4 ms·

I'm not at all convinced that automation only results in the loss of future, and not present, jobs. In some cases the company will use the currently available w

I'm not at all convinced that automation only results in the loss of future, and not present, jobs. In some cases the company will use the currently available worker hours for other tasks, but I can also imagine situations where workers that currently have jobs are laid off. A brief googling turned up a Forbes piece that claims millions of jobs have already been lost to automation[0], which seems believable to me whether or not the claim is accurate (Forbes has unapologetically lied in the past). This isn't to say we shouldn't automate things, but we should be aware of the effects of that automation. [0]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/amysterling/2019/06/15/automated-future/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/amysterling/2019/06/15/automate...

iudqnolq 7y ago
I think the comment you're replying to was providing a single example to prove not all automation leads to job loss immediately. You're arguing some automation leads to job loss. These aren't contradictory claims. I found the anecodote interesting because it's not universally representative.
- blotter_paper 7y ago
  I can see reading it that way. I was under the impression that the comment I was replying to was using a specific case to argue a broader claim, particularly with this sentence: > I think the flaw with the scenario you described is that your programs are “replacing” these peoples’ “jobs”, when, in reality, we’re building tools that empower them to perform their jobs more effectively. I took this as an attempted refutation of that comments parent based on the anecdotal account given.
  - gen220 7y ago
    My bad, I did word it in a universalist way there, whereas I was trying to give an anecdote to counterbalance the claim I interpreted as “automation is bad for ops people”. I think that the secret sauce that makes our automation “good”, is that we’re growing as a company, which effectively dictates that both the supply of new ops tasks and the magnitude of existing ops tasks are growing along with us. If we weren’t growing, we’d be taking away work with our automation (instead of clearing the way for more, different work).
    - blotter_paper 7y ago
      Thanks for the clarification!

iudqnolq 7y ago

I think the comment you're replying to was providing a single example to prove not all automation leads to job loss immediately. You're arguing some automation leads to job loss. These aren't contradictory claims. I found the anecodote interesting because it's not universally representative.

blotter_paper 7y ago
I can see reading it that way. I was under the impression that the comment I was replying to was using a specific case to argue a broader claim, particularly with this sentence: > I think the flaw with the scenario you described is that your programs are “replacing” these peoples’ “jobs”, when, in reality, we’re building tools that empower them to perform their jobs more effectively. I took this as an attempted refutation of that comments parent based on the anecdotal account given.
- gen220 7y ago
  My bad, I did word it in a universalist way there, whereas I was trying to give an anecdote to counterbalance the claim I interpreted as “automation is bad for ops people”. I think that the secret sauce that makes our automation “good”, is that we’re growing as a company, which effectively dictates that both the supply of new ops tasks and the magnitude of existing ops tasks are growing along with us. If we weren’t growing, we’d be taking away work with our automation (instead of clearing the way for more, different work).
  - blotter_paper 7y ago
    Thanks for the clarification!