5 ms·

> People don’t work a coal face because it’s fun, but because it’s what they know how to do, and it brings home the bacon. Far more than that, coal workers tak

> People don’t work a coal face because it’s fun, but because it’s what they know how to do, and it brings home the bacon. Far more than that, coal workers take pride in their work, it's part of their identity and it commands a certain degree of respect as being "hard labor". If it was just about "bringing home the bacon" they might as well take any other job. This is in contrast to working for Wal-Mart or McDonalds, there's no pride in it, it's not part of people's identity. People want to move on from these jobs, but there are less and less opportunities to move on to. > So if you want people to do more than spit on us as we pass, we should put effort into ensuring a safety net for them when the work we domtskes their livliehood away. A safety net is well and good, but if people lose their jobs and get stuck in the net, it destroys them. Again, it's about pride and identity.

bksenior 8y ago
Eh. This seems fluffy. This seems more like the Industrial Revolution + Twitter. Just like all the studies that the world is technically better off in every modern metric of improvement (poverty, starvation, mobility..etc, but things feel shitty because you are forced to read about the one dude kidnapping and eating children one state over, I think it's probably just amplified fears (and ultimately seperation of teams) than it was during other large periods of change. It's also worth noting that people dont die, jobs just shift unexpectedly. Sure it can crush a generation (see the american midwest from 1960-2020), but most people move to where the work is geographically and intellectually or just die out.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  There was far more to it than that. Whole communities arose around the pit, steel works or ship yard. Hundreds or thousands of local families depended on it. Family, friends and everyone in the street was a part of it. When it goes a few shop or driving jobs may be possible but leaves the majority up shit creek with no paddle. > Sure it can crush a generation (see the american midwest from 1960-2020), but most people move to where the work is geographically and intellectually or just die out. That is possibly the most heartless thing I have read on this site. I imagine your perspective would change markedly if it were you that were stuck, unable to afford to move, in a dead town whose industry left, while you contemplate your time until you die out.
  - deevolution 8y ago
    I think this is exactly where VR will help people enormously. The game industry is already outpacing the sports industry in revenue - and in reach. Games provide people with agency, accomplishment, and a community that some people cannot get anywhere else - perhaps the very people you are describing. Its inevitable that people will be replaced by technology - no amount of government regulation is going to slow the massive tides of progress. VR is going to be a very, very important coping mechanism during this period of disruption. edit: some words
  - pas 8y ago
    You are right, so is OP, but I don't think OP's post is heartless. It's simply descriptivist (positivist) and not normative. It is what it is, there's no point in sugar coating it. And yes, of course our response to these facts are even more important. Do we just short steel mill stocks and Pittsburgh bonds or advocate for retraining, for subsidizing emerging industry establishments in the affected areas, etc. Some of the affected people feel it as elitism, socialism, etc. Usually because outsiders are blind to and ignorant of the local complexities, and also because good fashioned bias and denialism. It's easier to simply deny climate change and hate green liberals than accepting that coal is out. And that software has a much higher ROI due to the marginally aomost zero cost of adding new users/customers than hard labour jobs, etc.
    - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
      There's a certain truth to it, but I think we owe society far better, rather than just blithely accepting it as it is what it is and tough shit for everyone affected. If we want a society at all, that is. For instance, I remember the wave of de-industrialisation of the 80s. While I wasn't personally affected, I knew plenty who were. For many tens of thousands it wasn't a simple case of just move to where the work is. How do you do that when your house is worth a quarter or tenth of of what you paid, but the mortgage debt remains? When almost everyone else locally is trying to move to get work too. Who is going to buy the house? In a town with no work. They may lose the dozen ship builders or steel works, but also lose the hundreds of businesses that serviced, supplied and depended on the products of those major works, then everything that depended on the money flowing from those - the takeaways, supermarkets, cinema, garages etc. The whole supply chain breaks. You may as well ask them to flap arms and fly out of the ghost town. If one of the lucky few that were able to get out, carry a debt that can never be paid off, whilst earning half or less of the former skilled wage. They can't all move to the outskirts of London to work in banking or retrain in age discriminating IT in their mid 50s. Who's going to employ that junior? It ruins more than just one generation. The kids deprived of education and other life chances, or just the consequences of having parents from whom the hope has been sucked, perhaps on anti-depressants long term. Little wonder most of those places gained a huge drug and crime problem in the aftermath. Some places have still not come close to recovering. Clearly we can't artificially keep every rural pit village viable, but we could, and should try not to lose whole towns, cities and regions, unless we want more civil unrest and more extremists elected. That history even goes some way to explaining Brexit. So yes, from what I've seen over those 40 years in the UK, we should and probably must subsidise through tax and incentives new industries and services establishing in deprived areas until they can sustain once again. Ignoring whole regions as acceptable losses in a "free" market was a huge, unforgivable mistake. Adequate regeneration help is probably far cheaper for the state once you consider all consequences anyway. Particularly in a future where it appears likely many more will lose their work, much more quickly, than in the past.
- postingtoofast 8y ago
  > It's also worth noting that people dont die, jobs just shift unexpectedly. Sure it can crush a generation (see the american midwest from 1960-2020), but most people move to where the work is geographically and intellectually or just die out. I love that you're so honest. Well, let me tell you something. AI is improving faster than the manufacture of dexterous robotics, of the sort that could, say, create an automated police force. So if things continue to get worse for enough people, I imagine that elitists like you will eventually find your backs up against a wall.
hammock 8y ago
Have you ever known a McDonald's worker, or a coal worker? I have known plenty of bottom-barrel blue collar workers who do it begrudgingly and some fast food employees who take pride in their work.
jackcosgrove 8y ago
I think this debate underestimates the psychological value of contributing through work and the identity and belonging that come from that. And I don't even think obsolescence becoming common will help to normalize this state. People want to contribute, and it hurts when they aren't needed.
- gotocake 8y ago
  I agree with this, but I also recognize that it’s not feasible for governments and industries to invent meaning in people's lives. Supporting people and providing them with more than a skin-of-their-teeth existence is and it’s something that isn’t historically addressed very well during transitional periods. If automation eventually dominates work, society will have to change, but that’s something we’ll have to work through as a society. The experience will be less horrific if people are not being dumped into poverty or awful makework jobs as well as having to reinvent the meaning of their collective existence!
nopinsight 8y ago
I agree that pride and identity are important to people’s well being. What are some suggestions to help people gain those back, perhaps in a still viable industry? Until AGI is invented, there will always be jobs available [1] but some jobs are unnecessarily looked down upon despite being important to society and safer than mining. Since pride in one’s work tends to tie with the value that broader communities put on the work, would a broad-based ongoing PR campaign by well-resourced organizations (incl. local and federal governments) help with that? Perhaps we can put the DeBeers experience with creating a shared cross-generation myth of diamonds representing true love to good use. Elderly care, for example, would be hard to automate cost effectively over the next couple of decades and possibly longer. If society puts more value and gives more prestige to the job, more people would be willing to train to do it. (Obviously, the society should help people transition to their new roles as well for example by covering the costs of living and training for a substantial period.) [1] Lump of labor fallacy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy As concrete examples: - Has every piece of potentially useful land well-developed as a magnificent public or private space? - Has all public infrastructure needed been built and well-maintained to the best quality possible? - Does every person, adult and child, have access to world-class education/training they want or need, including private tutoring if they wish?
- sedachv 8y ago
  > - Does every person, adult and child, have access to world-class education/training they want or need, including private tutoring if they wish? The well-resourced organizations seem to be backing broad-based ongoing PR and political campaigns to do exactly the opposite of providing people with a good education: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGVR1-4Gqs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGVR1-4Gqs

bksenior 8y ago

Eh. This seems fluffy. This seems more like the Industrial Revolution + Twitter. Just like all the studies that the world is technically better off in every modern metric of improvement (poverty, starvation, mobility..etc, but things feel shitty because you are forced to read about the one dude kidnapping and eating children one state over, I think it's probably just amplified fears (and ultimately seperation of teams) than it was during other large periods of change. It's also worth noting that people dont die, jobs just shift unexpectedly. Sure it can crush a generation (see the american midwest from 1960-2020), but most people move to where the work is geographically and intellectually or just die out.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
There was far more to it than that. Whole communities arose around the pit, steel works or ship yard. Hundreds or thousands of local families depended on it. Family, friends and everyone in the street was a part of it. When it goes a few shop or driving jobs may be possible but leaves the majority up shit creek with no paddle. > Sure it can crush a generation (see the american midwest from 1960-2020), but most people move to where the work is geographically and intellectually or just die out. That is possibly the most heartless thing I have read on this site. I imagine your perspective would change markedly if it were you that were stuck, unable to afford to move, in a dead town whose industry left, while you contemplate your time until you die out.
- deevolution 8y ago
  I think this is exactly where VR will help people enormously. The game industry is already outpacing the sports industry in revenue - and in reach. Games provide people with agency, accomplishment, and a community that some people cannot get anywhere else - perhaps the very people you are describing. Its inevitable that people will be replaced by technology - no amount of government regulation is going to slow the massive tides of progress. VR is going to be a very, very important coping mechanism during this period of disruption. edit: some words
- pas 8y ago
  You are right, so is OP, but I don't think OP's post is heartless. It's simply descriptivist (positivist) and not normative. It is what it is, there's no point in sugar coating it. And yes, of course our response to these facts are even more important. Do we just short steel mill stocks and Pittsburgh bonds or advocate for retraining, for subsidizing emerging industry establishments in the affected areas, etc. Some of the affected people feel it as elitism, socialism, etc. Usually because outsiders are blind to and ignorant of the local complexities, and also because good fashioned bias and denialism. It's easier to simply deny climate change and hate green liberals than accepting that coal is out. And that software has a much higher ROI due to the marginally aomost zero cost of adding new users/customers than hard labour jobs, etc.
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    There's a certain truth to it, but I think we owe society far better, rather than just blithely accepting it as it is what it is and tough shit for everyone affected. If we want a society at all, that is. For instance, I remember the wave of de-industrialisation of the 80s. While I wasn't personally affected, I knew plenty who were. For many tens of thousands it wasn't a simple case of just move to where the work is. How do you do that when your house is worth a quarter or tenth of of what you paid, but the mortgage debt remains? When almost everyone else locally is trying to move to get work too. Who is going to buy the house? In a town with no work. They may lose the dozen ship builders or steel works, but also lose the hundreds of businesses that serviced, supplied and depended on the products of those major works, then everything that depended on the money flowing from those - the takeaways, supermarkets, cinema, garages etc. The whole supply chain breaks. You may as well ask them to flap arms and fly out of the ghost town. If one of the lucky few that were able to get out, carry a debt that can never be paid off, whilst earning half or less of the former skilled wage. They can't all move to the outskirts of London to work in banking or retrain in age discriminating IT in their mid 50s. Who's going to employ that junior? It ruins more than just one generation. The kids deprived of education and other life chances, or just the consequences of having parents from whom the hope has been sucked, perhaps on anti-depressants long term. Little wonder most of those places gained a huge drug and crime problem in the aftermath. Some places have still not come close to recovering. Clearly we can't artificially keep every rural pit village viable, but we could, and should try not to lose whole towns, cities and regions, unless we want more civil unrest and more extremists elected. That history even goes some way to explaining Brexit. So yes, from what I've seen over those 40 years in the UK, we should and probably must subsidise through tax and incentives new industries and services establishing in deprived areas until they can sustain once again. Ignoring whole regions as acceptable losses in a "free" market was a huge, unforgivable mistake. Adequate regeneration help is probably far cheaper for the state once you consider all consequences anyway. Particularly in a future where it appears likely many more will lose their work, much more quickly, than in the past.
postingtoofast 8y ago
> It's also worth noting that people dont die, jobs just shift unexpectedly. Sure it can crush a generation (see the american midwest from 1960-2020), but most people move to where the work is geographically and intellectually or just die out. I love that you're so honest. Well, let me tell you something. AI is improving faster than the manufacture of dexterous robotics, of the sort that could, say, create an automated police force. So if things continue to get worse for enough people, I imagine that elitists like you will eventually find your backs up against a wall.

hammock 8y ago

Have you ever known a McDonald's worker, or a coal worker? I have known plenty of bottom-barrel blue collar workers who do it begrudgingly and some fast food employees who take pride in their work.

jackcosgrove 8y ago

I think this debate underestimates the psychological value of contributing through work and the identity and belonging that come from that. And I don't even think obsolescence becoming common will help to normalize this state. People want to contribute, and it hurts when they aren't needed.

gotocake 8y ago
I agree with this, but I also recognize that it’s not feasible for governments and industries to invent meaning in people's lives. Supporting people and providing them with more than a skin-of-their-teeth existence is and it’s something that isn’t historically addressed very well during transitional periods. If automation eventually dominates work, society will have to change, but that’s something we’ll have to work through as a society. The experience will be less horrific if people are not being dumped into poverty or awful makework jobs as well as having to reinvent the meaning of their collective existence!

nopinsight 8y ago

I agree that pride and identity are important to people’s well being. What are some suggestions to help people gain those back, perhaps in a still viable industry? Until AGI is invented, there will always be jobs available [1] but some jobs are unnecessarily looked down upon despite being important to society and safer than mining. Since pride in one’s work tends to tie with the value that broader communities put on the work, would a broad-based ongoing PR campaign by well-resourced organizations (incl. local and federal governments) help with that? Perhaps we can put the DeBeers experience with creating a shared cross-generation myth of diamonds representing true love to good use. Elderly care, for example, would be hard to automate cost effectively over the next couple of decades and possibly longer. If society puts more value and gives more prestige to the job, more people would be willing to train to do it. (Obviously, the society should help people transition to their new roles as well for example by covering the costs of living and training for a substantial period.) [1] Lump of labor fallacy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy As concrete examples: - Has every piece of potentially useful land well-developed as a magnificent public or private space? - Has all public infrastructure needed been built and well-maintained to the best quality possible? - Does every person, adult and child, have access to world-class education/training they want or need, including private tutoring if they wish?

sedachv 8y ago
> - Does every person, adult and child, have access to world-class education/training they want or need, including private tutoring if they wish? The well-resourced organizations seem to be backing broad-based ongoing PR and political campaigns to do exactly the opposite of providing people with a good education: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGVR1-4Gqs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGVR1-4Gqs