6 ms·

> While C-3PO and WALL-E might be good at processing algorithms, they can never replace living, breathing, thinking humans entirely in the workplace. I always

> While C-3PO and WALL-E might be good at processing algorithms, they can never replace living, breathing, thinking humans entirely in the workplace. I always read that "never" as "in the next 50 years". Never say never. > We have a surplus of people who are educated but don’t quite have the skills to fulfill companies’ needs. Yes. That is why there is entry level positions like 'junior developer'. BTW, apprenticeship should be also a full-time paid job. If you have difficulty finding people maybe is that you are not paying enough. Trying to get starters in a field to accept very low pays or not pay at all makes the profession less desirable and reduces the number of candidates in the long term.

ldeangelis 7y ago
> While C-3PO and WALL-E might be good at processing algorithms, they can never replace living, breathing, thinking humans entirely in the workplace. I think another flaw in the article is the "entirely". Most of the time you won't automate everything, you will replace 10 factory workers with a machine and a technician.
lm28469 7y ago
> I always read that "never" as "in the next 50 years". Never say never. That's what people are saying every 10 years for the last 70 years. Until it's a reality it's pure sci fi, and we shouldn't care about sci fi when trying to solve current issues.
- Finnucane 7y ago
  Just like people saying we'll have fusion power in the next 50 years, which people have been saying since at least the 1960s.
  - Retric 7y ago
    Having invested minimal money in fusion it’s unsurprising that it’s not here. ITER began in 1985 as a Reagan–Gorbachev initiative, it received funding in 2006, and it’s still under construction.
  - austhrow743 7y ago
    I think people get confused with fusion power being 50 years away if we focused and through resources at it, and it being 50 years away in reality. They should be saying "fusion could be x years away if we tried for it."
collyw 7y ago
> apprenticeship should be also a full-time paid job What makes it different from a job then?
- Finnucane 7y ago
  Primarily that it is a job-training position. You're not expected to really know how to do the job when you get it. No one is really expecting it's going to go back to like it was in Ye Olde Dayes when apprentices started as children shoveling coal into the ovens (I worked for a while in a cooking school where some of the instructors had actually gone through that).
  - C1sc0cat 7y ago
    Or as my dad said you spend the first year filling and fetching the Tea
- ken 7y ago
  It literally is-a job. If you mean what distinguishes it from non-apprenticeship jobs, then (at least in the USA) the government declares [1] that it is: "PAID JOB + EDUCATION + CREDENTIALS". [1]: https://www.apprenticeship.gov/employers https://www.apprenticeship.gov/employers
- magicalhippo 7y ago
  Here in Norway it means slightly less pay and less responsibility. For example, I just had some wiring redone in my home, the certified electrician had an apprentice with him. The apprentice got instructed and monitored by the certified electrician, and on my bill they charged a fair bit less for his work. So it is a job, just the job title is a bit different.
  - wolco 7y ago
    They charged you for the person who gave instructions and for the apprentice? I feel like they took advantage of you. Having a company push the costs of training someone to you is unfair. If the professional did the work himself it would have been done quickier and with more quality. Instead you paided. Surprised they didn't send a team of 5 to help.
ken 7y ago
If you're not paying them, then it's not an "apprenticeship". The first ingredient in an apprenticeship, according to the U.S. government [1], is that you "Earn a competitive wage from day one". [1]: https://www.apprenticeship.gov/employers https://www.apprenticeship.gov/employers
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago
  So I think what GP is asking is, what is the practical difference between an "apprenticeship" and an entry-level position that involves significant on-the-job training?
  - ken 7y ago
    The US DOL has a list of FAQs on that webpage [1], including "How is apprenticeship different from other types of work-based training models?" For example: "Apprenticeships include a structured training plan, with a focus on mastering specific skills an employer needs to fill an occupation within their organization" and "Apprentices receive individualized training with an experienced mentor who walks them through their entire process" and "Apprenticeships lead to an industry-recognized credential". I've never heard of a "junior developer" position that had a standard syllabus and classes, or that offered an "industry-recognized and portable credential" at the end. Interestingly, that DOL page does link to an outline of a "Computer Programmer" apprenticeship [2], but it's rather sparse, and ancient. The only languages taught are JCL, COBOL, and FORTRAN! I guess it hasn't been used in 50 years. [1]: https://www.apprenticeship.gov/help https://www.apprenticeship.gov/help [2]: https://innovativeapprenticeship.org/oc_st_post/computer-programmer/ https://innovativeapprenticeship.org/oc_st_post/computer-pro...
    - C1sc0cat 7y ago
      Yes Apprenticeships are like that I did a mech eng one in the UK (1980's) and we where still taught how to belt drives worked - ie the water /steam powered factories in the 17th /18th century
    - spitfire 7y ago
C1sc0cat 7y ago
The article is talking about the traditional swiss/german model where an apprentice signed papers for a fixed term contract - they are not employees Also certainly in the UK and the USA the cohort that would have filled the advanced apprentices (not trade ) that realistically could train junior developers now just goes to university. So you have lost the ideal entry cohort - maybe ex vets in technical areas might but they would have all ready had the training to that level NVQ 3 4 and 5
klmadfejno 7y ago
The problem with that statement is 'entirely' You don't need to replace people entirely. You need to give them tools to increase productivity by 50%, then magically observe as 1/2 the workforce disappears. The world is sloowwwwww to adapt. If everyone put one month of attention into learning basic python, we'd see a massive productivity increase for back office functions that would make tens of thousands of people redundant. Of course, that will never happen, but the tech literacy of the average young person is increasing by the day... I disagree with your second premise too. Reducing the number of people in a profession increases the profits to the ones that make it in, thereby making it more desireable. Probably less candidates as you say.
- hinkley 7y ago
  Slightly more than half, since your worst performers tend to be disproportionately hit, and you reduce support staff and managers.
- wolco 7y ago
  Getting everyone to one standard spaces vs tabs would cause a breakdown in society. Best we don't go that route.

ldeangelis 7y ago

> While C-3PO and WALL-E might be good at processing algorithms, they can never replace living, breathing, thinking humans entirely in the workplace. I think another flaw in the article is the "entirely". Most of the time you won't automate everything, you will replace 10 factory workers with a machine and a technician.

lm28469 7y ago

> I always read that "never" as "in the next 50 years". Never say never. That's what people are saying every 10 years for the last 70 years. Until it's a reality it's pure sci fi, and we shouldn't care about sci fi when trying to solve current issues.

Finnucane 7y ago
Just like people saying we'll have fusion power in the next 50 years, which people have been saying since at least the 1960s.
- Retric 7y ago
  Having invested minimal money in fusion it’s unsurprising that it’s not here. ITER began in 1985 as a Reagan–Gorbachev initiative, it received funding in 2006, and it’s still under construction.
- austhrow743 7y ago
  I think people get confused with fusion power being 50 years away if we focused and through resources at it, and it being 50 years away in reality. They should be saying "fusion could be x years away if we tried for it."

collyw 7y ago

> apprenticeship should be also a full-time paid job What makes it different from a job then?

Finnucane 7y ago
Primarily that it is a job-training position. You're not expected to really know how to do the job when you get it. No one is really expecting it's going to go back to like it was in Ye Olde Dayes when apprentices started as children shoveling coal into the ovens (I worked for a while in a cooking school where some of the instructors had actually gone through that).
- C1sc0cat 7y ago
  Or as my dad said you spend the first year filling and fetching the Tea
ken 7y ago
It literally is-a job. If you mean what distinguishes it from non-apprenticeship jobs, then (at least in the USA) the government declares [1] that it is: "PAID JOB + EDUCATION + CREDENTIALS". [1]: https://www.apprenticeship.gov/employers https://www.apprenticeship.gov/employers
magicalhippo 7y ago
Here in Norway it means slightly less pay and less responsibility. For example, I just had some wiring redone in my home, the certified electrician had an apprentice with him. The apprentice got instructed and monitored by the certified electrician, and on my bill they charged a fair bit less for his work. So it is a job, just the job title is a bit different.
- wolco 7y ago
  They charged you for the person who gave instructions and for the apprentice? I feel like they took advantage of you. Having a company push the costs of training someone to you is unfair. If the professional did the work himself it would have been done quickier and with more quality. Instead you paided. Surprised they didn't send a team of 5 to help.

ken 7y ago

If you're not paying them, then it's not an "apprenticeship". The first ingredient in an apprenticeship, according to the U.S. government [1], is that you "Earn a competitive wage from day one". [1]: https://www.apprenticeship.gov/employers https://www.apprenticeship.gov/employers

Wowfunhappy 7y ago
So I think what GP is asking is, what is the practical difference between an "apprenticeship" and an entry-level position that involves significant on-the-job training?
- ken 7y ago
  The US DOL has a list of FAQs on that webpage [1], including "How is apprenticeship different from other types of work-based training models?" For example: "Apprenticeships include a structured training plan, with a focus on mastering specific skills an employer needs to fill an occupation within their organization" and "Apprentices receive individualized training with an experienced mentor who walks them through their entire process" and "Apprenticeships lead to an industry-recognized credential". I've never heard of a "junior developer" position that had a standard syllabus and classes, or that offered an "industry-recognized and portable credential" at the end. Interestingly, that DOL page does link to an outline of a "Computer Programmer" apprenticeship [2], but it's rather sparse, and ancient. The only languages taught are JCL, COBOL, and FORTRAN! I guess it hasn't been used in 50 years. [1]: https://www.apprenticeship.gov/help https://www.apprenticeship.gov/help [2]: https://innovativeapprenticeship.org/oc_st_post/computer-programmer/ https://innovativeapprenticeship.org/oc_st_post/computer-pro...
  - C1sc0cat 7y ago
    Yes Apprenticeships are like that I did a mech eng one in the UK (1980's) and we where still taught how to belt drives worked - ie the water /steam powered factories in the 17th /18th century
  - spitfire 7y ago

C1sc0cat 7y ago

The article is talking about the traditional swiss/german model where an apprentice signed papers for a fixed term contract - they are not employees Also certainly in the UK and the USA the cohort that would have filled the advanced apprentices (not trade ) that realistically could train junior developers now just goes to university. So you have lost the ideal entry cohort - maybe ex vets in technical areas might but they would have all ready had the training to that level NVQ 3 4 and 5

klmadfejno 7y ago

The problem with that statement is 'entirely' You don't need to replace people entirely. You need to give them tools to increase productivity by 50%, then magically observe as 1/2 the workforce disappears. The world is sloowwwwww to adapt. If everyone put one month of attention into learning basic python, we'd see a massive productivity increase for back office functions that would make tens of thousands of people redundant. Of course, that will never happen, but the tech literacy of the average young person is increasing by the day... I disagree with your second premise too. Reducing the number of people in a profession increases the profits to the ones that make it in, thereby making it more desireable. Probably less candidates as you say.

hinkley 7y ago
Slightly more than half, since your worst performers tend to be disproportionately hit, and you reduce support staff and managers.
wolco 7y ago
Getting everyone to one standard spaces vs tabs would cause a breakdown in society. Best we don't go that route.