6 ms·

Imagine if word processing never happened because the Typists union lobbied for laws which require a human typist to draft documents, or if engineering technici

Imagine if word processing never happened because the Typists union lobbied for laws which require a human typist to draft documents, or if engineering technicians prevented CAD software from being used and replacing their jobs. Those workers were industrious, but removing them increases productivity.

st3v3r 10y ago
Here's the big problem: You're not wrong in that automation is mostly good. But most people who are cheering for automation, or even for overseas cost savings, are not interested in what happens next to those who lose their jobs because of it. And we need to come up with a variety of solutions for that, because there are many different types of people who are losing these jobs. People who are younger are more likely able to be retrained to do something else, but someone who is 50 and nearing retirement is going to need a different approach. Not only will it be harder for them to be retrained, it will be much harder for them to get a job after that retraining.
- eru 10y ago
  You are writing as if technological unemployment has even been a problem. It just hasn't. (We might see some in the future, but I would bet against it.) Let's look at a recent historic example: The housing bubble employed lots of blue collar workers in construction. The bubble burst, and those jobs went away. But---and here's the crucial part---people forget that unemployment did not pick up: basically those laid off found new jobs. We only got a general uptick in unemployment when the fed's mismanagement turned this minor recession into The Great Recession. See https://www.aei.org/publication/did-the-housing-crash-cause-the-great-recession-no-it-was-the-fed/ https://www.aei.org/publication/did-the-housing-crash-cause-... and just look at the timelines: housing starts (and thus employment in the construction sector) decline by around half between the peak in 2006 and the end of 2007. General unemployment barely budges. Then only in 2008 The Great Recession kicks in, and unemployment takes off. The oft-repeated narrative that when the housing bubble burst, those blue collar workers lost their jobs and never got another one is simply not true. The narrative that those blue collar workers who lost their job during The Great Recession didn't have another job to switch to, that's much closer to the truth. But that Great Recession was entirely avoidable.
riazrizvi 10y ago
Imagine if all the software jobs could have been outsourced in the 1960's. Who in the world would be hosting Silicon Valley today?
- chillacy 10y ago
  I'm not aware of any laws prohibiting outsourcing my job today. Companies don't do it because they still get superior engineering talent here today, along with some other plusses like locals who understand the market and culture.
  - riazrizvi 10y ago
    The superior engineering talent is simply a result of a small educational lead we had in the US because we birthed the PC industry. The rest of the world is catching up, and software engineering work is shifting overseas. If we continue with a shareholder only focus those jobs will go overseas as soon as the cost-benefit ratio flips. If this is a strategic industry where innovations can still potentially reshape the economic landscape, then we should make efforts to keep the talent onshore, so that we can mine the industry for those innovations ourselves.
    - chillacy 10y ago
      If I interview at a job and I'm not the best candidate, why should the company hire me instead of someone else? I should deserve things that I earn. And if that point occurs and the best software engineers are working elsewhere for cheaper, US companies are going to be disadvantaged if they have to pay more for similar work. They'll find it tough to compete with the likes of Baidu or VK. The only way I can see this working is if the US goes full isolation and both prevents its companies from hiring externally and prevents other companies from entering its market.
      - riazrizvi 10y ago
        In a Western market economy, we encourage the outcomes we want through regulation and policy. For example the High Tech industry is propped up in the US through fat government contracts for defense related companies (eg Palantir, Google), strategic venture funds (CIA's In-Q-Tel), government innovation efforts that are given away (Darpa, Arpanet), government funding to universities to teach certain course or research certain fields. Since farming, manufacturing, infrastructure and energy could also be supported in this way, we should give them the same love that Silicon Valley gets from the Government. Particularly because they would help the other half of America get back to work. Above all we should not be imposing regulations to force these industries out of business.

st3v3r 10y ago

Here's the big problem: You're not wrong in that automation is mostly good. But most people who are cheering for automation, or even for overseas cost savings, are not interested in what happens next to those who lose their jobs because of it. And we need to come up with a variety of solutions for that, because there are many different types of people who are losing these jobs. People who are younger are more likely able to be retrained to do something else, but someone who is 50 and nearing retirement is going to need a different approach. Not only will it be harder for them to be retrained, it will be much harder for them to get a job after that retraining.

eru 10y ago
You are writing as if technological unemployment has even been a problem. It just hasn't. (We might see some in the future, but I would bet against it.) Let's look at a recent historic example: The housing bubble employed lots of blue collar workers in construction. The bubble burst, and those jobs went away. But---and here's the crucial part---people forget that unemployment did not pick up: basically those laid off found new jobs. We only got a general uptick in unemployment when the fed's mismanagement turned this minor recession into The Great Recession. See https://www.aei.org/publication/did-the-housing-crash-cause-the-great-recession-no-it-was-the-fed/ https://www.aei.org/publication/did-the-housing-crash-cause-... and just look at the timelines: housing starts (and thus employment in the construction sector) decline by around half between the peak in 2006 and the end of 2007. General unemployment barely budges. Then only in 2008 The Great Recession kicks in, and unemployment takes off. The oft-repeated narrative that when the housing bubble burst, those blue collar workers lost their jobs and never got another one is simply not true. The narrative that those blue collar workers who lost their job during The Great Recession didn't have another job to switch to, that's much closer to the truth. But that Great Recession was entirely avoidable.

riazrizvi 10y ago

Imagine if all the software jobs could have been outsourced in the 1960's. Who in the world would be hosting Silicon Valley today?

chillacy 10y ago
I'm not aware of any laws prohibiting outsourcing my job today. Companies don't do it because they still get superior engineering talent here today, along with some other plusses like locals who understand the market and culture.
- riazrizvi 10y ago
  The superior engineering talent is simply a result of a small educational lead we had in the US because we birthed the PC industry. The rest of the world is catching up, and software engineering work is shifting overseas. If we continue with a shareholder only focus those jobs will go overseas as soon as the cost-benefit ratio flips. If this is a strategic industry where innovations can still potentially reshape the economic landscape, then we should make efforts to keep the talent onshore, so that we can mine the industry for those innovations ourselves.
  - chillacy 10y ago
    If I interview at a job and I'm not the best candidate, why should the company hire me instead of someone else? I should deserve things that I earn. And if that point occurs and the best software engineers are working elsewhere for cheaper, US companies are going to be disadvantaged if they have to pay more for similar work. They'll find it tough to compete with the likes of Baidu or VK. The only way I can see this working is if the US goes full isolation and both prevents its companies from hiring externally and prevents other companies from entering its market.
    - riazrizvi 10y ago
      In a Western market economy, we encourage the outcomes we want through regulation and policy. For example the High Tech industry is propped up in the US through fat government contracts for defense related companies (eg Palantir, Google), strategic venture funds (CIA's In-Q-Tel), government innovation efforts that are given away (Darpa, Arpanet), government funding to universities to teach certain course or research certain fields. Since farming, manufacturing, infrastructure and energy could also be supported in this way, we should give them the same love that Silicon Valley gets from the Government. Particularly because they would help the other half of America get back to work. Above all we should not be imposing regulations to force these industries out of business.