6 ms·

Jobs which machines can do instead of people are by definition jobs which are beneath people. "Making capital more productive" is in your frame of reference ne

• tbabb 9y ago
  > unless you actually think anybody wants the kind of job which is so tiresome it can be done with a machine instead This is an extremely entitled comment. Most people do not have the choice to work on whatever they want. For most people, it is more like "do 'that kind of job' or be unemployed". If those were your options, you'd take the job of truckdriver or miner or real estate agent. Do you really think all those peoples' livelihoods are beneath human?
  • bdhess 9y ago
    Can’t speak for parent, but agree with some of what they said. And no, I don’t think those people’s livelihoods ought to be beneath human. I assume that most people who have those kinds of jobs don’t want those jobs. Rather they need them given the way we’ve structured our society. Those without skills valued by the marked are essentially forced to exchange long hours of menial labor for their survival. Isn’t that more sad? I think this is why so many folks on HN like the idea of the universal basic income.
    • tbabb 9y ago
      > most people who have those kinds of jobs don’t want those jobs Why do you assume that?
      • euvitudo 9y ago
        Agree with your sentiment. Three cases: 1. I know a bus driver for the local school district that doesn't necessarily like his job, but he does it. He looks forward to retiring with a pension. 2. My father wasn't necessarily passionate about his drafting job, but still worked that job as a means to an end--support his family and pay for and enjoy his hobbies. He now enjoys his retirement and travels the world with his wife. 3. A brother-in-law works at his local hardware store. He doesn't specifically like it but it helps him buy his man-toys and care for his family and horses. I really don't know what each of their dream job is, but it's obvious to me they have different goals than I. Honestly it was a bit of a shock to me to realize that people work jobs that aren't what they're passionate about, and it doesn't bother them. It's a means to an end. It made me realize that a lot of us (myself included--as a software type) are (too?) emotionally involved in our jobs. We've basically turned our hobby into our job; the means has become the end, really, to the point that we can't fathom someone working a job they aren't passionate about. My opinion (and my experience with others) is that people want to work so they can sustain their desired lifestyle; it often doesn't matter the job they have so long as it helps them reach their goals. In fact I've known some folks who pursued software (degree-based or otherwise) simply to achieve their goals and support their (non-software or whatever) hobbies.
        • euvitudo 9y ago
          Then I saw the article discussed here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16036794 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16036794 and it adds a very different perspective about which I really have nothing to add, unfortunately; I don't personally know anyone in this situation.
• tonyedgecombe 9y ago
  Conveniently ignoring the fact that many people who could do those jobs don't have many other options.
  • Spivak 9y ago
    Yeah, and the point is to create other options. We like to grandstand about how infrastructure in the US is degrading but then scoff at the idea of liberating millions of people's time to actually work on it.
    • johnny22 9y ago
      the problem isn't time atm though.
      • wott 9y ago
        Yep, there are stuff that could (or sometimes even should) be done, there is available workforce, but nobody wants to pay the workers to do that stuff.
• cabalamat 9y ago
  > unless you actually think anybody wants the kind of job which is so tiresome it can be done with a machine instead If the alternative is destitution, lots of people want those jobs
  • Spivak 9y ago
    Well duh, if the alternative is destitution I would be willing to do all kinds of degrading things. Nobody wants those jobs, they're a means to an end. We are overflowing with useful work that needs to be done and can only be done by humans. There's really no reason to have professional ditch diggers and fillers.
    • andrepd 9y ago
      There is, because the current system works in such a way that if a ditch digging machine does all that work automatically the result is not freedom from that burden for humans but that the ditch diggers starve to death.
      • amarkov 9y ago
        Does it, though? I don't think all the sledgehammer swingers starved to death when the jackhammer was invented.
      • cgmg 9y ago
        > if a ditch digging machine does all that work automatically the result is... that the ditch diggers starve to death What evidence do you have to support such an implausible claim?
      • cesnja 9y ago
        No, they just become unhappy retail workers, for example.
      • anthuswilliams 9y ago
        I'm sorry, this is nonsense. There have been lots of periods of industrialization and they didn't all result in mass starvation and penury. In fact, many of them _reduced_ poverty by freeing people to focus on new fields in which they had a better comparative advantage than they had at ditch-digging and partially reducing the economic incentive for enslaving others.
• j7ake 9y ago
  Do you think there is a ceiling after which machines would not replace human jobs? Which jobs? Is your job so secure from being automated? If you can imagine your job being replaced then perhaps you would be able to sympathesize.
  • Spivak 9y ago
    We're in a forum of programmers. Our entire industry is constantly automating itself out of work -- that's practically the entire point. And yet thus far we endure because there is still plenty of other work to do. It's not like this property is unique to tech.
• josinalvo 9y ago
  > unless you actually think anybody wants the kind of job which is so tiresome it can be done with a machine instead. Journalists are probably gonna be automated. Truck drivers as well. I bet those two categories are not of people who consider their jobs meaningless. Also, salesmen/saleswomen are being automated by websites. But their job is not beneath human dignity in any sense: it can be creative and highly social. So this seems to be an over-generalization
  • Spivak 9y ago
    This seems like mostly semantics. If a machine can literally do your job then the claim is that it becomes beneath humans to do it. Your work will continue to have value so long as you can do it better and/or cheaper than a machine can. I don't think anyone denies that the process of making a hamburger can be automated, but this certainly doesn't put chefs out of business because they do it better. This is, say, in contrast with say a conveyor belt. No human will ever be able to do better in the task of moving and sorting large amounts of simple items over short distances.
    • evilduck 9y ago
      Its pretty clear we're on a technological trajectory where anything mass produced and mass consumed like automated burgers that beat a chef's skill is only a matter of when it gets rolled out. Human made versions of things are going to be entirely relegated to artisan efforts where the human-introduced flaws are the aspect people value over the objective merits.
      • labster 9y ago
        There is a real difference between wanting variety and wanting flawed goods. Mass production is great for mass producing, but not so much for making unique items. We eat food prepared by a chef not because it is flawed compared to McDonald's, but because it's an experience that can't be mass produced.
        • 9y ago
• javajosh 9y ago
  Human-mediated work often does more than just the job itself. The elevator operator isn't just pressing a button; she is also a greeter, perhaps a conversational partner, or a friend. In terms of "user experience" a human elevator operator is doing far more than just the mechanical act of operating the elevator, doing things that are (still) impossible for machines. (Of course, there are trade-offs. A human worker is more expensive, more complicated, and can do things like have a bad day, or be a vector for disease. But still, I'm in favor of more "bullshit jobs" like elevator operator, in lieu of universal income.)
  • Spivak 9y ago
    > But still, I'm in favor of more "bullshit jobs" like elevator operator, in lieu of universal income. This is literally throwing away money and human effort. Our country could be so much better than it currently is if only we had the drive and man hours to do it. The very idea that "bullshit jobs" are even necessary ignores all the real problems that that the hypothetical person could be tackling.
    • javajosh 9y ago
      >This is literally throwing away money and human effort Yes, that is correct. This is essentially what Keynes, et al, suggested as reasonable stimulus during difficult times (although they used the example of digging a ditch and filling it in again, a job which has the benefit of getting people to exercise out of doors!) >ignores all the real problems that that the hypothetical person could be tackling. There are large classes of problems that cannot be touched by the population at large. War is literally the only human endeavor where more hands are almost always better (only almost because hands are attached to mouths which must be fed). I'd love it if millions of people worked at SpaceX, but what would they do? What could they do?
• catnaroek 9y ago
  Jobs are automated because machines can perform them faster and cheaper, not necessarily better. Regarding job satisfaction: Starvation is less satisfactory than a shitty job.