3 ms·

first, while long-haul interstate driving is probably the easiest type of driving to automate, it's pretty audacious to assume that automated trucks will take o

first, while long-haul interstate driving is probably the easiest type of driving to automate, it's pretty audacious to assume that automated trucks will take over the industry any time soon. there are still many social, political and legal issues to wade through, never mind the economic and technical. but to follow your line of reasoning, what you do is walk up to him and say, "hey, in the next 10 years, your job is going to be automated. every year, your chances of losing your job goes up. what do you want to do? [...listens...] ok, let's set up a transition plan and make sure you're ready when the time comes." and who knows, maybe he's a hobby machinist, and can work for CERN custom-building the crazy one-off contraptions they need. it's paternalistic and patronizing to make assumptions about the abilities and motivations of millions of people and 'solve' their problem for them. it's how we get misguided social programs that waste billions of dollars (i'm not against social programs, just misguided ones, and they're really, really tricky to structure properly).

xster 7y ago
Ah, I see where you're coming from. I mean retraining just seems to make sense and we all want it to work, but pragmatically, they just don't https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/01/the-false-promises-of-worker-retraining/549398/ https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/01/the-fa.... Our mental plasticity just has age related limits. I'd also debate the conclusion you're making on which approach is more patronizing. I'd assume giving you (and everyone) the means to make your own choices with money is less patronizing than appointing your specific job as a lost cause and appointing new jobs for you to go train yourself for.
- clairity 7y ago
  the point wasn't that retraining is "the answer" (or appointing of jobs) but that owners/managers/leaders should talk to the people involved to find solutions. it's otherwise patronizing and arrogant to bestow solutions from on high. also, on people's intrinsic motivations: people don't want money in and of itself. people want esteem (e.g., status) and influence (e.g., power). jobs and careers provide those things; handouts do not.

xster 7y ago

Ah, I see where you're coming from. I mean retraining just seems to make sense and we all want it to work, but pragmatically, they just don't https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/01/the-false-promises-of-worker-retraining/549398/ https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/01/the-fa.... Our mental plasticity just has age related limits. I'd also debate the conclusion you're making on which approach is more patronizing. I'd assume giving you (and everyone) the means to make your own choices with money is less patronizing than appointing your specific job as a lost cause and appointing new jobs for you to go train yourself for.

clairity 7y ago
the point wasn't that retraining is "the answer" (or appointing of jobs) but that owners/managers/leaders should talk to the people involved to find solutions. it's otherwise patronizing and arrogant to bestow solutions from on high. also, on people's intrinsic motivations: people don't want money in and of itself. people want esteem (e.g., status) and influence (e.g., power). jobs and careers provide those things; handouts do not.