Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Saede Riordan]

For every job opening in the US, there are 3 people looking for work. That’s really all you need to know.
And it’s going to get worse.
You know that fancy billing program that generates quotes and invoices automatically? That used to be someone’s job.
That fancy spreadsheet? That was someone’s job once.
To quote someone on reddit:
"I remember when I was going to school for Drafting and all of the instructors were insistent on the fact that you absolutely, positively, 100% HAD to have an expert knowledge of trigonometry in order to draw.
But you don’t. The best grade I ever got in Trig was a D+. And I can draw. I've never needed to do anything beyond basic math when using AutoCAD.”
It’s more than just robots that are going to take our jobs away. Automation in software is going to do as much if not more damage to the outlook. Engineering degrees are becoming less and less about the concepts behind design. They are teaching you less and less why to design something a certain way and more and more how to do so. A modern engineering degree is more of a “How to use software programs X,Y and Z” course than a “how to engineer” course.
Back before these tasks were automated in software, they had to be done by hand, by very smart people, who were in extreme high demand, and made lots of money as a result.
Software has dumbed-down so many of those advanced tasks that someone with barely any knowledge of the concept behind it can do the task equally as well as the knowledgeable person. Companies see that and the “Cost savings! Cost savings!” alarm goes off in the board room. No need to hire the engineer who got straight As and has 30 years of experience when the intern knows the software better.
We’re moving very quickly to becoming a post-scarcity society where automation and advances in information technology make just about everything so cheap to make and obtain it basically becomes free.
Now, we may laud these advances and say “that’s the whole point! We don’t have to work as much!” But when you look at what’s actually happening, it’s the opposite. My generation (I'm either a millennial or a gen-xer depending on who you ask, but this applies to both) works longer hours than the generations before us. We take fewer vacation days. We are statistically more productive.
But at the same time, we are getting paid less. Why? Because we’re still living in that old mentality where hours worked has a direct correlation to added value to the company. Most of us know that’s not true, and few companies are under the illusion that everyone is exactly as productive at 4:30 pm on a Friday as they are at 10 am on a Wednesday. But how do you measure productivity? We haven’t figured that out yet, at least not in a way that’s fair, consistent, and manageable. Until we do, we’re still largely going to pretend that hours = value, and watch as hours get cut, benefits get slashed, and older, more skilled workers are put out to pasture and replaced with younger, cheaper workers. All of the value automation adds to a process go directly to the top, and the human workers get their wages slashed and their jobs cut.
The unemployed are sneered at with derision for not “wanting to work,” as if there is some pressing task that needs to be accomplished that isn't already being done. That’s the old farmhouse mentality again. 100 years ago if you didn't work, you died. That’s not true now. It can’t be true because there isn't enough work to keep everyone busy in the first place. We've corporatized, mechanized, and automated farming, banking, government, you-name it. We have unemployed because things don’t need to get done like they used to. But the concept of paying someone not to work is such an anathema to the down-home, work-based, agricultural values we were raised with that most of us simply shut our brains off when we even hear the notion.
Either we accept the fact that even if every job opening were filled today, there’d still be millions of people who will be perpetually unemployed and deal with that in a humane manner; or, we continue to let the system work as if we’re all agricultural workers and let those increased profits reaped by automation rise to the top, and wake up one day realizing the middle class has all but disappeared and the feudal system has returned.

[Nmaro Makari]

Some relevant and, I think, inspirational words from Reverend John Ball, spoken in England circa 1350 AD

"My good friends, things cannot go on well in England, nor ever will until everything shall be in common, when there shall be neither vassal nor lord, and all distinctions levelled; when the lords shall be no more masters than ourselves. How ill they have used us!… They have wines, spices and fine bread, when we have only rye and the refuse of fine straw; and if we drink, it must be water. They have handsome seats and manors, when we must brave the wind and rain in our labours in the field; but it is from our labour they have the wherewith to support their pomp.… Let us go to the king, who is young, and remonstrate with him on our servitude, telling him we must have it otherwise, or that we shall find a remedy for it ourselves"

[Vic Van Meter]

Well, if you've got an architecture degree and a working knowledge of REVIT, there's a lot of work out there.

[Lyn Farel]

It's all the mindless jobs that are progressively being replaced. Actually, most of the non interesting jobs imo. The problem is, though, at the demographics level, yes.

[Techie Kanenald]

I've often pondered on this, and as you say it's getting worse, I say it's going to get much better...why, you ask?

Cause old people are dying.

Sounds harsh, eh?  But I ask you too keep in mind, oh readers, that the future is -us-, not them.  I may be one of the few with this hope, but I plan on being a CFO one day.  I've often talked to my fiancee's father, a current CFO.  I realized in these conversations the raw gap between what is "taught" to my generation and what has been "taught" to his.  What we "know"....what we are allowed to -think-...and we will be the ones running companies, creating technologies, and generally running the world.

You say as long as we hold on to old values, it'll get worse....I ask you then, what generation has never left their personal mark on history...either as a generation (hippies), or as a sub-set of said generation(geeks of the 80's)?

Look at the very day it is in America.  MLK Jr. Day.  I don't think I need a better example than that.  In his day, blacks were inferior.  Look at us today...we find that idea to be backwards in most of society.  And that's 60 years.  60 years is not even a lifetime in the modern age.

It will get better...if we make it better.

[Jace]

The primary issue, it seems to me, is that any future solutions are of no use to those in dire straits at this very moment. Yes, I think it is likely that technological advances will eventually balance themselves out to the point of making human existence less costly instead of merely making corporate existence less costly, but this is of no comfort to someone currently struggling to exist.

One cannot preach individualism for the present but community for the future. Either you are willing to structure society for the community in this moment or you are selling platitudes for the future in order to placate the justified indignation your current individualism causes in those around you.

[Ché Biko]

I've always found it a strange thing that in our current economy, our most renewable and available resource is also one of the most costly, yet still distributed so poorly.

Side note: society also benefits from unemployment. In fact, economists consider it a necessity, so don't feel too ashamed if you're unemployed.

[Jace]

Side note: society also benefits from unemployment. In fact, economists consider it a necessity, so don't feel too ashamed if you're unemployed.

This is true of a certain unemployment rate that is mobile - meaning it is intended to be people temporarily unemployed, not the perpetually unemployed at high rates.

[Lyn Farel]

I've always found it a strange thing that in our current economy, our most renewable and available resource is also one of the most costly, yet still distributed so poorly.

Side note: society also benefits from unemployment. In fact, economists consider it a necessity, so don't feel too ashamed if you're unemployed.

Around 5% turnover, no more. Above, it's bad but also refrains inflation. Try to reduce unemployment though, and you will probably create inflation.

No wonder to me that they prefer to fight inflation instead of unemployment.

[Saede Riordan]

The primary issue, it seems to me, is that any future solutions are of no use to those in dire straits at this very moment. Yes, I think it is likely that technological advances will eventually balance themselves out to the point of making human existence less costly instead of merely making corporate existence less costly, but this is of no comfort to someone currently struggling to exist.

One cannot preach individualism for the present but community for the future. Either you are willing to structure society for the community in this moment or you are selling platitudes for the future in order to placate the justified indignation your current individualism causes in those around you.

This definitely.

Side note: society also benefits from unemployment. In fact, economists consider it a necessity, so don't feel too ashamed if you're unemployed.

This is true of a certain unemployment rate that is mobile - meaning it is intended to be people temporarily unemployed, not the perpetually unemployed at high rates.

Also this. Unfortunately perpetual unemployment is going to become an increasing trend. Where its not temporary and transitive unemployment but structural unemployment.
Its going to get worse.
That self driving car of google's? Ten years from now, its going to be replacing our currently 2 million truck drivers. What are those people supposed to do then? Work at walmart or McDonalds for 8 dollars at hour part time, making barely enough to pay some of the bills, much less feed their children?
And with automated checkouts and the automated restaurants that are currently being prototyped, even those low hanging service jobs aren't going to be immune to to automation. Its here and its not going to go anywhere. At the same time as we're having less and less work for people to do, we have more and more people being born to do it. The gap between available people and available work is growing, which gives capital a tremendous amount of power over labour. The bargaining chip of unions and individuals when working for higher wages is that their job needs to be done and without them it won't be. But that's increasingly becoming less and less the case. Not only are the jobs requiring less and less skill due to automation, but there are more and more people unemployed and trying to find work, due to automation. So previously high demand workers are now easily replaced, and there's no incentive on the part of corporations to negotiate with them.  I'm not saying automation is a bad thing here, its not. But it is creating structural inequalities that are slowly eroding the lower and middle classes and bolstering the rich. We're all slowly going to be thrown off the bus if we don't, all of us, as a generation, wake up and do something about it. And I don't mean smashing looms, or reducing automation, that will never work. But the fact is, unemployment is here to stay, and that completely anathema concept of paying people to live, instead of paying them for work, might be what we have to consider if we are to retain ourselves and our culture and prevent the richest among us from tossing the rest of us back into the dark ages.

[Vikarion]

But the fact is, unemployment is here to stay, and that completely anathema concept of paying people to live, instead of paying them for work, might be what we have to consider if we are to retain ourselves and our culture and prevent the richest among us from tossing the rest of us back into the dark ages.

Even if everything you say is true, they won't be tossing just "the rest of us" into the dark ages. It'll be everyone, because there will be no one to buy their products. Some of the rich - especially the ones who make money making actual things - are aware of this. But many, if not most, of the rich these days are concentrated in financial and service sectors, and they are often of relatively little utility to the rest of this.

Let me inject my pessimism here: laws are made by the strong, for the strong, and what the rest of us want will not matter. And, since it sometimes seems necessary, I would note that we do not have other economic systems that could potentially work in place of capitalism.

Be wary of saying "post-scarcity". Scarcity is, in many ways, logically necessary in this universe. Even if everyone could have a galaxy to themselves, that would not mean that several someones wouldn't want a particular galaxy over others. What we are entering is a period where people are being systematically deprived of the ability to make enough money to support themselves, and where the protections on workers have largely been stripped away. If we had continued the pattern established earlier in the century, we would probably be down to a 30 hour work week. Of course, with globalization (which, if we want to be fair, is necessary), we probably couldn't do that, but we certainly wouldn't be working longer and longer hours for less and less.

That said, the wealthy would be well advised to invest in seeking a financially healthier population. Impoverishing the other classes tends to lead to them eventually deciding to try other means for improving their lot than the legal, never a good thing for the class with the most to lose. And despite the attempts by some to believe otherwise, capitalism is not a system that tolerates cronyism forever. Continue to deprive your workers of enough to live on, and you will find that none can afford what you sell.

But many people and corporations are not willing to consider that, and so they make the conscious choice to pay their employees as little as possible, so that they can make as high a short-term profit as possible.

[Norrin Ellis]

Why can't I find a job?
Can the government create a job for me?

Economists are often asked what people will do when their jobs are replaced by technology.  The typical economist's answer is "something else."  As long as we're paying attention to the changes in the market and are willing to acquire or develop the skills that will meet those market needs, rather than simply make us feel good, then we can do "something else."

[orange]

In general, we fail to plan long-term.  Individually or corporately.  I think as our generation gains its collective voice, we are going to reject many of the debates our parents think exist.  We are going to decide that the "big problems," they did not decide to tackle (because profits), we are going to end up going after.

In my industry, Aerospace*, there is an interesting challenge coming.  Essentially, 50% of the Aerospace workforce is getting set to retire.  Many of these are knowledge-jobs, they cannot be easily automated.  Some of it takes plenty of imagination. In addition, automation only goes so far on the factory floor.  Today, satellites and even aircraft are each largely handcrafted and the assembly line skills are not straightforward.   These are not automobile production lines, they produce dozens of units in the best of years.  The graph in the linked pdf is telling.

[Vikarion]

Economists are often asked what people will do when their jobs are replaced by technology.  The typical economist's answer is "something else."  As long as we're paying attention to the changes in the market and are willing to acquire or develop the skills that will meet those market needs, rather than simply make us feel good, then we can do "something else."

While it is true that automation does not necessarily mean that joblessness is inevitable, it is nonetheless also true that simply appealing to the "free market" doesn't solve for the problem.

First of all, a "free market" actually requires governmental regulation to function. Without governmental controls, there's nothing actually preventing Wal-Mart from showing up at your door and simply taking your money. So we at least need enforcement of criminal and contract law. Alright, so what if ChemCo Limited decides to dump half a million tons of cyanide gas into the air over your house, or decides that they'd like to dump their waste into the river that cuts across both your property, theirs, and your neighbor's? Right, so we need environmental regulations, too. And so on.

There is no such thing as a "free market" in the unregulated sense. A free market is one in which I can sell you my crap and you can sell me your crap. It works well, as long as the laws are evenly enforced. But that says nothing about education, human welfare, etc. We need capitalism, but we don't need only capitalism. It is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a progressive society.

Secondly, economists are quite willing to say that innovations do not, in the long run, necessarily mean job loss. But that's in the very long run, and under specific conditions. The specific conditions being that the workforce can be educated for new jobs, and that the labor market actually be a market. And in the short run - as in, specific, individual human lives - people suffer. A lot. Being a (mostly) utilitarian, I don't see any principle that I must obey before advocating that something ought to be done for those suffering.

As for the conditions, most corporations are not willing to pay for educating future employees, and schools are without the funding they need to actually educate. Say what you will about how much money is being set aside for "education", the simple fact is that the schools aren't getting enough. The labor market, as well, simply isn't. It's not just that there are too many people for too few positions, it's also that companies are running the people they have at 60, 70, 80 hours a week or more, for less and less, because those people are terrified of being fired. And there is no law of economics stating that the labor market will settle on a livable wage. It's perfectly possible for it to settle out at a level at which everyone who isn't a technician or skilled artisan will starve to death.

So, do we serve capitalism, or does it serve us?

[Streya]

I've often pondered on this, and as you say it's getting worse, I say it's going to get much better...why, you ask?

Cause old people are dying.

Sounds harsh, eh?  But I ask you too keep in mind, oh readers, that the future is -us-, not them.  I may be one of the few with this hope, but I plan on being a CFO one day.  I've often talked to my fiancee's father, a current CFO.  I realized in these conversations the raw gap between what is "taught" to my generation and what has been "taught" to his.  What we "know"....what we are allowed to -think-...and we will be the ones running companies, creating technologies, and generally running the world.

You say as long as we hold on to old values, it'll get worse....I ask you then, what generation has never left their personal mark on history...either as a generation (hippies), or as a sub-set of said generation(geeks of the 80's)?

Look at the very day it is in America.  MLK Jr. Day.  I don't think I need a better example than that.  In his day, blacks were inferior.  Look at us today...we find that idea to be backwards in most of society.  And that's 60 years.  60 years is not even a lifetime in the modern age.

It will get better...if we make it better.

There are some factors working against this, though. The aging population which has well-paying, high-knowledge jobs also tends to have access to superior healthcare and can expect to hold on to the positions they're in for another decade or two at least. I remember when I was studying engineering in college I checked out undergrad internships and co-ops, and the latest trend seems to be for engineering and tech companies to take on new, young workers in unpaid internships performing high-knowledge tasks. These young interns who are about to leave their engineering schools with ABET certifications may still find themselves in unpaid internships, waiting for the older workers to retire or die (which may take some time, people are retiring or dying later and later these days). Will it work out in the end? Maybe, but it's going to be a rough ride initially for those young engineers and scientists.

I'd also like to point out the hippies and 80s tech lords have had HUGE impacts on our society. While I'll admit many of the goals the hippie movement set out to accomplish flopped, they revolutionized the way we consider social liberties and other cultures. And the geeks of the 80s ushered in wonderful things like this very internet. While I get you were responding to the bit about tossing out old ideas, your example was kinda wrong. At the end of the day, any idea can have merit regardless of how old it is, so long as its a reasonable idea that conforms with facts and gets good results.