5 ms·

Absolutely. I've been trying to help my SO (with no College degree or trade) try to find work in the Midwest. There is definitely a surplus of jobs in our mid-t

by ezzzzz 7y ago

Absolutely. I've been trying to help my SO (with no College degree or trade) try to find work in the Midwest. There is definitely a surplus of jobs in our mid-tier city, but nothing with any growth potential, autonomy, dignity, benefits, etc. I find it so odd that the salary for something labor-intensive like a warehouse is on-par with a cashier. The US is becoming very dystopian.

non-entity 7y ago
I've once or twice considered leaving tech altogether, but then I remember that without any sort of post secondary education, I'm condemned to barely livable jobs. Even making it in tech has been more difficult than I imagined, and I hope any 2008-type even doesn't cripple me.
lotsofpulp 7y ago
The output of the US middle class can be accomplished for cheaper by others around the world (and thereby raising their wages). And with the scaling advantages that come with technology mean far fewer people can drive massive growth. I don’t need a person at a hotel front desk to check me in, I don’t need a taxi dispatcher to call me a car, and I don’t need secretaries to handle my scheduling. Automated reports remove the need for many middle management positions, and it all manifests itself as stagnant wages for warehouse type work which isn’t yet automated.
- mkane848 7y ago
  Yeah, except most of those automated systems still suck, and people need to assist those systems with edge cases. Imagine Google's customer service, but everywhere. No thanks.
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    The point is those systems reduce the number of employees needed, which means a reduction in the demand of labor, which means the price of labor goes down assuming the supply remains constant or goes up.
    - mkane848 7y ago
      But we're decreasing the quality of the service, so do they, really? We then need the aforementioned people to fill in the gaps for the systems. Automation shouldn't be replacing people in the workforce, it should be allowing us to do our jobs more efficiently and tackle the more pressing, human issues that require nuance.
      - lotsofpulp 7y ago
        The fact that wages have stagnated while productivity has skyrocketed is proof that there is insufficient and possibly decreasing demand for labor. Personally, I like all the new automated services, and I would say the benefits have outweighed the issues. The gaps in the system don’t require as many people as before to fill, or perhaps the ones that are required don’t need to be as highly trained so they offer lower pay. For example, Home Depot and Lowe’s websites now show you exactly where an item is in the store, which is very helpful to a shopper. But that may also cause some employees to be made redundant as they theoretically have more time to assist with other things assuming they are helping fewer customers find things. This one change might not affect the numbers, but combined with online ordering, in store pickup, self checkout machines, it might all add up to a few less positions at the store.
        mkane848 7y ago
        I disagree with your analysis in the first sentence on a fundamental level, so I think we may just not see eye to eye on this. I think it's more reflective of the issues of crony capitalism and exploitation of the working class than as a litmus test of whether automation has "made it" yet. Self checkout at the grocery store is still a mess that requires frequent intervention from on-hand employees, and even the most advanced system still usually requires someone there for insurance. Hell, the best minds in the country still can't get cars to drive themselves without someone on deck to pull the plug if it all goes tits up.
        torgian 7y ago
        Yeah, this is a true statement. I live in east Asia and travel to Japan a few times a year. They have self-checkout, but there is always someone there to help. I have seen these people help everyone at the self-checkout every time I went to the stores that have them. Automation is nice, but it's not smart enough. Not yet at least.

by ezzzzz 7y ago

non-entity 7y ago

I've once or twice considered leaving tech altogether, but then I remember that without any sort of post secondary education, I'm condemned to barely livable jobs. Even making it in tech has been more difficult than I imagined, and I hope any 2008-type even doesn't cripple me.

lotsofpulp 7y ago

The output of the US middle class can be accomplished for cheaper by others around the world (and thereby raising their wages). And with the scaling advantages that come with technology mean far fewer people can drive massive growth. I don’t need a person at a hotel front desk to check me in, I don’t need a taxi dispatcher to call me a car, and I don’t need secretaries to handle my scheduling. Automated reports remove the need for many middle management positions, and it all manifests itself as stagnant wages for warehouse type work which isn’t yet automated.

mkane848 7y ago
Yeah, except most of those automated systems still suck, and people need to assist those systems with edge cases. Imagine Google's customer service, but everywhere. No thanks.
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  The point is those systems reduce the number of employees needed, which means a reduction in the demand of labor, which means the price of labor goes down assuming the supply remains constant or goes up.
  - mkane848 7y ago
    But we're decreasing the quality of the service, so do they, really? We then need the aforementioned people to fill in the gaps for the systems. Automation shouldn't be replacing people in the workforce, it should be allowing us to do our jobs more efficiently and tackle the more pressing, human issues that require nuance.
    - lotsofpulp 7y ago
      The fact that wages have stagnated while productivity has skyrocketed is proof that there is insufficient and possibly decreasing demand for labor. Personally, I like all the new automated services, and I would say the benefits have outweighed the issues. The gaps in the system don’t require as many people as before to fill, or perhaps the ones that are required don’t need to be as highly trained so they offer lower pay. For example, Home Depot and Lowe’s websites now show you exactly where an item is in the store, which is very helpful to a shopper. But that may also cause some employees to be made redundant as they theoretically have more time to assist with other things assuming they are helping fewer customers find things. This one change might not affect the numbers, but combined with online ordering, in store pickup, self checkout machines, it might all add up to a few less positions at the store.
      - mkane848 7y ago
        I disagree with your analysis in the first sentence on a fundamental level, so I think we may just not see eye to eye on this. I think it's more reflective of the issues of crony capitalism and exploitation of the working class than as a litmus test of whether automation has "made it" yet. Self checkout at the grocery store is still a mess that requires frequent intervention from on-hand employees, and even the most advanced system still usually requires someone there for insurance. Hell, the best minds in the country still can't get cars to drive themselves without someone on deck to pull the plug if it all goes tits up.
        torgian 7y ago
        Yeah, this is a true statement. I live in east Asia and travel to Japan a few times a year. They have self-checkout, but there is always someone there to help. I have seen these people help everyone at the self-checkout every time I went to the stores that have them. Automation is nice, but it's not smart enough. Not yet at least.