3 ms·

The problem is not that your job will be automated, the problem is that it will happen too fast and people will not have time to adapt. The disrupt mantra for s

by GoToRO 9y ago

The problem is not that your job will be automated, the problem is that it will happen too fast and people will not have time to adapt. The disrupt mantra for startups can generate lots of money with the side effect that it hurts people's lives. If the changes comes slowly, across one generation, then people do not suffer because they already retired.

Chathamization 9y ago
If you look at productivity growth[1], the current rate of automation is actually slower than in most of the prior decades. [1] https://www.bls.gov/lpc/prodybar.htm https://www.bls.gov/lpc/prodybar.htm
eesmith 9y ago
"too fast and people will not have enough time to adapt" Thing is, this has been the case for at least 200 years, dating from the Luddites. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite , "Luddites feared that the time spent learning the skills of their craft would go to waste as machines would replace their role in the industry. ... The Luddites were not afraid of technology and did not attempt to eliminate technology out of fear. Their goal was instead to gain a better bargaining position with their employers." (As a reminder, "It is a misconception that the Luddites protested against the machinery itself in an attempt to halt the progress of technology.") Or Phil Ochs "Automation Song" from 1964, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbSTnuXv_3Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbSTnuXv_3Y Now you've got new machines for to take my place And you tell me it's not mine to share. Both of those point out that the advantages of automation go to a subset of the people - capitalists, in Marxist terms. But that doesn't have to be the case. A strong labor union, or a more socialist form of government interested in supporting labor and workers, could help reduce the hurt of disruption, either by effective trade negotiations or higher taxes on those profiting from automation.

by GoToRO 9y ago

Chathamization 9y ago

If you look at productivity growth[1], the current rate of automation is actually slower than in most of the prior decades. [1] https://www.bls.gov/lpc/prodybar.htm https://www.bls.gov/lpc/prodybar.htm

eesmith 9y ago

"too fast and people will not have enough time to adapt" Thing is, this has been the case for at least 200 years, dating from the Luddites. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite , "Luddites feared that the time spent learning the skills of their craft would go to waste as machines would replace their role in the industry. ... The Luddites were not afraid of technology and did not attempt to eliminate technology out of fear. Their goal was instead to gain a better bargaining position with their employers." (As a reminder, "It is a misconception that the Luddites protested against the machinery itself in an attempt to halt the progress of technology.") Or Phil Ochs "Automation Song" from 1964, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbSTnuXv_3Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbSTnuXv_3Y Now you've got new machines for to take my place And you tell me it's not mine to share. Both of those point out that the advantages of automation go to a subset of the people - capitalists, in Marxist terms. But that doesn't have to be the case. A strong labor union, or a more socialist form of government interested in supporting labor and workers, could help reduce the hurt of disruption, either by effective trade negotiations or higher taxes on those profiting from automation.