5 ms·

Huge number of *shitty jobs destroyed Isn't that kind of the point of technological progress?

by jliptzin 5y ago

bufferoverflow 5y ago
Shitty or not, they are jobs. You failed to address what will happen to these drivers. Average age: 46.
- burrows 5y ago
  They will lose their jobs and will have to find new sources of incomes.
  - chii 5y ago
    The horses that used to pull carriages were slaughtered for meat or glue after the advent of the car.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
kadoban 5y ago
Yes, but since we live in a bootstrappy wonderland, the current holders of those shitty jobs will be ~destroyed as well.
- seanmcdirmid 5y ago
  The Luddites did ok. Why would it be different this time?
  - carlmr 5y ago
    Actually a lot of them didn't, hence the protests. Innovation can take away your job in a span of ten years while not creating new jobs for generations to come.
    - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
      > Innovation can take away your job in a span of ten years while not creating new jobs for generations to come. That case isn't true. The new generations had jobs well enough (increased productivity grew the economy much faster than before), they weren't committed to weaving clothes by hand. The Luddites themselves didn't fair as well in the short term, but many of them would have aged out of the work force in a few years anyways (manual weaving is pretty unforgiving on the body). Truck drivers are rapidly aging as well, if self driving vehicles move retirement up by 5 or so years, it isn't going that huge of a deal (we can rely even on America's social safety net), and their kids didn't want to be truck drivers anyways.
      - carlmr 5y ago
        >Truck drivers are rapidly aging as well, if self driving vehicles move retirement up by 5 or so years, it isn't going that huge of a deal That's quite optimistic. When did politicians ever talk about moving up the retirement age in the last decades. The internet brought insane growth through productivity gains in all industries. Even more than I'd expect from self-driving cars. And we haven't talked about moving up the retirement age. Also the question is what these people do now? In the next twenty years of unemployment until they reach the current retirement age?
    - bduerst 5y ago
      Luddites to the weaving loom, Blacksmiths to the steel mill, farm hands to the combustion engine, secretaries to the email, travel agencies to the search engine, etc. Technology has a robust history of displacing jobs, and humans have a robust history of learning new skills. Change is never comfortable, but predictable.
  - babypuncher 5y ago
    As automation gets better and better, the difficulty of the remaining jobs for humans goes up. Not everyone is cut out to be a software engineer, doctor, or lawyer. We have to deal with the fact that people of average (and below average) skills and intelligence still need to support their families. I think hampering technological progress to protect jobs is the wrong approach though. We need to contend with the fact that traditional supply-side economics will start to break down as we enter an era where most or all human needs can be met with automation.
    - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
      True, rising productivity does force human beings to be more productive. > Not everyone is cut out to be a software engineer, doctor, or lawyer. Society used to say the same thing about reading and writing (not everyone is cut out to do that), and society was (mostly) wrong. Pushing people higher and higher up the value chain has been happening forever. Eventually we will hit singularity, but even the software engineers, doctors, and lawyers will be obsolete then.
    - spideymans 5y ago
      Imo, as automation takes hold, one of two things will need to happen: 1) We'll all need to collectively let go of our societal ideal that work is virtuous. We will need to accept that a significant portion of people have little to no productive work available to them, and that there is nothing wrong with that. It's just the natural culmination of increasing automation and societal advancement. UBI would be a necessity in this scenario. 2) We'll see an increasing number of "make work jobs" that exist solely to keep people busy, and to generate an illusion of productivity. These jobs may ultimately be government funded, although governments may obscure the source of the funding to keep the "productivity illusion" going. For example, governments may provide business grants to keep a certain number of low-wage workers employed. I suppose this essentially would be an indirect UBI program, except that we'd make people do some nominal amount of unproductive work to "prove" that they're worthy of the UBI. I strongly suspect we'll head towards option 2.
      - imtringued 5y ago
dfxm12 5y ago
Yes, but, it unfortunately only leads to social progress if everything else keeps up - you'd be surprised how many social programs currently have work requirements ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Unemployment benefits, some type of UBI, education/job training affordability, social security, etc. are all things that need to be reevaluated if a whole job category is going to be removed. Job automation is great, but there are externalities that should be accounted for ahead of time. You can ask, "who pays for this?" Well, the obvious answer is the companies that will be enriching themselves due to society's sacrifice. Although, that has happened during the pandemic, so it's clear corporations aren't going to do so out of some sense of civic duty.

Huge number of *shitty jobs destroyed Isn't that kind of the point of technological progress?

bufferoverflow 5y ago

Shitty or not, they are jobs. You failed to address what will happen to these drivers. Average age: 46.

burrows 5y ago
They will lose their jobs and will have to find new sources of incomes.
- chii 5y ago
  The horses that used to pull carriages were slaughtered for meat or glue after the advent of the car.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

kadoban 5y ago

Yes, but since we live in a bootstrappy wonderland, the current holders of those shitty jobs will be ~destroyed as well.

seanmcdirmid 5y ago
The Luddites did ok. Why would it be different this time?
- carlmr 5y ago
  Actually a lot of them didn't, hence the protests. Innovation can take away your job in a span of ten years while not creating new jobs for generations to come.
  - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
    > Innovation can take away your job in a span of ten years while not creating new jobs for generations to come. That case isn't true. The new generations had jobs well enough (increased productivity grew the economy much faster than before), they weren't committed to weaving clothes by hand. The Luddites themselves didn't fair as well in the short term, but many of them would have aged out of the work force in a few years anyways (manual weaving is pretty unforgiving on the body). Truck drivers are rapidly aging as well, if self driving vehicles move retirement up by 5 or so years, it isn't going that huge of a deal (we can rely even on America's social safety net), and their kids didn't want to be truck drivers anyways.
    - carlmr 5y ago
      >Truck drivers are rapidly aging as well, if self driving vehicles move retirement up by 5 or so years, it isn't going that huge of a deal That's quite optimistic. When did politicians ever talk about moving up the retirement age in the last decades. The internet brought insane growth through productivity gains in all industries. Even more than I'd expect from self-driving cars. And we haven't talked about moving up the retirement age. Also the question is what these people do now? In the next twenty years of unemployment until they reach the current retirement age?
  - bduerst 5y ago
    Luddites to the weaving loom, Blacksmiths to the steel mill, farm hands to the combustion engine, secretaries to the email, travel agencies to the search engine, etc. Technology has a robust history of displacing jobs, and humans have a robust history of learning new skills. Change is never comfortable, but predictable.
- babypuncher 5y ago
  As automation gets better and better, the difficulty of the remaining jobs for humans goes up. Not everyone is cut out to be a software engineer, doctor, or lawyer. We have to deal with the fact that people of average (and below average) skills and intelligence still need to support their families. I think hampering technological progress to protect jobs is the wrong approach though. We need to contend with the fact that traditional supply-side economics will start to break down as we enter an era where most or all human needs can be met with automation.
  - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
    True, rising productivity does force human beings to be more productive. > Not everyone is cut out to be a software engineer, doctor, or lawyer. Society used to say the same thing about reading and writing (not everyone is cut out to do that), and society was (mostly) wrong. Pushing people higher and higher up the value chain has been happening forever. Eventually we will hit singularity, but even the software engineers, doctors, and lawyers will be obsolete then.
  - spideymans 5y ago
    Imo, as automation takes hold, one of two things will need to happen: 1) We'll all need to collectively let go of our societal ideal that work is virtuous. We will need to accept that a significant portion of people have little to no productive work available to them, and that there is nothing wrong with that. It's just the natural culmination of increasing automation and societal advancement. UBI would be a necessity in this scenario. 2) We'll see an increasing number of "make work jobs" that exist solely to keep people busy, and to generate an illusion of productivity. These jobs may ultimately be government funded, although governments may obscure the source of the funding to keep the "productivity illusion" going. For example, governments may provide business grants to keep a certain number of low-wage workers employed. I suppose this essentially would be an indirect UBI program, except that we'd make people do some nominal amount of unproductive work to "prove" that they're worthy of the UBI. I strongly suspect we'll head towards option 2.
    - imtringued 5y ago

dfxm12 5y ago

Yes, but, it unfortunately only leads to social progress if everything else keeps up - you'd be surprised how many social programs currently have work requirements ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Unemployment benefits, some type of UBI, education/job training affordability, social security, etc. are all things that need to be reevaluated if a whole job category is going to be removed. Job automation is great, but there are externalities that should be accounted for ahead of time. You can ask, "who pays for this?" Well, the obvious answer is the companies that will be enriching themselves due to society's sacrifice. Although, that has happened during the pandemic, so it's clear corporations aren't going to do so out of some sense of civic duty.