'Robots' Are Not 'Coming For Your Job' -- Management Is (gizmodo.com) 191
merbs writes: If the robots are simply "coming," if they just show up and relieve a helpless lot of humans of their livelihoods, then no one is to blame for this techno-elemental phenomenon, and little is to be done about it beyond bracing for impact. Not the executives swayed by consulting firms who insist the future is in AI customer service bots, or the managers who see an opportunity to improve profit margins by adopting automated kiosks that edge out cashiers, or the shipping conglomerate bosses who decide to replace dockworkers with a fleet of automated trucks. These individuals may feel as if they have no choice, with shareholders and boards and bosses of their own to answer to, and an economic system that incentivizes the making of these decisions -- and sometimes the technology will perform obviously superior work to the human -- but they are exactly that: decisions, made by people, to call in or build the job-threatening robots.
Pretending otherwise, that robots in every use case are inevitable, is the very worst form of technological determinism, and leads to a dearth in critical thinking about when and how automation *is* best implemented. Because even the most ardent robot lovers will agree, there are plenty of cases of badly deployed automation; systems that make our lives worse and more inefficient, and that kill jobs en route to worse outcomes. And such automated regression is often implemented under the logic of 'robots are coming,' so better hop aboard. We will be able to make better decisions about embracing effective automation if we understand that, in practice, 'the robots are coming for our jobs' usually means something more like 'a CEO wants to cut his operating budget by 15 percent and was just pitched on enterprise software that promises to do the work currently done by thirty employees in accounts payable.'
Pretending otherwise, that robots in every use case are inevitable, is the very worst form of technological determinism, and leads to a dearth in critical thinking about when and how automation *is* best implemented. Because even the most ardent robot lovers will agree, there are plenty of cases of badly deployed automation; systems that make our lives worse and more inefficient, and that kill jobs en route to worse outcomes. And such automated regression is often implemented under the logic of 'robots are coming,' so better hop aboard. We will be able to make better decisions about embracing effective automation if we understand that, in practice, 'the robots are coming for our jobs' usually means something more like 'a CEO wants to cut his operating budget by 15 percent and was just pitched on enterprise software that promises to do the work currently done by thirty employees in accounts payable.'
No robot can take my job (Score:2)
My job is posting to Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
From the looks of things here in recent years, they are sure trying.
Re: (Score:2)
Not half as trying [merriam-webster.com] as you.
Re: (Score:2)
If your name is 110010001000, maybe it's because a robot already took your job.
And some day a cheaper robot with some new AI algorithm will still take your job.
Re: (Score:2)
in which case, you can be replaced with a very small shell script...
if you have not been already...
Re: (Score:2)
A small shell script could replace all the nonsense I post here.
Let them take the jobs - all of them (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, having machines replace all workers will similarly be a good thing. Then, we'll all have free time to do whatever we want to do.
The problem is our current economic isn't set up to deal with such a world. Eliminate a job and the worker asks how he's going to pay for rent and food. That's not a problem caused by the automation. That's a problem created by the use of work to allocate money.
There are a number of potential solutions for these issues. Universal basic income is one possible solution. Reducing the 40 hour work week to 30, 20, or 10 hours is an option. Expanding the weekend to 3, 4, or 5 days is another option.
We're on the cusp of creating a society similar to one in Star Trek. We need to alter our society and employment laws to keep up with the advances and opportunities created by automation.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, free time doesn't equate to earning an income, being able to pay your way in the world.
That and, and being idle (as your standard state of being) does make people decide to carry out all sorts of criminal acts as opposed to be creative in a positive sense.
Re: Let them take the jobs - all of them (Score:2)
Thatâ(TM)s parentâ(TM)s exact point. The problem is our social system doesnâ(TM)t provide for people to cheerfully spend large swaths of time no longer needed to make a living.
Related: i was a joyful hacker right up until the moment i had to use those skills to earn money.
Also related: the social system that requires âworkâ(TM) to allocate resources creates a false scarcity that leads to hoarding and distortions. Innovation is slowing in part because big players control and restrict
Re: Let them take the jobs - all of them (Score:2)
Idle people tend to become bored. Bored people do stupid things(not just crime).
Ubi fails basic economic theory. It creates a massive amount of inflation as you are still resour ce constrainted.
The question is what economic theory will work.given two basic gacta
People given a purpose are more productive and politeter to others
How to distribute resources to various people while giving thenm the choices of what to get?
Re: Let them take the jobs - all of them (Score:2)
Lookup: nazism, Capitalism, fascism
What's your point?
Re: (Score:2)
Lookup: nazism, Capitalism, fascism
What's your point?
That Anonymous Cowards are trolls.
A fork in the road (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll just leave this here [marshallbrain.com]. It's a pretty quick read.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Skynet. Just saying.
Re: (Score:2)
So was this written by Marshall's Brain on a vite rack somewhere or is the whole thing a simulation ala Matrix
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure why you skipped ahead to the fantasy part. Did someone link you to the middle? No one cares about the pie-in-the-sky half.
Tax the Robots (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like the scribes getting anctious at being replaced by the printing press.
Re:Tax the Robots (Score:5, Interesting)
How will we tax? Per CPU?
It should be based on how many jobs are replaced. For instance, a maid can empty 100 chamber pots per day, and a fair wage for a maid is $15/hour or $30k/year. Flush toilets replaced her job, so they should be taxed at 1% of her salary, or $300 per toilet per year. My house has 4 toilets, so I will pay $1200 in taxes, and the government will distribute that money to unemployed chambermaids.
The dishwasher in your kitchen replaces a scullery maid, who could service ~10 kitchens per day, so the tax would be $3000 / year.
Spreadsheets replace bookkeepers, backhoes replace ditch diggers, looms replace weavers, cellphones replace switchboard operators. They all need to be taxed. Fortunately, calculating all the taxes will generate plenty of jobs.
Sounds like the scribes getting anctious at being replaced by the printing press.
The author of TFA is a hypocrite. He wrote the article using a computer and distributed it via the Internet. He should have written each reader a letter in longhand and mailed it via the postal service, generating jobs for papermakers, penmakers, and postal workers. Obviously he needs to pay more tax.
Re: (Score:2)
What about new companies that never replaced any jobs?
They failed to create the jobs they should have, which is logically no different than destroying jobs. Otherwise, new efficient companies will displace old inefficient companies, and we will spiral into poverty. Labor intensive inefficiency must be protected to keep civilization from collapsing.
Should we tax the current cabs and buses for all the horses and horse-handlers (whatever their damn name is) they're still replacing?
They are called liverymen. And yes, cars and buses should absolutely be taxed. The livery jobs are gone, but there is no reason they can't be restored by a hefty tax on the technology that destroyed them. It is
Re: Tax the Robots (Score:2)
And yes, cars and buses should absolutely be taxed. The livery jobs are gone, but there is no reason they can't be restored by a hefty tax on the technology that destroyed them. It is the only fair thing to do.
How do we calculate such a tax? We can't even know, now, how many liverymen we're replaced. The landscape for livery service has changed so, so much since replacing horses allowed longer distances at cheaper rates.
Or, let's take this to a logical extreme: should I be taxed for displacing an orchestra every time I buy a hand-held radio? An equivalent number of signal-tower men whenever I make a phone call? A scribe for a copy of Word?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe we should get rid of payroll taxes. They are regressive, with perverse incentives, deterring hard work, while rewarding idleness. By making labor more expensive, payroll taxes distort the market, and encourage the elimination of economically productive jobs.
Payroll taxes should be eliminated. Any other form of taxation would be better: Income, property, consumption, inheritance, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Doesn't work. If one country taxes robots, companies will, at best, continue a bit further with people, and then change to produce with robots. At worst, they'll move move their production straight away to countries which don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't work. If one country taxes robots, companies will, at best, continue a bit further with people, and then change to produce with robots. At worst, they'll move move their production straight away to countries which don't.
Plenty of countries have avoided automation: Ethiopia, Somalia, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Congo.
They are all doing just fine.
Certainly better than those that destroyed their economies by letting productivity soar: America, Canada, Europe.
Re: (Score:3)
Why don't we outlaw tractors and hire people to pull ploughs while we're at it.
God damn but people are dumb. Robots replacing employees is a good thing. Go get another job and be thankful that the world is getting better.
When I build technology that takes jobs away from people and puts it in the hands of machines, or allows one person to do the work of ten, I pat myself on the back for a job well done and sleep like a baby.
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't we outlaw tractors and hire people to pull ploughs while we're at it.
Because economic illiterates only believe that FUTURE automation is bad. That's the way it's always been.
Replacing farmers with combines was obviously good.
Replacing truck drivers with SDVs is obviously bad.
Re:Tax the Robots (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, the economy just took off in the 30's after the farmers were replaced with combines.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, the economy just took off in the 30's after the farmers were replaced with combines.
The McCormick Reaper was introduced in 1831, not 1931.
The automation of farming happened long before the 1930s.
Re: (Score:2)
Tractors (vs stationary engines) became common around then. Fordson started production in 1917, and had 77% of the US market by '23. The 3 point hitch was invented in '26.
It was the tractor, combined with things like the 3 point hitch, and some bad weather, that allowed the industrialization of farming, putting a lot of small farmers out of a job, whereas the stationary engines and threshers, reapers and plows put farm labourers out of work
Re: (Score:2)
Disruptive technology caused disruption.
I've noticed quality of life has improved a little since then. Maybe the negative impacts were only temporary.
Re: (Score:2)
They are usually temporary, but not fun for those going through it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't care about the data. They can learn to play guitar, or rub my sore neck, or clean my apartment, or cook me a steak. Automation is inherently good. People can learn to do other things, if they have to. Worst case, their descendants will learn to do other things.
Re: (Score:2)
Or we'll have a huge war to employ everyone. Worked well in the past.
Re: Tax the Robots (Score:2)
I can build a robot for that too :)
Re: (Score:2)
Every factory will need to be converted to building killer robots.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, all those tractors displacing workers through the late 1920's created a huge industrial boom during the 1930's due to all the available labour.
Re:Tax the Robots (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with the Luddites was there wasn't hardly any new jobs to learn for 3 generations (70 years).
A better example is the wave of automation in the late 1800's- early 1900's where the response was cutting the number of workers and how much they worked. Child labour laws removed a bunch of workers, the 40 hour week allowed more workers to split the growing pie. Sharing the pie allowed a wage earner to support a wife instead of sending her to work as well.
Re:Tax the Robots (Score:4, Insightful)
Many of the industries that were made obsolete by Schumpeter's creative destruction were actually replaced by other higher skilled the jobs. The problem with the Luddites was they didn't want to learn the new jobs.
This sort of argument is made by people entirely ignorant of the history of industrial revolution, but just quoting slogans they've heard.
The claim that "New! Better!" jobs replace the old ones only works if you issue the displaced workers time machines. The lag between the disastrous (for the workers) collapse of employment in the textile making trade starting in 1770 wasn't made good with new opportunity until 1840, 70 years later. No the thread spinners put out of work between 1770 and 1780 never had any opportunity to get new jobs. Britain did run a helpful employment program between 1792 and 1814 that significantly reduced unemployment among young men -- it is called the "French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars".
The Luddites were weavers affected by the second wave of Industrial Revolutions textile unemployment between about 1810 and 1820. They had seen what had happened to previous two generations of former thread spinners and plain weave cloth makers (and their impoverished children who grew up to have no employment) and wanted none of it. It was not until 1810 that weaving machinery was sophisticated enough to replace the complex patterns that weavers made. They were entirely correct in believing that their livelihoods were being destroyed. And no, there were not nearly enough "new jobs" to absorb them.
We have seen repeatedly since the dawn of the IR that automation can and does eliminate jobs much faster than economies can restructure to create new opportunities. Even a 10 year gap in available employment for a mid-career person, who must then start at the bottom of a new career, is a crushing a blow from which financial recovery is impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
Britain did run a helpful employment program between 1792 and 1814 that significantly reduced unemployment among young men -- it is called the "French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars".
That's pretty much exactly what happened to one of my ancestors. He was then wounded in the wars, not supported afterwards, and his family ended up in the workhouse. Hence I do not know who one of my other ancestors is as my antecedent was 'knocked-up' by persons unknown (the first child died about a week after birth) while in the workhouse, and apparently this was not consensual. She was later rescued from the workhouse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
state and federal law and regulations
Laws and regs are only powerful to the degree that they're enforced. And with Republican legislatures at the state and federal levels starving executive agencies of budget money, that enforcement is typically lax or nonexistent.
No one likes... (Score:3)
... being stuck in a dull, repetitive job, doing the same thing, day-in, day-out.
Unless it's all you think you're capable of doing.
And especially if someone's designed a robot to do it in your place.
Re: (Score:3)
Leela: I'm sorry. My friend and I have to go and perform some mindless repetitive tasks.
Resin-offering robot: Sounds like a romantic evening. I won't keep you.
-- Fear of a Bot Planet, Futurama
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
People might not like those jobs, but I have it on good authority that they like being able to eat and not having to sleep outdoors.
Re: (Score:3)
... but I have it on good authority that they like being able to eat and not having to sleep outdoors.
Hey, leave Google employees out of this.
Re: (Score:1)
... being stuck in a dull, repetitive job, doing the same thing, day-in, day-out.
Unless it's all you think you're capable of doing.
And especially if someone's designed a robot to do it in your place.
Like radiologists who can be replaced by AI? Pharmacists can be replaced now by robots - and my wife is a medical practitioner who hasn't consulted a pharmacist in almost ten years because medication software is so great.
The only reason you still see them in your local drug store is because of legislation. It would be wonderful if my doc could just send in my script to the drugstore, have it filled by a robot and it's ready by the time I drive there.
Humans are too goddamn slow. And the incomprehensible ac
Not only dull repetitive jobs are being replaced (Score:5, Insightful)
For other jobs, like medical doctor, for example, the technology is taking over some of the intellectual / analytical heavy lifting, leaving humans to interact and supervise, or supplement and complement the AI. So even in that case, the human part of the job is arguably worth less economic value than before, because some of the value is produced by the machine. Radiology seems like it will be the first to go this direction. Other dominoes will also fall though soon enough.
The key point is that the automation and AI technologies are advancing in ability rapidly. If you evaluated automation and AI technology capabilities say every 5 years going back 25 years or so, it would be absolutely leaps and bounds capability improvements you would see.
But people are still the same people we were physically and mentally, 10,000 years ago. Though we have more collectively developed knowledge each of us can now learn and take advantage of to become more capable than the 10,000 years ago person was. But still, our physical and cognitive capacities are about the same.
So these two lines: human capabilities improvement, and automation+AI capabilities improvement, are going to cross, and the latter one is going to start rising above the human one. Arguably, that crossing point is where we are now (in the current couple of decades window, anyway).
Special emergency robot tax measures, or reactionary government policies to ban automation/AI, are not going to solve this fundamental issue.
We're going to have to completely re-think what our human value-proposition is, and how much we should distribute the proceeds of the automated economy.
Stupid policies like keeping out the latin americans, and shutting out Chinese goods, are kind of a panic reaction to this larger shift that is taking place. Policies like that are entirely misdiagnosing the problem, and are kind of a Maginot line: large guns pointing in the wrong direction. Useless. Stupid.
Hint: denial is not a good starting point for effective action to improve human welfare.
Let's understand and accept the fundamental economic transition we're in, and find rational and humane ways of dealing with it.
Re: (Score:2)
This is an excellent observation!
I've often wondered what impact on us as human beings that AI and automation is having. And sadly in a lot of respects I'm not seeing (or is it that I am just too damned cynical?) where we as a species are being "elevated" in any way, shape or form by this. What I see that instead of using the extra time we have to rethink our innate value to society as a whole, and elevate our learning and abilities - it's squandered instead on spending more time watching reality TV and bec
Re: (Score:2)
We're at an inflection point where automation and AI (separately or together) are becoming more cost-effective than people, and just plain old more effective than people, at many job categories
This happened in the 80s and 90s. It's why we all have a computer at our desk.
Re: (Score:2)
We're going to have to completely re-think what our human value-proposition is, and how much we should distribute the proceeds of the automated economy.
Nobody will run a business in which the proceeds are taken and distributed to the population at large. What you're suggesting of course is communism, but that's been attempted and has failed, every time.
How about we make a deal. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody will run a business in which the proceeds are taken and distributed to the population at large. What you're suggesting of course is communism, but that's been attempted and has failed, every time.
That's a fair point but what we're doing isn't viable for the future (possibly near future) either. We need a solution. What you've said is Communism = bad, we know what we have = bad, so the question because what is actually good and will work? Having that discussion is constructive just shooting down ideas without proposing solutions is not.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, it's not uniform. AI isn't equally good at all jobs, and in some it won't replace a human well until long after others are forgotten. And in that intermediate period, what do you do with those people who trained for 10 years and mortgaged their future (e.g. student loans) when the jobs they trained for disappear?
If all jobs were replaced, this would be less of a problem, or at least the range of solutions would be obvious, but when jobs are unpredictably disappearing, and not jobs that som
Re: (Score:2)
...Stupid policies like keeping out the latin americans, and shutting out Chinese goods, are kind of a panic reaction to this larger shift that is taking place. Policies like that are entirely misdiagnosing the problem, and are kind of a Maginot line: large guns pointing in the wrong direction. Useless. Stupid....
Keeping mass immigration at bay is a good idea with or without automation. Please don't conflate the two. Keeping other countries from imposing forced technology transfers as China does as a condition of business is also a good idea independent of automation - again please don't conflate the two.
Re: (Score:2)
Automation usually creates mass migration. Why do you think so many people came to America.
Re: (Score:2)
Because they don't believe they can enjoy the same quality of life locally.
They're willing to work, they just need a job, security and the chance to enjoy some of life's luxuries.
The answer is to use automation to help provide those globally, not migrate everybody to North America.
Re: (Score:2)
So even in that case, the human part of the job is arguably worth less economic value than before, because some of the value is produced by the machine. Radiology seems like it will be the first to go this direction. Other dominoes will also fall though soon enough.
If a robot/machine/AI replaces a human at some job, that robot is capable of at least the same amount of productivity as was the human laborer previously performing that job. In reality that robot is likely several times more productive or enables other humans to become themselves several times more productive. The net amount of wealth in the world has not decreased, but has instead likely gone up. This is a very important fact.
So while there is now one more person without a job at the current moment, th
Re: (Score:2)
Sure different from "No Taxation without Representation"
Re:No one likes... (Score:4, Interesting)
... being stuck in a dull, repetitive job, doing the same thing, day-in, day-out. Unless it's all you think you're capable of doing. And especially if someone's designed a robot to do it in your place.
I think this needs some qualification, I mean we're not talking about a Ford-era assembly line where you're suppose to tighten the same bolt over and over again anymore. From a certain perspective I do the same thing every day, I walk into an office and code stuff, mostly in the same language using the same tools. Okay so the exact code isn't the same, but it's not like I'm a barrista one day, airplane pilot the day after, auto mechanic the third and surgeon the fourth. It's enough variations on a theme that I'm content and sometimes I don't feel very creative and then it's nice to have some backlog of "I know how to add/change/fix this" tasks that are productive but not exactly groundbreaking.
If you have a trade, like say you're an electrician you're supposed to wire houses to code. I'm sure you can get a bit creative with processes and solutions but not really outside-the-box creative. Do they feel like a one-trick pony doing the same thing over and over again? I doubt it, it's a big field and few installations are exactly the same. Even Michelin star kitchens have to make the same dishes quite a few times, it's not just at McDonald's. A lot of the jobs that are going to disappear aren't the kind of jobs that would drive you insane with boredom, we've already done away with most of those in the last century. If being a taxi driver isn't complex enough to keep you employed I think a lot of people will struggle to find "one thing" they do that robots don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, let us split hairs (Score:1)
The managers will be deploying robots to replace humans. You can call it whatever you want, but it boils down to the same thing — job loss.
We can argue about what to call it, or what to do about it. Guess which one matters?
Re: (Score:2)
What's the point of bitching about the chain of causality? Blame the inventors. Blame the grants that fund them. Blame the plant that supplied electricity.
The bots are coming. Trying to stem "manager's decisions" is bullshit. If they're cheaper, they're used. You don't uninvent that. You don't "convince it" away. You don't prevent that with regulation, legislation, or further innovation. Billy the 18-year-old will have nothing useful to offer society, it's happening, nothing is going to stop it, the only th
retarded clickbait (Score:3)
When people say "robots are replacing x" they're saying robots will be taking certain jobs in the future -- agency is irrelevant.
It doesn't matter if a moronic entity with no critical thinking skills is making the decision, or if it's the robots themselves -- the outcome is the same.
Further pretending that anything other than profit/competitiveness matters in the long run is just swimming upstream,.
Re: (Score:2)
They were talking about me. When people talk about the inescapable fact that a robot has become cheaper at X and will be the financially advantageous option, the path of least resistance regardless of any human decision, they're actually referring to the decision I made. I sit in an office near the north pole and do that. Foxconn basically waits around for me to call and give each go ahead. I sign off and decide when any of the last prole bargaining chips is removed.
Sex will take a while. It's a sticky one!
Re: (Score:2)
maybe. but some reading comprehension would do you well.
Goes both ways (Score:2)
Because even the most ardent robot lovers will agree, there are plenty of cases of badly deployed automation; systems that make our lives worse and more inefficient, and that kill jobs en route to worse outcomes
Because even the most ardent human lovers will agree, there are plenty of cases of badly deployed humans; systems that make our lives worse and more inefficient, and that kill jobs en route to worse outcome.
Fits just as well. Difference is, robots are not vindictive...
Re: (Score:2)
Difference is, robots are not vindictive...
You say that like you believe it.
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes we say things to persuade others. Sometimes we say things to persuade ourselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Fits just as well. Difference is, robots are not vindictive...
Nor do they eat, sleep, require smoke breaks, form unions, bitch about unfair practices, hold meetings for diversity training and how to not sexually harass other robots. Nor will they need training departments and HR departments managing the compliance or other "feel good" measures to retain good employees.
No time-and-a-half, no hazard pay, no shift-differential, no holidays, no benefits or 401k/403b plans and anything else us meatbags need to feel a part of a "team".
Re: (Score:2)
Because even the most ardent robot lovers will agree, there are plenty of cases of badly deployed automation; systems that make our lives worse and more inefficient, and that kill jobs en route to worse outcomes
Because even the most ardent human lovers will agree, there are plenty of cases of badly deployed humans; systems that make our lives worse and more inefficient, and that kill jobs en route to worse outcome.
Fits just as well. Difference is, robots are not vindictive...
The difference is robots don't vote. If it becomes a big enough problem expect legislation.
Re: (Score:2)
systems that make our lives worse and more inefficient
Almost every life.
When a shitty design/system/feature/practice is implemented, someone profited from the incompetent/malicious compromise.
Cheezzzebrgrrr ! (Score:2)
And a deluxe two-all-beef-patties-lettuce-cheese-pickles-onions-special-sauce on a sesame seed bun.
Order taker to cook:
Cheezzzebrgrrr ! Cheezzzebrgrrr !
Worrying about the wrong problem... (Score:5, Insightful)
By and large people are worried not specifically about their jobs, but rather their livelihood.
If it is at the point where we can do a great deal of jobs with robots, but can't provide livelihoods, if we can at all figure it out, I'd rather fix the livelihood issue without having to keep humans doing 'lesser' tasks just because we can't figure out a better way.
Certainly an easier thing to say rather than have a solution, but I'm just not a fan of the way this problem is usually framed.
Re: (Score:1)
I agree.
Unfortunately, nobody with the power to do anything about it gives one tiny little speck of a fuck about those that will be losing livelihoods due to automation because those with the power to do something about it will be making a small percentage of extra profit for the short term after implementing said automation. Nobody in the business world or the government oversight committees watching the business world has a long-term view. Profits increased this quarter? You did your job and congrats.
Re: (Score:2)
How to implement that solution is also a problem, however.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, there's the unemployable but also the issue of supply and demand, if there's an oversupply of workers wages will stagnate and skilled workers will jump at wages that are relatively high compared to their plebs but still a microscopic fraction compared to the billionaires running the show. The way the 1% has been running away from everyone else lately Elysium isn't too unrealistic, a bunch of insanely rich who can pay a billion dollars each to run their own space station while everyone else gets the mi
Humans should do jobs that only humans can do (Score:4, Interesting)
As soon as a job can be automated, it is beneath a human being.
Same as it ever was... (Score:2)
Yeah - folks are being replaced the same as they have for decades now:
Computerized automation for a long time meant fewer folks have been able to do the jobs of more folks.
Robots aren't the form factor now, I agree.
But it's hard to fight economy of scale - robots are crazy expensive still - but they won't be forever.
The robots today likely cost millions over their lifetime and can only express very limited generality - along the lines of robotic arms and simple vision systems.
Robots a decade from now will b
Robots are not coming to take your job (Score:2)
If you are a white collar worker, it will be AI deployments that replace you.
Remember what E-mail did to secretarial pools, what B2B deployments have done to commissioned sales people...
Soon up, entire levels of management replaced by sparkline graphs, small shell scripts and project management tools that actually work.
If you are a blue collar worker, there are some jobs even robots don't want to do, and plenty of jobs that are apparently so difficult for humans to do, there is no way a robot could be train
Managers too (Score:2)
AI, automation will replace managers just as quickly as workers, perhaps more. Anyone with a clerical job is at risk when payments are all done with smart contracts. Anyone with ceremonial and process-oriented roles too. And managers will find themselves with fewer and fewer people to manage, so they will be axed too.
Senior managers and C-levels will go as large businesses collapse under debt and compliance pressures, and fail to scale as the number of stakeholders goes up. More micro and small businesses,
Management needs to worry (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a lot of stuff that plain old automation can do to eliminate them much faster than the people doing actual work. What will happen is that one manager will be able to oversee far more direct reporting employees thanks to AI tools and improved communications and tracking. That will flatten out organizations as fewer first level managers leads inevitably to fewer second levels. And in the end, fewer levels altogether.
If I was a plumber, I'd fear the day that they invented a robot that could crawl under a house and fix a leaky pipe. But if I was the boss that dispatched half a dozen guys, I'd already have been replaced by an Uber for Plumbers app.
Not going to end well IMO (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm 43, so I have a good chunk of time to go before I'm retirement-age. The problem is that work and society are changing faster than the average career lifespan. Management trying to squeeze every ounce of margin and productivity out of a process will eventually squeeze all the humans out of it. And this time we're not talking about assembly-line or paper-pushing jobs...basically every knowledge-work job outside of medicine will be affected, and medicine is only safe because they were smart enough to have a real professional organization that paid for legislation.
I'd be for a basic income for most people simply because I know that's the only way to bridge the gap between generations. Plenty of people my age wouldn't...they feel they've spent their entire working lives dumping money into retirement accounts and won't support anything that doesn't involve a 40+ hour workweek for everyone...."I'm doing it, therefore you must do it." But, what's to be done if most of the adult population is incapable of earning money for work? The whole cycle of work-earn-consume will be broken, and no one will buy what businesses are producing.
It's a bad situation. You can't just glibly say, "sucks for you, learn to code." First, most people can't learn to code, and second, most coding jobs will go away as well. If businesses don't want to destroy the economy, they are going to need to leave some slack in place. Look at how many people are still employed at large corporations earning decent salaries doing nebulous mid-level "business-y" work. This is a fraction of what it was before large-scale computerization. I've spent my career in IT and have seen this first-hand. Laying off all that slack means they aren't paying taxes, buying houses, purchasing your goods, etc. Either we need to have something along the lines of make-work to keep the illusion of a money-based economy in place, or declare that no one has to work to survive anymore. I'm thinking the first is more palatable. I'd rather have thousands of people doing something than out on the streets committing crimes because they have nothing.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I'd be for a basic income for most people simply because I know that's the only way to bridge the gap between generations.
Putting everyone in a perpetual welfare state isn't a good solution. Jobs are automated every generation - it's been that way for at least the past couple of hundred years; people adjust and get on with life.
Appeal to Tradition = Fallacy (Score:2)
https://www.logicallyfallaciou... [logicallyfallacious.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Upon arriving in southeastern Ohio in 1972, my family watched as former coal miners drank, fought and generally self-destructed to the the detriment of their families and the region in general. Same thing for my college roommate from East Liverpool Ohio, whose steel producing community was similarly falling apart.
In America, that vaunted retraining takes money _up front_ that these highly competitive, tough-as-nails workers could not provide to become the maintenance technicians etc. etc.
In the place I work
Re: (Score:2)
You can't just glibly say, "sucks for you, learn to code."
Sure you can. Journalists said exactly that. Zero sympathy, zero empathy. Then when the worm turned and they got laid off, suddenly it was a hate crime to tell them what they had told us.
Re: (Score:2)
... If businesses don't want to destroy the economy, they are going to need to leave some slack in place.
There's always a sociopath somewhere willing to wreck the economy in order to make money doing so. No different than outsourcing, which has decimated the middle class.
Management always has been (Score:2, Insightful)
Robots, outsourcing, sending manufacturing overseas, limiting hours, management uses every possible tactic to reduce labor costs.
Management hates their workforce because they see workers as a no-value cost sink that siphons away their profits.
This toxic, ravenous extreme of capitalism is an ouroboros. The snake has eaten its entire tail and is now consuming vital organs.
Management Always wants to cull the herd (Score:2)
Never mind the robots; It's always about the management and the Bean Counters.
As an example: If your shift of, say, 6 people has someone call in sick, and your crew manages (barely) to cover what needs to be done, next thing you know, you only have 5 people on your shift to work with.
After all, "you can do the job with 5, why do you need 6?"
And so, it continues.
Of course, when things break down, and 5 can't cover the load without a bunch of customer complaints, then it's Obviously the fault of the lazy empl
Automate or die (Score:2)
People used to keep accounting records by hand, on paper, doing the match manually. Now computers do this work, drastically reducing--but not eliminating--the need for humans. And so it is with factories, self-checkout lines, ATMs, and so many other jobs.
If you're a company that is using humans to write down bookkeeping entries on paper, you will not keep up with the competition. Automate, or die.
Re: (Score:2)
"I only sell wooden toys handcrafted by an individual, forget this Lego stuff!"
Fun fact: The Lego company started by making wooden toys.