4 ms·

That may not be anyone's favorite part, but it seems to be the part that gets you paid.

raldi 4y ago
I don't know; in the 1970's, writing assembly code was "the part that gets you paid", and then when programs took over that aspect of programming, I'm pretty sure salaries didn't go down.
- DrewADesign 4y ago
  I'm not so confident. Places that industrialized during the industrial revolution saw explosive growth as automation yielded unprecedented productivity. Factory jobs paid very well and were readily available because demand was generally high for like a century... but automation and labor passed a tipping point and now we have very few manufacturing jobs and the days of guaranteed high salaries and growth are gone. Rust belt cities are a living proof that industries get to a point where they pursue cheaper ways of making a stable income rather than endlessly innovating and leveraging a skilled workforce. For a lot of people, that situation just plain-old doesn't work out in the end.
  - defrost 4y ago
    > during the industrial revolution saw explosive growth as automation yielded unprecedented productivity. Factory jobs paid very well It's almost like you've never actually read any history at all. https://www.historycrunch.com/working-conditions-in-the-industrial-revolution.htm https://www.historycrunch.com/working-conditions-in-the-indu... https://firstindustrialrevolution.weebly.com/working-and-living-conditions.html https://firstindustrialrevolution.weebly.com/working-and-liv... https://industrialrevolutiontwo.weebly.com/common-workers.html https://industrialrevolutiontwo.weebly.com/common-workers.ht...
    - DrewADesign 4y ago
      As is clear from the rest of my comment, I was talking about the manufacturing industry over time, not talking specifically about the working conditions during the industrial revolution. Feel free to address the central point of what I said rather than make an unrelated pedantic point.
  - ForestCritter 4y ago
    The reason we have fewer manufacturing jobs isn't because of automation. It's due to moving manufacturing overseas to exploit cheap labor. Also there are still many parts of this country that have factory jobs (I live in one of them, 10 different factories within half an hour drive.) and the majority have minimal automation.
    - DrewADesign 4y ago
      A) That is the reason? Do you think automation played no part in large manufacturers ability to drop their highly skilled artisan workforce needed to perform key tasks? Does that really matter in the context of the conversation, which is that it's pretty naive to assume everything will just work out when workers are rendered obsolete because it's logistically easy and cheaper to get it elsewhere? B) You could live in the midst of 100 factories and that wouldn't change the decades of well-documented decline in US manufacturing jobs.
      - ForestCritter 4y ago
        automation decimated the lesser skilled labor, not the high end workforce. The highly skilled artisans got replaced by the diminishing demand for high end goods over cheap automation goods.
        DrewADesign 4y ago
        >> The highly skilled artisans got replaced by the diminishing demand for high end goods over cheap automation goods. So... cars aren't as high-end as they were during the malaise years?
        ForestCritter 4y ago
        https://www.industryweek.com/the-economy/trade/article/22024695/how-trade-policies-led-to-the-decline-of-american-manufacturing https://www.industryweek.com/the-economy/trade/article/22024...
  - raldi 4y ago
    As the need for cog-in-the-machine factory workers declined over the years, the labor force moved to industries like service, construction, transportation, and technology. My understanding is that if you could take a 2023 UPS driver or WalMart employee back in time and give them a day working at a factory in 1930 or 1970, they would eagerly return to the present. And those modern jobs exist today at such great scale in large part due to automation eliminating the old factory jobs (i.e., allowing goods to be produced much more cheaply).
    - DrewADesign 4y ago
      What you call understanding is assumption. There were retail jobs back then too and a hell of a lot of people worked in those factories. Being able to raise a family in a nice house that you own, drive new cars, send your kids to college without scrimping and retire in your early 60s with a pension is a pretty compelling reason to endure difficult work environments. Meanwhile, in some states, 3% of full-time non-elderly non-disabled Walmart employees need medicaid and food stamps. Again, the amount of poverty and decay in once vibrant rust belt cities are a living argument against the assumption that everybody just sort of figures it out when large swaths of people are rendered obsolete.
      - raldi 4y ago
        The data doesn't seem to support what you're saying, e.g., even ignoring the other three and just looking at service-industry jobs, their growth alone made up for the drop in manufacturing jobs many times over: https://i0.wp.com/www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/20220928_ServiceSectorFacts_FigB.png https://i0.wp.com/www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/... Also, the definition of a "nice house" in 1950 or 1975 is very, very different from today. In the 70's, a nice house often had one story and a single bathroom, a tiny kitchen with no dishwasher, no dryer, no air conditioning... As for the poverty rate, I'm not seeing the trend you describe: https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/sites/main/files/imagecache/lightbox/main-images/poverty_rate_historical_0.jpg https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/sites/main/files/imagecache/ligh...
        4y ago

I don't know; in the 1970's, writing assembly code was "the part that gets you paid", and then when programs took over that aspect of programming, I'm pretty sure salaries didn't go down.

DrewADesign 4y ago
I'm not so confident. Places that industrialized during the industrial revolution saw explosive growth as automation yielded unprecedented productivity. Factory jobs paid very well and were readily available because demand was generally high for like a century... but automation and labor passed a tipping point and now we have very few manufacturing jobs and the days of guaranteed high salaries and growth are gone. Rust belt cities are a living proof that industries get to a point where they pursue cheaper ways of making a stable income rather than endlessly innovating and leveraging a skilled workforce. For a lot of people, that situation just plain-old doesn't work out in the end.
- defrost 4y ago
  > during the industrial revolution saw explosive growth as automation yielded unprecedented productivity. Factory jobs paid very well It's almost like you've never actually read any history at all. https://www.historycrunch.com/working-conditions-in-the-industrial-revolution.htm https://www.historycrunch.com/working-conditions-in-the-indu... https://firstindustrialrevolution.weebly.com/working-and-living-conditions.html https://firstindustrialrevolution.weebly.com/working-and-liv... https://industrialrevolutiontwo.weebly.com/common-workers.html https://industrialrevolutiontwo.weebly.com/common-workers.ht...
  - DrewADesign 4y ago
    As is clear from the rest of my comment, I was talking about the manufacturing industry over time, not talking specifically about the working conditions during the industrial revolution. Feel free to address the central point of what I said rather than make an unrelated pedantic point.
- ForestCritter 4y ago
  The reason we have fewer manufacturing jobs isn't because of automation. It's due to moving manufacturing overseas to exploit cheap labor. Also there are still many parts of this country that have factory jobs (I live in one of them, 10 different factories within half an hour drive.) and the majority have minimal automation.
  - DrewADesign 4y ago
    A) That is the reason? Do you think automation played no part in large manufacturers ability to drop their highly skilled artisan workforce needed to perform key tasks? Does that really matter in the context of the conversation, which is that it's pretty naive to assume everything will just work out when workers are rendered obsolete because it's logistically easy and cheaper to get it elsewhere? B) You could live in the midst of 100 factories and that wouldn't change the decades of well-documented decline in US manufacturing jobs.
    - ForestCritter 4y ago
      automation decimated the lesser skilled labor, not the high end workforce. The highly skilled artisans got replaced by the diminishing demand for high end goods over cheap automation goods.
      - DrewADesign 4y ago
        >> The highly skilled artisans got replaced by the diminishing demand for high end goods over cheap automation goods. So... cars aren't as high-end as they were during the malaise years?
        ForestCritter 4y ago
        https://www.industryweek.com/the-economy/trade/article/22024695/how-trade-policies-led-to-the-decline-of-american-manufacturing https://www.industryweek.com/the-economy/trade/article/22024...
- raldi 4y ago
  As the need for cog-in-the-machine factory workers declined over the years, the labor force moved to industries like service, construction, transportation, and technology. My understanding is that if you could take a 2023 UPS driver or WalMart employee back in time and give them a day working at a factory in 1930 or 1970, they would eagerly return to the present. And those modern jobs exist today at such great scale in large part due to automation eliminating the old factory jobs (i.e., allowing goods to be produced much more cheaply).
  - DrewADesign 4y ago
    What you call understanding is assumption. There were retail jobs back then too and a hell of a lot of people worked in those factories. Being able to raise a family in a nice house that you own, drive new cars, send your kids to college without scrimping and retire in your early 60s with a pension is a pretty compelling reason to endure difficult work environments. Meanwhile, in some states, 3% of full-time non-elderly non-disabled Walmart employees need medicaid and food stamps. Again, the amount of poverty and decay in once vibrant rust belt cities are a living argument against the assumption that everybody just sort of figures it out when large swaths of people are rendered obsolete.
    - raldi 4y ago
      The data doesn't seem to support what you're saying, e.g., even ignoring the other three and just looking at service-industry jobs, their growth alone made up for the drop in manufacturing jobs many times over: https://i0.wp.com/www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/20220928_ServiceSectorFacts_FigB.png https://i0.wp.com/www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/... Also, the definition of a "nice house" in 1950 or 1975 is very, very different from today. In the 70's, a nice house often had one story and a single bathroom, a tiny kitchen with no dishwasher, no dryer, no air conditioning... As for the poverty rate, I'm not seeing the trend you describe: https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/sites/main/files/imagecache/lightbox/main-images/poverty_rate_historical_0.jpg https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/sites/main/files/imagecache/ligh...
      - 4y ago