4 ms·

You could have made the same inane argument for all the uneducated factory laborers who have been replaced by machines. Nowhere did I suggest these people shoul

You could have made the same inane argument for all the uneducated factory laborers who have been replaced by machines. Nowhere did I suggest these people should be broke and without health care instead. And you can't argue with me that these people I mentioned genuinely, deep down, enjoy what they do for a living.

swimfar 10y ago
Why not? I worked on an electronics assembly line for a while doing electro-mechanical assembly. I enjoyed it and got satisfaction out of creating a physical product. It was kind of fun, not too stressful, sometimes monotonous, but also not too difficult. And after 8 hours I went home and didn't have to think about it until the next day. I'm not saying that everyone enjoys that, or that we should keep those jobs around because I found it fun. But don't assume that just because a job seems menial to you that it must be horrible for everyone who's doing it.
- jayajay 10y ago
  Our life force diffuses over the options we perceive as viable and available. Many years from now, when we are all gone, kids will look back and wonder how humans could have ever been doing such jobs. Much in the same way we look back and find it hard to imagine how humans could spend the entire day chasing down prey and running from lions. It's that much of a leap that is required.
  - dagw 10y ago
    Much in the same way we look back and find it hard to imagine how humans could spend the entire day chasing down prey Lots of humans today pay good money to get a chance to go out into the woods and spend an entire day chasing down prey.
    - davidivadavid 10y ago
      For entertainment. Not because they'd die if they didn't.
      - dagw 10y ago
        Sure. But I also know people who still romanticize the whole hunter-gatherer lifestyle and wish they could live that life (whether or not they'd actually want to keep living that life after first month is of course an open question). Who knows, in a couple of hundred years we might have people romanticizing spending all day in a cubicle working at a mid-sized accounting firm :)
mklim 10y ago
>You could have made the same inane argument for all the uneducated factory laborers who have been replaced by machines. There's nothing inane about the argument. Have you ever been to Detroit? I've lived there for years. It's a horrible thing for these people to have been replaced by automation in their lifetimes. They didn't see the benefits in the increased productivity like their employers did, they just lost their livelihood and had to scramble for jobs that paid much less while simultaneously trying to retrain into other fields, if they were enterprising. The entire region is obviously devastated from the effects of it. Their prior automated work being "unfulfilling" and therefore terrible is a) debatable and b) nothing compared to the struggle of having no income at all. One guy I knew ended up homeless after he lost his job, then with a leg amputation because of frostbite from sleeping outside. When I met him he was making a living ticket scalping in his wheelchair all day. The short term consequences are real and terrible for these people.
- artursapek 10y ago
  That is horrible, and I understand that it's a big socioeconomic challenge. I don't claim to know the answer, but I hope we find it as a species.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  Doesn't this just outline the terrible dependence these workers had on their jobs? No compensation of duty of care exists from employers; any number of things could have caused the workers to lose their jobs, they were always at risk even when not struggling. as an analogy: Crack addicts going through withdrawal don't conclude from their pain that the drugs were a good thing. OP wasn't suggesting workers should suddenly have their jobs taken away, but that the whole situation is bad. Changing the situation, and how to do it, is an entirely different topic.
  - iamatworknow 10y ago
    Is this sarcasm of some kind or a legitimate point you're trying to make? >Doesn't this just outline the terrible dependence these workers had on their jobs? You're effectively saying people shouldn't rely on their jobs to support their livelihood. What other option do they (rather, we) have? Maybe factory workers should have had the foresight to see the industry changing toward automation, but even if they did, then what? Keep working to support your family 40 or more hours per week but learn an entirely new craft on top of that? Does that actually seem reasonable? >any number of things could have caused the workers to lose their jobs, they were always at risk even when not struggling. Yes, but the industry still existed. Say you worked for 10 years at Ford and got fired. Maybe GM or Chrysler has an opportunity for you, and they'd probably love your experience. Does that sound familiar at all? Say you work for 10 years at Google and get fired. Maybe Facebook or Amazon has an opportunity for you, and they'd probably love your experience. My point is that putting the blame on the employee shows a complete lack of empathy for someone because they "chose the wrong path in life". Does the employer have a duty to support the individual who became obsolete? No, but we should all collectively have a duty to make sure the lives of these people aren't completely destroyed, because as unlikely as it seems right now for those of us in the software world (and I'm sure it seemed unlikely in 1995 for those in the auto industry), we very well may be next.

swimfar 10y ago

Why not? I worked on an electronics assembly line for a while doing electro-mechanical assembly. I enjoyed it and got satisfaction out of creating a physical product. It was kind of fun, not too stressful, sometimes monotonous, but also not too difficult. And after 8 hours I went home and didn't have to think about it until the next day. I'm not saying that everyone enjoys that, or that we should keep those jobs around because I found it fun. But don't assume that just because a job seems menial to you that it must be horrible for everyone who's doing it.

jayajay 10y ago
Our life force diffuses over the options we perceive as viable and available. Many years from now, when we are all gone, kids will look back and wonder how humans could have ever been doing such jobs. Much in the same way we look back and find it hard to imagine how humans could spend the entire day chasing down prey and running from lions. It's that much of a leap that is required.
- dagw 10y ago
  Much in the same way we look back and find it hard to imagine how humans could spend the entire day chasing down prey Lots of humans today pay good money to get a chance to go out into the woods and spend an entire day chasing down prey.
  - davidivadavid 10y ago
    For entertainment. Not because they'd die if they didn't.
    - dagw 10y ago
      Sure. But I also know people who still romanticize the whole hunter-gatherer lifestyle and wish they could live that life (whether or not they'd actually want to keep living that life after first month is of course an open question). Who knows, in a couple of hundred years we might have people romanticizing spending all day in a cubicle working at a mid-sized accounting firm :)

mklim 10y ago

>You could have made the same inane argument for all the uneducated factory laborers who have been replaced by machines. There's nothing inane about the argument. Have you ever been to Detroit? I've lived there for years. It's a horrible thing for these people to have been replaced by automation in their lifetimes. They didn't see the benefits in the increased productivity like their employers did, they just lost their livelihood and had to scramble for jobs that paid much less while simultaneously trying to retrain into other fields, if they were enterprising. The entire region is obviously devastated from the effects of it. Their prior automated work being "unfulfilling" and therefore terrible is a) debatable and b) nothing compared to the struggle of having no income at all. One guy I knew ended up homeless after he lost his job, then with a leg amputation because of frostbite from sleeping outside. When I met him he was making a living ticket scalping in his wheelchair all day. The short term consequences are real and terrible for these people.

artursapek 10y ago
That is horrible, and I understand that it's a big socioeconomic challenge. I don't claim to know the answer, but I hope we find it as a species.
Chris2048 10y ago
Doesn't this just outline the terrible dependence these workers had on their jobs? No compensation of duty of care exists from employers; any number of things could have caused the workers to lose their jobs, they were always at risk even when not struggling. as an analogy: Crack addicts going through withdrawal don't conclude from their pain that the drugs were a good thing. OP wasn't suggesting workers should suddenly have their jobs taken away, but that the whole situation is bad. Changing the situation, and how to do it, is an entirely different topic.
- iamatworknow 10y ago
  Is this sarcasm of some kind or a legitimate point you're trying to make? >Doesn't this just outline the terrible dependence these workers had on their jobs? You're effectively saying people shouldn't rely on their jobs to support their livelihood. What other option do they (rather, we) have? Maybe factory workers should have had the foresight to see the industry changing toward automation, but even if they did, then what? Keep working to support your family 40 or more hours per week but learn an entirely new craft on top of that? Does that actually seem reasonable? >any number of things could have caused the workers to lose their jobs, they were always at risk even when not struggling. Yes, but the industry still existed. Say you worked for 10 years at Ford and got fired. Maybe GM or Chrysler has an opportunity for you, and they'd probably love your experience. Does that sound familiar at all? Say you work for 10 years at Google and get fired. Maybe Facebook or Amazon has an opportunity for you, and they'd probably love your experience. My point is that putting the blame on the employee shows a complete lack of empathy for someone because they "chose the wrong path in life". Does the employer have a duty to support the individual who became obsolete? No, but we should all collectively have a duty to make sure the lives of these people aren't completely destroyed, because as unlikely as it seems right now for those of us in the software world (and I'm sure it seemed unlikely in 1995 for those in the auto industry), we very well may be next.