7 ms·

I only see this getting worse in the future. There just isn't enough work to go around anymore. How many white collar/service jobs don't involve any actual work

by rms 17y ago

I only see this getting worse in the future. There just isn't enough work to go around anymore. How many white collar/service jobs don't involve any actual work? I just hope our economic system can adjust so we don't have a perpetual, growing underclass.

pg 17y ago
I believe this is an illusion. It always seems like technology is eliminating jobs, but it has always tended to create as many as it kills, which is why after hundreds of years of new labor-saving inventions, the number of jobs is still close to the number of people who want them.
- sabat 17y ago
  It's not an illusion. It's real. I'm closer to poverty right now than I have ever been in my life.
  - xenophanes 17y ago
    No it's an illusion. I'm further from poverty right now than I have ever been in my life. But personal anecdotes don't actually determine what's going on in a whole country.
    - sabat 17y ago
      What's going on in the country -- that of which I have some direct experience -- is far more than any one personal anecdote. Your experience, in fact, is anecdotal.
- natrius 17y ago
  http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/02/21/business/21unemployed_graphic2/21unemployed_graphic2-articleInline.jpg http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/02/21/business/21un... That graph is the scariest thing I've seen about this recession, and I think it makes a pretty convincing case that this time actually is different. I honestly think unskilled labor is dying off. I can't imagine what new jobs can be done with minimal education that won't be automatable within the next decade, and many existing jobs will be lost as well. It's a matter of time before people start smashing self-checkout machines.
  - protomyth 17y ago
    what do you consider unskilled labor? Are you talking entry service jobs?
    - natrius 17y ago
      On second thought, what I'm thinking of is even broader than unskilled labor. Plenty of jobs require training or minimal advanced education, but they could still be done by computers or robots. Manufacturing, retail, accounting, and similar fields seem easily automatable in the near future. For instance, once reliable anti-theft systems are built, many retail jobs will be eliminated.
      - protomyth 17y ago
        Accounting might actually be safer, but not because of job requirements. It is one of those "blame-a-person / someone needs to testify" type of positions that could be problematic going the computer / overseas route. Plumbers, Electricians, etc probably are OK, since robots really need to advance to replace them (like quantum leap) and locality is important. Manufacturing is probably hosed, and that is a huge problem.
        robryan 17y ago
        Government insures that account is kept around with crazy regulation that complicates the entire thing. A simple tax system which could be done by anyone online because of simplification of the tax system would create an enormous efficiency gain. Having done a little bit of work in plumbing with my dad I'd have to say that the home service type plumbing isn't getting automated anytime soon. But the manufacturing based plumbing such as installing plumbing into caravans I can see eventually getting automated.
      - netcan 17y ago
        I think this is part of the illusion mentioned above. Throughout the history of technological advancement you have the destruction of jobs that seem very hard to replace. When industrialisation began you had massive shifts that were probably scarier then the ones we see now. One relatively unskilled person could create hundreds of nails effectively destroying all employment in nail making. It would have seemed ridiculous to suggest that more people would be working in manufacturing stuff 100 years later when artisans were being replaced by machines at insane rates. Then we started consuming many more nails (and other stuff) because they were cheap and making many more nails. making became the staple employer. One thing that might give you hope is reconsidering the flexibility of certain aspects of the labour market. There is no reason to assume that we need x unskilled jobs and y low-skilled jobs because there are inherently x & y unskilled and low skilled people in the market. Earlier generations of automation actually replaced fairly skilled labour with relatively unskilled labour. You didn't need to apprentice for 5 years to make forks. There is good reason to assume we can go the other way too, in fact, most advanced economies have done this.
- graphene 17y ago
  I agree on the influence of new technologies, but the current economic downturn has had nothing to do with that. The fact is that many people are unemployed now due to the eceonomy being as it is, and there seems to be a consensus that things won't change anytime soon in that regard. Couple that (on a slightly longer term perhaps) to the end of cheap, abundant oil to fuel every aspect of modern civilisation, and I think there could well be an issue of how to have everyone employed effectively.
- yungchin 17y ago
  There was some interesting discussion about this a couple of days ago: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1127274 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1127274 I guess one problem may be that the new jobs require skills that the old jobs didn't, and not all of the newly unemployed would be able to acquire those skills.
- rms 17y ago
  You are probably right. My intuition is that technology should be eliminating more jobs. The demand of the world can be met with less and less workers. I'm having a tough time picturing the new jobs that are going to emerge, but I suppose that scenario is much more likely than the ruling class allowing a disaffected underclass to emerge.
dan_the_welder 17y ago
I think the barriers to entry in many business fields are just getting higher and higher.
jcromartie 17y ago
I think the only reasonable solution is to stimulate regional economies by limiting trade with cheaper outside areas. The only people that really benefit from importing everything from cheap countries are the people with money in the first place. The working class gets put out of work and the middle class become the new serfs.

by rms 17y ago

pg 17y ago

I believe this is an illusion. It always seems like technology is eliminating jobs, but it has always tended to create as many as it kills, which is why after hundreds of years of new labor-saving inventions, the number of jobs is still close to the number of people who want them.

sabat 17y ago
It's not an illusion. It's real. I'm closer to poverty right now than I have ever been in my life.
- xenophanes 17y ago
  No it's an illusion. I'm further from poverty right now than I have ever been in my life. But personal anecdotes don't actually determine what's going on in a whole country.
  - sabat 17y ago
    What's going on in the country -- that of which I have some direct experience -- is far more than any one personal anecdote. Your experience, in fact, is anecdotal.
natrius 17y ago
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/02/21/business/21unemployed_graphic2/21unemployed_graphic2-articleInline.jpg http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/02/21/business/21un... That graph is the scariest thing I've seen about this recession, and I think it makes a pretty convincing case that this time actually is different. I honestly think unskilled labor is dying off. I can't imagine what new jobs can be done with minimal education that won't be automatable within the next decade, and many existing jobs will be lost as well. It's a matter of time before people start smashing self-checkout machines.
- protomyth 17y ago
  what do you consider unskilled labor? Are you talking entry service jobs?
  - natrius 17y ago
    On second thought, what I'm thinking of is even broader than unskilled labor. Plenty of jobs require training or minimal advanced education, but they could still be done by computers or robots. Manufacturing, retail, accounting, and similar fields seem easily automatable in the near future. For instance, once reliable anti-theft systems are built, many retail jobs will be eliminated.
    - protomyth 17y ago
      Accounting might actually be safer, but not because of job requirements. It is one of those "blame-a-person / someone needs to testify" type of positions that could be problematic going the computer / overseas route. Plumbers, Electricians, etc probably are OK, since robots really need to advance to replace them (like quantum leap) and locality is important. Manufacturing is probably hosed, and that is a huge problem.
      - robryan 17y ago
        Government insures that account is kept around with crazy regulation that complicates the entire thing. A simple tax system which could be done by anyone online because of simplification of the tax system would create an enormous efficiency gain. Having done a little bit of work in plumbing with my dad I'd have to say that the home service type plumbing isn't getting automated anytime soon. But the manufacturing based plumbing such as installing plumbing into caravans I can see eventually getting automated.
    - netcan 17y ago
      I think this is part of the illusion mentioned above. Throughout the history of technological advancement you have the destruction of jobs that seem very hard to replace. When industrialisation began you had massive shifts that were probably scarier then the ones we see now. One relatively unskilled person could create hundreds of nails effectively destroying all employment in nail making. It would have seemed ridiculous to suggest that more people would be working in manufacturing stuff 100 years later when artisans were being replaced by machines at insane rates. Then we started consuming many more nails (and other stuff) because they were cheap and making many more nails. making became the staple employer. One thing that might give you hope is reconsidering the flexibility of certain aspects of the labour market. There is no reason to assume that we need x unskilled jobs and y low-skilled jobs because there are inherently x & y unskilled and low skilled people in the market. Earlier generations of automation actually replaced fairly skilled labour with relatively unskilled labour. You didn't need to apprentice for 5 years to make forks. There is good reason to assume we can go the other way too, in fact, most advanced economies have done this.
graphene 17y ago
I agree on the influence of new technologies, but the current economic downturn has had nothing to do with that. The fact is that many people are unemployed now due to the eceonomy being as it is, and there seems to be a consensus that things won't change anytime soon in that regard. Couple that (on a slightly longer term perhaps) to the end of cheap, abundant oil to fuel every aspect of modern civilisation, and I think there could well be an issue of how to have everyone employed effectively.
yungchin 17y ago
There was some interesting discussion about this a couple of days ago: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1127274 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1127274 I guess one problem may be that the new jobs require skills that the old jobs didn't, and not all of the newly unemployed would be able to acquire those skills.
rms 17y ago
You are probably right. My intuition is that technology should be eliminating more jobs. The demand of the world can be met with less and less workers. I'm having a tough time picturing the new jobs that are going to emerge, but I suppose that scenario is much more likely than the ruling class allowing a disaffected underclass to emerge.

dan_the_welder 17y ago

I think the barriers to entry in many business fields are just getting higher and higher.

jcromartie 17y ago

I think the only reasonable solution is to stimulate regional economies by limiting trade with cheaper outside areas. The only people that really benefit from importing everything from cheap countries are the people with money in the first place. The working class gets put out of work and the middle class become the new serfs.