5 ms·

> I used to think the same thing but I spent some time researching the impact of previous technological revolutions on jobs. In almost every case, more jobs end

• bobthepanda 6y ago
  > To date, automation has consistently removed lower skilled jobs and replaced them with higher skilled ones. I think that an equally likely outcome is that of the ATM. After the introduction of the ATM, the number of bank tellers in the US actually increased. Why? Because ATMs didn't completely eliminate the need for bank tellers, they just automated a lot of their most mundane tasks. However, ATMs did reduce the amount of tellers needed to operate a branch, which made it cheaper to open new branches. So in the end, the elimination of positions at existing branches was dwarfed by all the positions created at new bank branches that now could be operated profitably.
  • Reelin 6y ago
    > ATMs didn't completely eliminate the need for bank tellers, they just automated a lot of their most mundane tasks. That looks suspiciously similar to the process of raising the skill floor that I referred to. The simpler parts of the job were relegated to a machine while the more complicated bits remained. My point is that there are inherent limits to such a process. What happened historically (including the ATM example) ceases to be relevant once such a limit is reached. Relevant quote: "Instead of shooting where I was, you should have shot at where I was going to be." -Lrrr (to Fry) (In the ATM example, it's specifically the bits that require vision, situational awareness, and human level conversational capabilities that were retained by the human. All things that cutting edge ML is making very visible progress on. I implore you to take a serious look at the state of cutting edge ML research with such tasks in mind.)
    • tupputuppu 6y ago
      That's incorrect. The level of skill and automation potential aren't related. For instance healthcare is a hugely growing market with a lot of low skilled opportunities requiring human interaction.
      • Reelin 6y ago
        > The level of skill and automation potential aren't related. I never claimed they were? I said that when a job is automated away, any that replace it inevitably require a higher skill level. Thus the skill floor rises over time. > requiring human interaction That's the key. That's a specific task that we can't (yet) automate.
      • odshoifsdhfs 6y ago
        What kind of jobs are those? In my country, except janitors and people working cafeteria, pretty much any job in healthcare requires some kind of degree (exception is taking care of old folks in private homes, but even those require a substancial amount of staff with some kind of schooling in it)
        • feu 6y ago
          Theatre support worker would be one example of a healthcare role that doesn't require a degree. This is in the context of the UK NHS. I'm unsure if an equivalent role is common within the healthcare systems of other countries.
          • DanBC 6y ago
            Don't ODPs need to have a degree in England? https://www.healthcareers.nhs.uk/explore-roles/allied-health-professionals/roles-allied-health-professions/operating-department-practitioner https://www.healthcareers.nhs.uk/explore-roles/allied-health...
            • feu 6y ago
              Yes, ODP is a role which requires more qualifications. It's a separate role from theatre support worker. https://www.healthcareers.nhs.uk/explore-roles/wider-healthcare-team/roles-wider-healthcare-team/clinical-support-staff/theatre-support-worker https://www.healthcareers.nhs.uk/explore-roles/wider-healthc...
  • brabel 6y ago
    > After the introduction of the ATM, the number of bank tellers in the US actually increased Weird, why that would happen?!... I don't think that's a common outcome elsewhere... In Northern Europe, for example, there's almost no bank branches left now... they've been closing down for years and now it's actually hard to find any branch that's open to the public (this started with ATMs but now it's mostly a result of the cashless economy and online banking).
    • bobthepanda 6y ago
      The US bank market is (was?) highly competitive, the US still uses a lot of cash and checks, you can generally only deposit at ATMs for your bank, and non-bank ATMs have very high fees. So it becomes a distinct advantage to have more locations for customers, because it makes banking with your bank more convenient.
      • c22 6y ago
        The bank I use has very few branches, from what I can tell. They let me deposit checks by mail or with a smart phone and they refund all of my off-network ATM fees, I guess with the money they're saving by not operating physical branches.
        • bobthepanda 6y ago
          You can do that with a check but you can't really take smartphone pictures or use mail to deposit cash. I have an online bank account but I do maintain a checking account with a traditional US bank for this reason.
          • c22 6y ago
            This is true, and my bank does have one branch in my city I can go to if I ever had to deposit cash. In actuality, though, I rarely receive large sums of cash and any cash I do get I usually just spend (thus avoiding having even to visit an atm to get more cash as I commonly have to). The end result is that I haven't been inside a bank in at least 5 years.
  • phaemon 6y ago
    I think that example just emphasises Reelin's point. Perhaps there was a temporary effect of more tellers, but now they've been entirely replaced with software - to the point there are many Internet only banks with no physical branches - and bank branches are closing down all over.
  • dsego 6y ago
    But now it seem to me, to work in a bank or any other office job, you need a degree from university. Whereas before, these jobs required a high school diploma and maybe some training.