously it varies with subject and level but the idea that teachers only work while they teach is a stupid as saying soldiers only work when they fight.
It's a law. Might be stupid , but it's law (Score:2, Insightful)
> lessons come pre planned and differentiated etc etc etc.
Think about what they teach in public school, as opposed to college. Arithmetic, reading, basic civics like "how a bill becomes a law".
They are teaching the same thing that 100,000 other schools are teaching at the same time, and the same thing they taught last year, and the year before, and they decade before. Algebra hasn't changed. Heck Schoolhouse Rock "I'm Just a Bill" is still better than whatever lesson most teachers would come up with and
Re: (Score:2)
> lessons come pre planned and differentiated etc etc etc.
Think about what they teach in public school, as opposed to college. Arithmetic, reading, basic civics like "how a bill becomes a law".
They are teaching the same thing that 100,000 other schools are teaching at the same time, and the same thing they taught last year, and the year before, and they decade before. Algebra hasn't changed. Heck Schoolhouse Rock "I'm Just a Bill" is still better than whatever lesson most teachers would come up with and it's from 1976. So yeah those lessons do come pre-planned. If you're making your own lessons instead of using the lessons 100,000 other teachers are using for the topic, you're doing it wrong.
> assignments just appear and are magically marked
Uhm yeah there's this thing called a "computer". When I was in grade school it was called "Scantron". Now it's called the "form" tag.
Like I said it depends on subject on and level and yeah math is math, but what bits of math do you teach in what lessons to what students? If you just plan one set of math lessons and deliver that on repeat regardless then you would be a shit teacher.
You would more than likely use a computer to make an assignment but there's a bit more to it than writing a question at the top of a page and leaving it there.
If you just use other people's stuff then you are doing it wrong. Maybe that's why people always
Awesome! We have different viewpoints on basic pri (Score:3)
It looks like we have some different points of view on an underlying principle. That's awesome, I love to hear different viewpoints.
You've also pointed out something I'm doing a bit wrong in a way, maybe.
> I mean, I can make a functional website by cutting and pasting code from the web together but that doesn't make a developer and if it does, not a good one.
Based on my 20 years developing software and web sites professionally, it's been my experience that developers who make full use of well-known, mat
Re: (Score:2)
And you have a point as well (Score:2)
I'd certainly agree that a teacher who always follows a rigid day-by-day formula, always teaching the exact same lesson on day #14, probably isn't doing a great job. (With some exceptions possible).
Also, if you've been teaching trig for 12 years, and every year you make the lesson about right triangles over again, that would be silly. You'd be better off re-using last year's material, and the presenting a well-made lesson from someone who is really good at writing maths curriculum is probably even better. E
Re: (Score:3)
I've looked at the work most of the teachers do and concluded that there is a reason they are not paid more. They're idiots. Glorified nannies. They took some lame classes in college and got a degree in "Education", because they didn't have the skills to get a real degree. They either refuse or are unable to educate themselves on available technologies that will eliminate six of those twelve hours of work. They show a complete lack of imagination on how to improve their own lives. If your mother, sist
Rural Australia made a robot teacher called Moodle (Score:2)
Rural Australia is exactly why Martin Dougiamas made the premier open source Learning Management System, Moodle. It's very good.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Imagine, hundreds of single men with bad game just stop feeding the egos of all these women on social media
Yep, women *love* being creeped on on social media.
nstead buy a robot that looks like a straight 10 that will cook, clean, and well **** without complaining.
If you're looking to get your lazy ass out of cleaning you can pay someone to do that for you already. I do. You don't need to wait for the robot revolution.
You can get people to cook for you too. And if you're happy to pay to fuck there are in fac
Re: (Score:2)
Guys like this will be enslaved by sexbots.
Upgrades, accessories, DLC... It all costs money. And the sexbot has them by the balls, governed by corporate "ethics" that prioritize profit over all else.
Re: (Score:2)
The sex bots also won't do what they expect: the claims of a grand revolution are not so likely.
Thing is sex bots solve the problem of sex, but they don't solve the problem of not having sex with a specific person, and of course all the things that usually go along with that. It won't give men the sense of self worth they believe they will get through finding a partner.
And I say men specifically because these conversations inevitably ignore that women are unable to get sex as well (fun fact, "incel" was coi
Re: (Score:2)
But I must say, if those men just want a "straight 10" who cooks, cleans and fucks on demand and by the sounds of it, nothing else, it's no wonder they're still single. It's not a lack of game that makes them single.
'How dare a man have some kind of standard, he should love me for the big beautiful princess that I am.' lol
Re: (Score:2)
and well **** without complaining.
Without complaining? Dude, you're doing it wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
And you will let him maybe have 0.00001% of chance with you if he stops saying the things you don't want him to say and obey your every order?
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, did you reply to the wrong comment? I'm not "incel" and how'd you assume that? I did quite well with the ladies before I got hitched.
Sexbots are going to be a revolution. Men will be able to get sex, and women won't be able to wield that power any more. Men will judge women without reference to their looks. This has been the feminist dream for a long time. It's coming, and sooner than you think.
Re: (Score:2)
Men don't just want sex.
Men want new sex. Unless there is a burgeoning market for sexbot trade-ins, men will still be looking to score.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, did you reply to the wrong comment? I'm not "incel" and how'd you assume that?
You kinda sounded a lot like one.
I did quite well with the ladies before I got hitched.
Ah yes bragging about prowess on slashdot. Does anything have more credibility than that?
Sexbots are going to be a revolution. Men will be able to get sex,
As will women. So the recolution might not point where you expcet...
But men (and women) won't be able to get sex with the person they want to have sex with, so that's not going to chang
SexBots Will Leave Men Exhausted, Sated,... (Score:2)
Truck drivers and retail clerks (Score:3)
The job held by most men in US - Truck driver. Google is coming out with a self driving truck
The job held by most women in the US - Retail Clerk/cashier. Amazon has already brought a cashierless retail store
The rioting is not far away
Re: (Score:2)
It's interesting to look at the list of jobs with the largest employment. And then consider which ones could be automated.
https://www.careeronestop.org/... [careeronestop.org]
I can't believe there are so many retail salespeople.
Re: (Score:2)
THE SKY IS FALLING, EVERYBODY PANIC!!!11! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe in this motherfucking 'robot revolution'.
More like a fatherfucking robot revolution according to the article.
Re: (Score:2)
It's more of an AI revolution, which is also why it's in doubt.
When machines first started replacing humans it was hard for people to transition, but there were new jobs for them because we couldn't build really intelligent machines. When AI reaches the point where it can do clerical jobs as well as a human there will be fewer options for people to find new work.
The question is if AI is anywhere near that point. I think not. AI is always much harder than pundits think and proponents promise.
Re: (Score:2)
When AI reaches the point where it can do clerical jobs as well as a human there will be fewer options for people to find new work.
Automation is already reducing the need for clerical work, and replacing it with a smaller amount of more technical work. For example, digital documents. Nobody seems to be paperless, but a lot of industries have reduced the amount of paper they produce, which means less need for file clerks. AI doesn't have to do clerical jobs as well as humans for technology to produce a noticeable effect in job reduction.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ask people what kinds of new jobs will be created, and they will say, "I don't know, they haven't been created yet!"
It's not the robots that have people worried... it's the lack of social planning. "Don't panic, everything will be fine" is not a solution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, not to mention technical jobs. People are always so naive on these things. They obsess over incredibly expensive robots that can perform some sort of manual labor when it is NN 'bots' replacing high paid jobs they should worry about. Why spend all that money cutting out your lowest paid jobs when you can spend it cutting out some of your highest paid ones?
"For once" (Score:5, Insightful)
"However, at least in the case of gender, it's the men, for once, who will be getting the short end of the stick."
Setting aside suicide, drug use, drug abuse, being a victim off violent crime, fighting in wars, at-work deaths, shorter life spans, vulnerability to disease, aids, heart disease, yes, "for once" men get the short end of the stick.
Re: (Score:2)
swath of America between the coasts? (Score:2)
This statement triggered my BS detector.. "These jobs losses will be in concentrated in rural areas, particularly the swath of America between the coasts"
Isn't -all- of America "between the coasts."
They overlook something (Score:2)
Means of production (Score:2)
Worse? (Score:2)
That depends on how you define "worse". When robots get advanced enough to put most men out of work, they'll be advanced in other ways, too. Out of work because of a robot? You'll have more time to make love to your robot "girlfriend"...
What about the sex bots? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Thats why (Score:5, Funny)
I suggest you identify as a robot instead.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I have started to identify as a woman. So far so good.
Do you happen to do what's traditionally a woman's job, such as teaching or nursing? If no, then that doesn't do you much good. While automation threatens one of the leading jobs of blue collar men, namely truck driving, it so far hasn't done a thing about either education or nursing.
If it did, both genders would be equally affected, and then all of us could try addressing the bigger issue of salary replacement when our jobs are automated
Re: (Score:3)
Well Japan is trying their hardest to automate nursing. Seems to be more male nurses then ever, took a friend to emergency the other day and dealt with a couple of male nurses. Does seem a bit weird but I guess it cancels out the female Doctors. There's quite a few male teachers as well, though in the higher grades. Lots of places austerity is cutting back on the number of teachers with computers replacing, or rather picking up the slack.
There's also a lot of traditional women's jobs that have already been
Re: (Score:2)
The robots are going to be repaired by men.
No, they aren't. They will for a while, but later they will be repaired by robots. The only reason it hasn't happened yet is that the technology is moving quickly enough to where robots require few repairs before they are obsolete. As robotics technology matures, the churn reduces, and the total number of robots increases, more effort will be spent in making robots which can easily be repaired by other robots. Robots can already perform all the necessary tasks; for example there is automated robotic probing
Re: (Score:2)