4 ms·

15 years ago all the software jobs I worked at were retiring clerical workers with software (oh you have 15 people doing spreadsheets ? We can automate that an

15 years ago all the software jobs I worked at were retiring clerical workers with software (oh you have 15 people doing spreadsheets ? We can automate that and you won't need them for the same report generation). So this has been going on a lot longer than the article supposes. Yes its true that the sophistication of the automation, and the breadth of its reach (with robots / gig economy) is higher than before, so it will affect more jobs, but it will also create new jobs managing the automation (the same way people found jobs using Excel to manage those spreadsheets from previously more manual ways to do reporting). In other words, this is the normal destructive (and positive) cycle of capitalism. It is always painful for people who adapt slowly, and provides opportunities for those willing and able to jump into the development and use of new automation tools.

ThomPete 9y ago
The point isn't that it's been going on for a long time but the speed with which it is happening today. Furthermore, I don't think most people understand how little the tech sector is. Even in the Bay Area, it's only around 15-20% who actually work in tech. Most people aren't able to just relearn and adopt.
- ian0 9y ago
  I think this is where social safety nets (or the lack of them) come into play. The market can be short sighted when it comes to training and typically focus on younger generations where they do (large orgs sponsoring university courses etc). A good adult education scheme in conjunction with social welfare to allow people to make use of it makes a world of difference when it comes to re-tooling older people once jobs are automated. Not to find jobs at google but at the legion of smaller traditional enterprises that now have technology components due to automation.
  - ThomPete 9y ago
    I don't disagree but how are you going to pay for social welfare if no one is making money? So what do you tax? do you do something else? These are the questions that are really relevant to figure out IMO.
    - tmnvix 9y ago
      > how are you going to pay for social welfare if no one is making money? So what do you tax? You stop taxing income and start taxing wealth. A land tax would be a good start. Resource taxes are another.
    - intended 9y ago
      You take a loan. And people are making money - the GDP is growing overall, therefore there is far more productivity and value add happening in the system at large. Americans have the potential of a good social safety net already (compared to many worse countries), its more a question of detail orientation and unpalatable politics - from the perspective of an outsider.
- sien 9y ago
  If it's happening so fast why is US unemployment low and productivity growth low?
  - ThomPete 9y ago
    95% of the jobs created since 2008 are temp jobs not actually jobs you can live of. A job is not just a job.
- galfarragem 9y ago
  'Most people aren't able to just relearn and adopt.' Pivoting, or better, adjusting my career to fit in a more plentyful market has been being the most difficult process I ever experienced in my life - despite enjoying to learn and still being a millennial.
  - ThomPete 9y ago
    Agree and the fact that you are make you part of a very small group of people who can. The majority of people can't.
Iv 9y ago
> but it will also create new jobs managing the automation No, that's bullshit. New jobs will be created that way but far less: there would be no incentive to automation otherwise. This month I visited a warehouse with a team tasked to automate it. If we succeed, phase I should put ~10 people out of job and we don't expect to have to do more than occasional monthly interventions (and that's assuming that we have a high failure rate). The thing that is different in this cycle is that we may very well manage to 100% automate some industries. At this point, there will be a genuine question: why do we need to work to benefit from the goods of these industries? At the core of the pact that makes our society is the idea of specialization: we have varied needs that we ask specialists to fill (farmers, car makers, fridge makers, power plant workers, etc...) while we, too, fill one small niche. The less people work we need to fulfill our daily needs, the less work we should be asked daily. But this transition will only happen if we are conscious that it is possible and desirable.
- PhasmaFelis 9y ago
  Humanity stuck on this notion that labor = virtue, which made some sense in an agricultural society where everyone would starve to death if most of the population wasn't actively engaged in production, but is getting increasingly toxic as we approach a post-scarcity world.
- aorloff 9y ago
  > At this point, there will be a genuine question: why do we need to work to benefit from the goods of these industries? For the same reason you can't look over to your neighbor's driveway and say, since he doesn't use his truck all day while he's at work, why can't I drive it ? The people who built those automated industries expended capital, and likely, borrowed against future revenue to do so. What you are free to do is compete with them. You can drive them into their stupid lender's hands by forcing a collapsing of margins in the industry using your wits. But nationalizing the factories has, historically, generally led to nasty (the opposite of what your conscious advocates would call desirable) outcomes. And you are saying that a 100% automated factory should be effectively nationalized.
  - 9y ago

ThomPete 9y ago

The point isn't that it's been going on for a long time but the speed with which it is happening today. Furthermore, I don't think most people understand how little the tech sector is. Even in the Bay Area, it's only around 15-20% who actually work in tech. Most people aren't able to just relearn and adopt.

ian0 9y ago
I think this is where social safety nets (or the lack of them) come into play. The market can be short sighted when it comes to training and typically focus on younger generations where they do (large orgs sponsoring university courses etc). A good adult education scheme in conjunction with social welfare to allow people to make use of it makes a world of difference when it comes to re-tooling older people once jobs are automated. Not to find jobs at google but at the legion of smaller traditional enterprises that now have technology components due to automation.
- ThomPete 9y ago
  I don't disagree but how are you going to pay for social welfare if no one is making money? So what do you tax? do you do something else? These are the questions that are really relevant to figure out IMO.
  - tmnvix 9y ago
    > how are you going to pay for social welfare if no one is making money? So what do you tax? You stop taxing income and start taxing wealth. A land tax would be a good start. Resource taxes are another.
  - intended 9y ago
    You take a loan. And people are making money - the GDP is growing overall, therefore there is far more productivity and value add happening in the system at large. Americans have the potential of a good social safety net already (compared to many worse countries), its more a question of detail orientation and unpalatable politics - from the perspective of an outsider.
sien 9y ago
If it's happening so fast why is US unemployment low and productivity growth low?
- ThomPete 9y ago
  95% of the jobs created since 2008 are temp jobs not actually jobs you can live of. A job is not just a job.
galfarragem 9y ago
'Most people aren't able to just relearn and adopt.' Pivoting, or better, adjusting my career to fit in a more plentyful market has been being the most difficult process I ever experienced in my life - despite enjoying to learn and still being a millennial.
- ThomPete 9y ago
  Agree and the fact that you are make you part of a very small group of people who can. The majority of people can't.

Iv 9y ago

> but it will also create new jobs managing the automation No, that's bullshit. New jobs will be created that way but far less: there would be no incentive to automation otherwise. This month I visited a warehouse with a team tasked to automate it. If we succeed, phase I should put ~10 people out of job and we don't expect to have to do more than occasional monthly interventions (and that's assuming that we have a high failure rate). The thing that is different in this cycle is that we may very well manage to 100% automate some industries. At this point, there will be a genuine question: why do we need to work to benefit from the goods of these industries? At the core of the pact that makes our society is the idea of specialization: we have varied needs that we ask specialists to fill (farmers, car makers, fridge makers, power plant workers, etc...) while we, too, fill one small niche. The less people work we need to fulfill our daily needs, the less work we should be asked daily. But this transition will only happen if we are conscious that it is possible and desirable.

PhasmaFelis 9y ago
Humanity stuck on this notion that labor = virtue, which made some sense in an agricultural society where everyone would starve to death if most of the population wasn't actively engaged in production, but is getting increasingly toxic as we approach a post-scarcity world.
aorloff 9y ago
> At this point, there will be a genuine question: why do we need to work to benefit from the goods of these industries? For the same reason you can't look over to your neighbor's driveway and say, since he doesn't use his truck all day while he's at work, why can't I drive it ? The people who built those automated industries expended capital, and likely, borrowed against future revenue to do so. What you are free to do is compete with them. You can drive them into their stupid lender's hands by forcing a collapsing of margins in the industry using your wits. But nationalizing the factories has, historically, generally led to nasty (the opposite of what your conscious advocates would call desirable) outcomes. And you are saying that a 100% automated factory should be effectively nationalized.
- 9y ago