8 ms·

As a society we need to make sure we are taking care of people when their industry is destroyed. The whole “learn 2 code” thing that was directed toward coal wo

As a society we need to make sure we are taking care of people when their industry is destroyed. The whole “learn 2 code” thing that was directed toward coal workers was exactly the wrong thing to do. If we want those coal plants to shut down we should have offered to pay off the workers until they reached retirement age. If you “take away” someone’s job for the sake of progress, then you’ll make enemies of progress and leave people behind and cause generations of anything ranging from hatred to apathy to loathing. Here in this case I don’t think it’s quite the same, but this sort of thing is NOT going to go away, and we need to figure it out. Just retraining of “find another job” isn’t good enough.

mfer 7y ago
If you take away people’s ability to provide for themselves and their families you’re bound to make enemies and that’s due to hurting people. It says a lot about what one calls progress I would suggest helping those people move on to something else that enables them to care for their families. It’ll make change far more palatable and is better for people
- adrianN 7y ago
  What would be concrete actions that enable someone in their late forties or early fifties to find a new job when the whole industry they've worked in so far basically disappears? Say someone working at a coal plant, or someone assembling ICEs? Who will hire them?
  - iagovar 7y ago
    If they don't find anything related, tangential etc, nobody. That's the reality we are facing off. In Spain several coal mines shut off. The initial idea was to just retire this people. In some cases they made them hop trough some recolocation programs. IMO retiring people is just cheaper. The administrative overhead of managing this people is not worth the cost.
  - bdamm 7y ago
    For a while call centers were popping up in the wake of factory shutdowns.
  - mfer 7y ago
    There are programs for this. I know people who have gone through them. I think the issue is they need to be funded. I’d defer to the experts on this.
prepend 7y ago
I think the way we take care of people is by providing many diverse training paths and transparency. Not just college age programs but lifelong learning where it’s possible to learn to code or weld or teach or whatever. Our libraries and community colleges should include more low cost certification and structured learning programs where people can explore interests. I think this is very different from the high cost 4-year undergrad or masters programs that are expensive and take a lot of time. A UAW worker will have a hard time, I think, getting a degree but should have an easy time taking a few 1-4 week programs at night or from home to pick up useful skills. I’m not sure what other program will really work unless UBI gets here real soon (I don’t think it will). Programs where GM has to pay workers who don’t work will just kill GM. I suppose it will be ok for a few years, but once GM dies then no one will be able to pay.
- maxerickson 7y ago
  What skills are people going to learn in a week that employers aren't already willing to provide training for? Are things so broken on the employer side that they won't take a 1 week risk on a new hire?
  - sandworm101 7y ago
    Yes. Employers regularly turn down applicants for lack of minor courses. Knowing how to weld means nothing to HR box tickers. An afternoon at joes upstairs welding school: tick. I saw a kid not get a job because she hadnt ever used a fax machine.
    - maxerickson 7y ago
      I have a feeling that welding in particular is relatively resistant to meaningless certifications.
      - sandworm101 7y ago
        But it is a trade that was once taught by employers. They would teach the type/style/quality of welding they needed for the job.
flatline 7y ago
I don’t think people have a right to a job. But I do think that we as a society have a responsibility for baseline care of everyone. When we can’t depend on the profits of individual’s labor to support them for life any more - which will increasingly be the case according to the current trajectory - something else must be done. This goes beyond the very real issues of wealth disparity and to a much more fundamental problem that comes with automation at these levels.
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  We have a responsibility as a society to ensure that a framework exists (social safety nets, effective public policy) to allow someone to work towards finding purpose without starving or going homeless. If someone wants to cheat and call that a job guarantee, I’m fine with that. And in the long run, it’s cheaper than the alternative. It’s not just the moral thing to do, it’s compassionate and economically efficient.
  - mjevans 7y ago
    I agree with everything except it being cheating. That's the government providing baseline competition (and non broken-window public works) to serve as something for private entities to beat.
    - toomuchtodo 7y ago
      I meant cheating in the sense of what you call it (which isn’t important).
- CinchWrench 7y ago
  >I do think that we as a society have a responsibility for baseline care of everyone. If you give people a floor like that, you have to keep them doped up enough to be content with it. Or engineer a more complacent human.
  - travisjungroth 7y ago
trentnix 7y ago
Your campaign has the full support of the buggy drivers union, tube TV repairmen, and video store employees union.
- ohazi 7y ago
  > buggy drivers union I read this as "buggy device drivers union" and had a sudden moment of clarity.
MuffinFlavored 7y ago
> The whole “learn 2 code” thing that was directed toward coal workers was exactly the wrong thing to do. Can somebody go into depth on this? Everyday I interact with people who have jobs that suck way more than coding and pay way less. Why wouldn't people want to work 40 hours remotely with full benefits making decent wages?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- realbarack 7y ago
  Any career change is non-trivial for a mid-career worker and it's probably unrealistic that a majority of blue-collar workers would be able to transition into software jobs. "Learn to code" is great advice in general and can change the lives of certain individuals but it's not a winning strategy for shifting a mid-career workforce from one career to another, at scale.
  - MuffinFlavored 7y ago
    > Any career change is non-trivial for a mid-career worker and it's probably unrealistic that a majority of blue-collar workers would be able to transition into software jobs. Unrealistic in what sense? That most people are unable to learn managing state and code flow? I never hear anybody say "it is unrealistic for workers to learn Spanish/Russian/Mandarin/Japanese", yet I really feel basic programming is even easier to learn than a spoken language.
    - chillacy 7y ago
      I used to think that until I tried teaching people programming a few times, it's hard work, and a lot of people don't find it enjoyable. Additionally I heard people who do well in code school have prior programming experience as well, so it becomes more about selection and refining skills than actually making new programmers.
      - 7y ago
ip26 7y ago
Putting entire communities or indeed entire regions on welfare for the rest of their life smacks of unintended consequences later on.
- thephyber 7y ago
  It's already happened. Disability insurance is the de facto implementation of this. It leads to judges corrupting their own judgement to allow workers who probably aren't disabled to get onto the disability roles, it's a ratchet where once on permanent disability, an employee can no longer legally get a job again, it's almost certainly a downsizing in wages and quality of life expectations, and it leads to depression, higher suicide rates, and high rates of opioid abuse.
richk449 7y ago
You want to offer incentives to people to go into fields that aren’t needed?
chronotis 7y ago
Bringing this point back closer to home: I've been a "software professional" of one shape or another for over 20 years now. In my case, that's come with a never-ending need to constantly retool: new languages, new SDKs, new device types, new APIs, etc., etc. I'm sure this sounds familiar. There are a LOT of jobs out there that don't have any continuing education requirement, or where the idea of learning some new computer interface for doing the same work you were doing before adds a lot of friction. I enjoy the constant learning curve, but not everybody does. Professions that used to last a lifetime, don't any more, but we aren't given those expectations at the beginning of our journeys. Additionally, even though I enjoy the act of learning I'm starting to notice that it takes a little bit more effort year by year to learn the new tricks. And yet our earning potential (which directly drives a wide range of personal and family decisions) is dependent on staying on the treadmill. I can see the day, eventually, where I'm not as fast a learner as the latest round of college graduates and where whatever wisdom I may have gained isn't of any value or relevance. I hope I am wrong about that.
- robocat 7y ago
  > In my case, that's come with a never-ending need to constantly retool: new languages, new SDKs, new device types, new APIs, etc., etc. I think over time those things are not as significant as the changes in disciplines (titles?) or verticals. E.g. Changing from an embedded SE to front end UX is more difficult than the languages or tools involved. Edit: is it harder to retrain from front end to embedded? I've traveled the ≈embedded to ≈ux road (via ≈applications). From ≈employee land to ≈owner land.
  - chronotis 7y ago
    True, and (so far for me, anyway) it's usually been a slow-motion transition so there's been enough time to get ahead of the wave. Or at least keep up with it...as long as you're paying attention.
- lawrenceyan 7y ago
  Computer Science at the end of the day is just applied math. The majority of the algorithms and data structures used today in software engineering were invented more than 50+ years ago. The language or framework you use really shouldn’t matter all that much. That’s just a matter of taking some time to acquaint yourself with the vernacular. But fundamentally, the maths stays the same.
Thriptic 7y ago
As I have said in a number of these types of threads, saying we will pay people off / implement UBI as a solution to reduced participation in the labor force dramatically underestimates the complexity of the problems of automation / globalization / de-industrialization. Most people want to work; they derive self-esteem from their labor and for being a provider; and status is awarded by society depending on the type of job you work and your position in an entity (eg CEO, foreman, etc). Being unemployed / on benefits in America is strongly looked down on and stigmatized. People don't want "hand outs" or "charity", they want to do something to generate value. While I agree that we will ultimately have to pursue some sort of UBI or payoff solution, implementing it requires a complete cultural shift in the way we think about work which will likely be a difficult uphill battle. People go all in on retraining (even though it obviously can't work for everyone) because retraining fits well into American culture without controversy.
- microcolonel 7y ago
  I would add that while people may take pride in work, that doesn't mean they'll work for pride alone.
- chillacy 7y ago
  > People don't want "hand outs" or "charity", they want to do something to generate value Agreed that it will be a cultural shift: there is a divide between meaning and economics. People need meaning in life, but meaningful work and economic value aren't always the same. Raising children or providing caregiving to the elderly can be very meaningful and happens to pay poorly. Building community is incredibly meaningful, and is usually volunteer work right now. > People go all in on retraining (even though it obviously can't work for everyone) I've heard that federal retraining programs have a success rate (defined as difference between placebo of nothing) of 0-15%. The current government solution to displaced workers is in practice is getting on disability.
  - Consultant32452 7y ago
    I think you'll have a much harder time convincing women to not base sexual selection, at least in part, on resource gathering. That's pretty ingrained, and not just culture.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
baby 7y ago
Sounds like what Andrew Yang has been saying over and over. I wish the main candidates would steal from his ideas.
godzillabrennus 7y ago
We should have begun building carbon extraction and deep burial facilities where they mined for coal. That would have replaced blue collar jobs with blue collar jobs. We need a carbon tax and federal funding to build these facilities. Carbon extraction paired with more nuclear is what we need to invest in.
- ghettoimp 7y ago
  This is a really good point. Not sure I'm in favor of UBI when there is so much work we could be doing to fix the mess we've made.
ryan_j_naughton 7y ago
Until almost the singularity, humans have a lot to offer the economy. Effectively giving up on a whole group of people being productive isn't the right answer at all. The plasticity of humans in the face of adversity and changing times is a fundamental part of humanity. From entire Nations migrating across the world in search of a new Homeland in ancient times (e.g. Helvetii) to the mass migration of people in modern times (Irish potato famine and mass emigration), to entire industries being automated many many times. e.g. the etymological origin of sabotage is from labor disputes over automation. Similarly luddites engaged in sabotage in the 1800s. And many industries have either been virtually automated (farming) or made obsolete (blacksmiths), resulting in dramatic reductions in labor demand in those areas. In any of these cases, humans persevered and ultimately found new purposes. And while automation is only going to increase at an exponential rate and displacement similarly so, given that there is still so much productive potential left in humans, it would be a folly to simply give up on a group of people and just give them UBI. I'm not saying UBI isn't part of the solution, but the solution also has to involve utilizing the productive capacity of humanity. Bc we have too many big problems to solve to switch an ever growing percentage of our population over to only be consumers (and not producers). They will be an ever growing tax on the rest of the population the will prevent us from putting as much investment into R&D and problem solving.
Reubend 7y ago
I disagree. It's the responsibility of each worker to maintain the skills they need to be valuable in the modern economy. Our government should help the unemployed, but paying them off "until they reached retirement age" means that the people who are still employed are paying for them to do nothing.
- ohazi 7y ago
  > means that the people who are still employed are paying for them to do nothing. That's literally the point. The cost to society of having a large, disgruntled, restless, unemployed population is high. If this population decides to revolt, the cost could be catastrophically high. The goal is to pay this population less than the total dollar value of the expected damage, but still enough to stave off the most expensive / disasterous outcomes. If you prefer, employable people like living in a world where they're employable. If the unemployable decide to revolt, that world could be threatened. It may hurt your sensibilities, but paying them to do nothing could still be the least expensive option.
shadowgovt 7y ago
It's hard to do when the people who would be recipients of such help are philosophically opposed to the virtue of such help. "Learn 2 code" was attempted because offering food stamps and Section 8 housing in coal country gets you immediately shut down. Those people, generally, don't want to perceive themselves as a burden on society.
- henrikschroder 7y ago
  The irony, of course, is that keeping the coal business going is a much higher burden on society in the long run.

mfer 7y ago

If you take away people’s ability to provide for themselves and their families you’re bound to make enemies and that’s due to hurting people. It says a lot about what one calls progress I would suggest helping those people move on to something else that enables them to care for their families. It’ll make change far more palatable and is better for people

adrianN 7y ago
What would be concrete actions that enable someone in their late forties or early fifties to find a new job when the whole industry they've worked in so far basically disappears? Say someone working at a coal plant, or someone assembling ICEs? Who will hire them?
- iagovar 7y ago
  If they don't find anything related, tangential etc, nobody. That's the reality we are facing off. In Spain several coal mines shut off. The initial idea was to just retire this people. In some cases they made them hop trough some recolocation programs. IMO retiring people is just cheaper. The administrative overhead of managing this people is not worth the cost.
- bdamm 7y ago
  For a while call centers were popping up in the wake of factory shutdowns.
- mfer 7y ago
  There are programs for this. I know people who have gone through them. I think the issue is they need to be funded. I’d defer to the experts on this.

prepend 7y ago

I think the way we take care of people is by providing many diverse training paths and transparency. Not just college age programs but lifelong learning where it’s possible to learn to code or weld or teach or whatever. Our libraries and community colleges should include more low cost certification and structured learning programs where people can explore interests. I think this is very different from the high cost 4-year undergrad or masters programs that are expensive and take a lot of time. A UAW worker will have a hard time, I think, getting a degree but should have an easy time taking a few 1-4 week programs at night or from home to pick up useful skills. I’m not sure what other program will really work unless UBI gets here real soon (I don’t think it will). Programs where GM has to pay workers who don’t work will just kill GM. I suppose it will be ok for a few years, but once GM dies then no one will be able to pay.

maxerickson 7y ago
What skills are people going to learn in a week that employers aren't already willing to provide training for? Are things so broken on the employer side that they won't take a 1 week risk on a new hire?
- sandworm101 7y ago
  Yes. Employers regularly turn down applicants for lack of minor courses. Knowing how to weld means nothing to HR box tickers. An afternoon at joes upstairs welding school: tick. I saw a kid not get a job because she hadnt ever used a fax machine.
  - maxerickson 7y ago
    I have a feeling that welding in particular is relatively resistant to meaningless certifications.
    - sandworm101 7y ago
      But it is a trade that was once taught by employers. They would teach the type/style/quality of welding they needed for the job.

flatline 7y ago

I don’t think people have a right to a job. But I do think that we as a society have a responsibility for baseline care of everyone. When we can’t depend on the profits of individual’s labor to support them for life any more - which will increasingly be the case according to the current trajectory - something else must be done. This goes beyond the very real issues of wealth disparity and to a much more fundamental problem that comes with automation at these levels.

toomuchtodo 7y ago
We have a responsibility as a society to ensure that a framework exists (social safety nets, effective public policy) to allow someone to work towards finding purpose without starving or going homeless. If someone wants to cheat and call that a job guarantee, I’m fine with that. And in the long run, it’s cheaper than the alternative. It’s not just the moral thing to do, it’s compassionate and economically efficient.
- mjevans 7y ago
  I agree with everything except it being cheating. That's the government providing baseline competition (and non broken-window public works) to serve as something for private entities to beat.
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    I meant cheating in the sense of what you call it (which isn’t important).
CinchWrench 7y ago
>I do think that we as a society have a responsibility for baseline care of everyone. If you give people a floor like that, you have to keep them doped up enough to be content with it. Or engineer a more complacent human.
- travisjungroth 7y ago

trentnix 7y ago

Your campaign has the full support of the buggy drivers union, tube TV repairmen, and video store employees union.

ohazi 7y ago
> buggy drivers union I read this as "buggy device drivers union" and had a sudden moment of clarity.

MuffinFlavored 7y ago

> The whole “learn 2 code” thing that was directed toward coal workers was exactly the wrong thing to do. Can somebody go into depth on this? Everyday I interact with people who have jobs that suck way more than coding and pay way less. Why wouldn't people want to work 40 hours remotely with full benefits making decent wages?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
realbarack 7y ago
Any career change is non-trivial for a mid-career worker and it's probably unrealistic that a majority of blue-collar workers would be able to transition into software jobs. "Learn to code" is great advice in general and can change the lives of certain individuals but it's not a winning strategy for shifting a mid-career workforce from one career to another, at scale.
- MuffinFlavored 7y ago
  > Any career change is non-trivial for a mid-career worker and it's probably unrealistic that a majority of blue-collar workers would be able to transition into software jobs. Unrealistic in what sense? That most people are unable to learn managing state and code flow? I never hear anybody say "it is unrealistic for workers to learn Spanish/Russian/Mandarin/Japanese", yet I really feel basic programming is even easier to learn than a spoken language.
  - chillacy 7y ago
    I used to think that until I tried teaching people programming a few times, it's hard work, and a lot of people don't find it enjoyable. Additionally I heard people who do well in code school have prior programming experience as well, so it becomes more about selection and refining skills than actually making new programmers.
    - 7y ago

ip26 7y ago

Putting entire communities or indeed entire regions on welfare for the rest of their life smacks of unintended consequences later on.

thephyber 7y ago
It's already happened. Disability insurance is the de facto implementation of this. It leads to judges corrupting their own judgement to allow workers who probably aren't disabled to get onto the disability roles, it's a ratchet where once on permanent disability, an employee can no longer legally get a job again, it's almost certainly a downsizing in wages and quality of life expectations, and it leads to depression, higher suicide rates, and high rates of opioid abuse.

richk449 7y ago

You want to offer incentives to people to go into fields that aren’t needed?

chronotis 7y ago

Bringing this point back closer to home: I've been a "software professional" of one shape or another for over 20 years now. In my case, that's come with a never-ending need to constantly retool: new languages, new SDKs, new device types, new APIs, etc., etc. I'm sure this sounds familiar. There are a LOT of jobs out there that don't have any continuing education requirement, or where the idea of learning some new computer interface for doing the same work you were doing before adds a lot of friction. I enjoy the constant learning curve, but not everybody does. Professions that used to last a lifetime, don't any more, but we aren't given those expectations at the beginning of our journeys. Additionally, even though I enjoy the act of learning I'm starting to notice that it takes a little bit more effort year by year to learn the new tricks. And yet our earning potential (which directly drives a wide range of personal and family decisions) is dependent on staying on the treadmill. I can see the day, eventually, where I'm not as fast a learner as the latest round of college graduates and where whatever wisdom I may have gained isn't of any value or relevance. I hope I am wrong about that.

robocat 7y ago
> In my case, that's come with a never-ending need to constantly retool: new languages, new SDKs, new device types, new APIs, etc., etc. I think over time those things are not as significant as the changes in disciplines (titles?) or verticals. E.g. Changing from an embedded SE to front end UX is more difficult than the languages or tools involved. Edit: is it harder to retrain from front end to embedded? I've traveled the ≈embedded to ≈ux road (via ≈applications). From ≈employee land to ≈owner land.
- chronotis 7y ago
  True, and (so far for me, anyway) it's usually been a slow-motion transition so there's been enough time to get ahead of the wave. Or at least keep up with it...as long as you're paying attention.
lawrenceyan 7y ago
Computer Science at the end of the day is just applied math. The majority of the algorithms and data structures used today in software engineering were invented more than 50+ years ago. The language or framework you use really shouldn’t matter all that much. That’s just a matter of taking some time to acquaint yourself with the vernacular. But fundamentally, the maths stays the same.

Thriptic 7y ago

As I have said in a number of these types of threads, saying we will pay people off / implement UBI as a solution to reduced participation in the labor force dramatically underestimates the complexity of the problems of automation / globalization / de-industrialization. Most people want to work; they derive self-esteem from their labor and for being a provider; and status is awarded by society depending on the type of job you work and your position in an entity (eg CEO, foreman, etc). Being unemployed / on benefits in America is strongly looked down on and stigmatized. People don't want "hand outs" or "charity", they want to do something to generate value. While I agree that we will ultimately have to pursue some sort of UBI or payoff solution, implementing it requires a complete cultural shift in the way we think about work which will likely be a difficult uphill battle. People go all in on retraining (even though it obviously can't work for everyone) because retraining fits well into American culture without controversy.

microcolonel 7y ago
I would add that while people may take pride in work, that doesn't mean they'll work for pride alone.
chillacy 7y ago
> People don't want "hand outs" or "charity", they want to do something to generate value Agreed that it will be a cultural shift: there is a divide between meaning and economics. People need meaning in life, but meaningful work and economic value aren't always the same. Raising children or providing caregiving to the elderly can be very meaningful and happens to pay poorly. Building community is incredibly meaningful, and is usually volunteer work right now. > People go all in on retraining (even though it obviously can't work for everyone) I've heard that federal retraining programs have a success rate (defined as difference between placebo of nothing) of 0-15%. The current government solution to displaced workers is in practice is getting on disability.
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  I think you'll have a much harder time convincing women to not base sexual selection, at least in part, on resource gathering. That's pretty ingrained, and not just culture.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

baby 7y ago

Sounds like what Andrew Yang has been saying over and over. I wish the main candidates would steal from his ideas.

godzillabrennus 7y ago

We should have begun building carbon extraction and deep burial facilities where they mined for coal. That would have replaced blue collar jobs with blue collar jobs. We need a carbon tax and federal funding to build these facilities. Carbon extraction paired with more nuclear is what we need to invest in.

ghettoimp 7y ago
This is a really good point. Not sure I'm in favor of UBI when there is so much work we could be doing to fix the mess we've made.

ryan_j_naughton 7y ago

Until almost the singularity, humans have a lot to offer the economy. Effectively giving up on a whole group of people being productive isn't the right answer at all. The plasticity of humans in the face of adversity and changing times is a fundamental part of humanity. From entire Nations migrating across the world in search of a new Homeland in ancient times (e.g. Helvetii) to the mass migration of people in modern times (Irish potato famine and mass emigration), to entire industries being automated many many times. e.g. the etymological origin of sabotage is from labor disputes over automation. Similarly luddites engaged in sabotage in the 1800s. And many industries have either been virtually automated (farming) or made obsolete (blacksmiths), resulting in dramatic reductions in labor demand in those areas. In any of these cases, humans persevered and ultimately found new purposes. And while automation is only going to increase at an exponential rate and displacement similarly so, given that there is still so much productive potential left in humans, it would be a folly to simply give up on a group of people and just give them UBI. I'm not saying UBI isn't part of the solution, but the solution also has to involve utilizing the productive capacity of humanity. Bc we have too many big problems to solve to switch an ever growing percentage of our population over to only be consumers (and not producers). They will be an ever growing tax on the rest of the population the will prevent us from putting as much investment into R&D and problem solving.

Reubend 7y ago

I disagree. It's the responsibility of each worker to maintain the skills they need to be valuable in the modern economy. Our government should help the unemployed, but paying them off "until they reached retirement age" means that the people who are still employed are paying for them to do nothing.

ohazi 7y ago
> means that the people who are still employed are paying for them to do nothing. That's literally the point. The cost to society of having a large, disgruntled, restless, unemployed population is high. If this population decides to revolt, the cost could be catastrophically high. The goal is to pay this population less than the total dollar value of the expected damage, but still enough to stave off the most expensive / disasterous outcomes. If you prefer, employable people like living in a world where they're employable. If the unemployable decide to revolt, that world could be threatened. It may hurt your sensibilities, but paying them to do nothing could still be the least expensive option.

shadowgovt 7y ago

It's hard to do when the people who would be recipients of such help are philosophically opposed to the virtue of such help. "Learn 2 code" was attempted because offering food stamps and Section 8 housing in coal country gets you immediately shut down. Those people, generally, don't want to perceive themselves as a burden on society.

henrikschroder 7y ago
The irony, of course, is that keeping the coal business going is a much higher burden on society in the long run.