4 ms·

I don't think people do repetitive, automatable jobs because they can't do any other kind of job, but rather because our current market conditions make it a goo

by raquo 8y ago

I don't think people do repetitive, automatable jobs because they can't do any other kind of job, but rather because our current market conditions make it a good choice for them. And by market conditions I mean everything from wages to availability and cost of education to immigration policies and welfare benefits. Once the dust has settled after major advances in automation I don't see why people wouldn't be able to work as managers, designers, programmers and engineers even if those were the only jobs left in the economy (but of course there are many more skilled jobs that will not be automated anytime soon). It's just a matter of training and expectations. I don't think a world where people only need to work 20 hours a week, and where we have 5x the number of every kind of skilled specialists we have right now is a bad place to be. And it doesn't require ditching capitalism entirely, just regulating it differently (taxation, welfare, etc.). It's only the transition to such a world that is worrying because it will happen faster than people can adjust, not the end result.

bilbo0s 8y ago
>The problem is you can't really run an economic system where only a very few percent of people take all the gains... I could be wrong here, but I think the commenter, and the author of the article, are speaking on the bipolar nature of creative jobs like manager, designer, or programmer. The value of different designers and programmers to, say, Apple and Google, is kind of bipolar right now. The concern being that it will be more bipolar in the future. Right now we have the 5 or 6 figure a year sort of "warm body" programmer, and you are correct in asserting that anyone can do that job. But, we also have the 7 figure programmer, and only the very best can do that job. I think their concern is what if the 7 figure Apple designer turns into a high 7 or 8 figure Apple designer, and the "warm body" designers get less and less over time? Kind of like athletes. A few 8 or 9 figure soccer and basketball players, and then all of the others. Most of whom will never be able to make a living at their sport professionally. (Consider: How many young girls did our athletics infrastructure chew through to get Simone Biles? I don't really know? But I'm guessing it was a lot.) I think it's a fair concern. Certainly well within the purview of the sort of concerns we should be war gaming out at the policy making level. All that said, yeah, your world of 20 hours a week sounds pretty sweet to me.
- im3w1l 8y ago
  With a best of the best system, you've got to work all waking hours to have a chance of being the best. So rather than 20h each, we should see some people working a lot, and then a lot of people realizing they have no chance of making it and dropping out of the system completely.
  - bilbo0s 8y ago
    Yeah. We're at a crossroads. There's different roads we can go down. There's different ways this whole thing can develop. What we look like when we come through this might be pretty ugly? Or not? We don't really know right now? We just have to hope that society's stewards are being responsible and considering these very real mechanisms when settling on plans for our long term future. These forces are not going anywhere. Technology is with us to stay, the only question is how we live with it.
- hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
  Yes, thank you, that is exactly my point. The nature of creative work (the kind that is least likely to be automated) is that the output can be highly variable (think Botticelli's paintings vs 99% of everyone else), and thus it is impossible with that type of work to create a broad base of jobs where lots of people (percentage-wise) are well compensated. Another way to think of it is not just "repetitive vs non-repetitive" jobs, but "variable vs. well defined output" jobs. It may be currently very difficult to become a radiologist, but at the end of the day a diagnosis is either accurate or it isn't, and those types of "right-or-wrong" jobs are the ones most amenable to automation. So what you're left with are non-automatable jobs where the output can be highly variable, and in those highly-variable output jobs all the gains go to the very best.
  - raquo 8y ago
    Creativity in arts and creativity in engineering and other skilled labour are vastly different. You don't need to be a Botticelli programmer to provide value to your employer because being famous or unique is not how programmers provide value. Programmers are paid for solving business problems. The variability of that is not going to dramatically increase due to automation. Even today you can tell that mediocre programmers are earning good wages while mediocre painters / sculptors / actors are starving. It is not because they have been automated.
EGreg 8y ago
Really, you can’t see how not everyone can be a manager? Who are they gonna manage?

by raquo 8y ago

bilbo0s 8y ago

>The problem is you can't really run an economic system where only a very few percent of people take all the gains... I could be wrong here, but I think the commenter, and the author of the article, are speaking on the bipolar nature of creative jobs like manager, designer, or programmer. The value of different designers and programmers to, say, Apple and Google, is kind of bipolar right now. The concern being that it will be more bipolar in the future. Right now we have the 5 or 6 figure a year sort of "warm body" programmer, and you are correct in asserting that anyone can do that job. But, we also have the 7 figure programmer, and only the very best can do that job. I think their concern is what if the 7 figure Apple designer turns into a high 7 or 8 figure Apple designer, and the "warm body" designers get less and less over time? Kind of like athletes. A few 8 or 9 figure soccer and basketball players, and then all of the others. Most of whom will never be able to make a living at their sport professionally. (Consider: How many young girls did our athletics infrastructure chew through to get Simone Biles? I don't really know? But I'm guessing it was a lot.) I think it's a fair concern. Certainly well within the purview of the sort of concerns we should be war gaming out at the policy making level. All that said, yeah, your world of 20 hours a week sounds pretty sweet to me.

im3w1l 8y ago
With a best of the best system, you've got to work all waking hours to have a chance of being the best. So rather than 20h each, we should see some people working a lot, and then a lot of people realizing they have no chance of making it and dropping out of the system completely.
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  Yeah. We're at a crossroads. There's different roads we can go down. There's different ways this whole thing can develop. What we look like when we come through this might be pretty ugly? Or not? We don't really know right now? We just have to hope that society's stewards are being responsible and considering these very real mechanisms when settling on plans for our long term future. These forces are not going anywhere. Technology is with us to stay, the only question is how we live with it.
hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
Yes, thank you, that is exactly my point. The nature of creative work (the kind that is least likely to be automated) is that the output can be highly variable (think Botticelli's paintings vs 99% of everyone else), and thus it is impossible with that type of work to create a broad base of jobs where lots of people (percentage-wise) are well compensated. Another way to think of it is not just "repetitive vs non-repetitive" jobs, but "variable vs. well defined output" jobs. It may be currently very difficult to become a radiologist, but at the end of the day a diagnosis is either accurate or it isn't, and those types of "right-or-wrong" jobs are the ones most amenable to automation. So what you're left with are non-automatable jobs where the output can be highly variable, and in those highly-variable output jobs all the gains go to the very best.
- raquo 8y ago
  Creativity in arts and creativity in engineering and other skilled labour are vastly different. You don't need to be a Botticelli programmer to provide value to your employer because being famous or unique is not how programmers provide value. Programmers are paid for solving business problems. The variability of that is not going to dramatically increase due to automation. Even today you can tell that mediocre programmers are earning good wages while mediocre painters / sculptors / actors are starving. It is not because they have been automated.

EGreg 8y ago

Really, you can’t see how not everyone can be a manager? Who are they gonna manage?