3 ms·
>> We may be reaching a discontinuous point on the economic timeline. I tend to agree. Up until about a year ago I was working as a cinema projectionist for a
by s_kilk 15y ago
>> We may be reaching a discontinuous point on the economic timeline.
I tend to agree. Up until about a year ago I was working as a cinema projectionist for a very successful UK cinema chain. It was a decent job, right up until the point where the company announced a plan to completely replace all 35mm projectors with new digital machines. Now, up until this point we had maybe 3 Digital projectors already installed and we had become quite fond of them, they had a lot of problems and were much less reliable than the 35mm machines but hey, progress is progress.
The real problem was that the company intended to make every single one of us redundant in the same move, as they had some crack-pot idea that the digital projectors would "practically run themselve" (which we knew from experience would never work). This is when I realised that the old myth of "as old jobs disappear new ones will take their place" wasn't true. The company had no intention of generating new work, each cinema site would simply shift the work of running the new projection suite onto the existing (overworked and underpaid) management staff, and the work of maintaining the macines would shift to the existing (overworked and underpaid) technical crew, who were already zipping up and down the country 364 days per year.
The company could have generated some new work to replace the jobs that were lost, but ultimately they don't _want_ to do that. It's much more in the companys interests to jettison as much of their workforce as possible. Fortunately for myself, I had already decided to go back to school and get a degree in software development. Better to be at the devils right hand than in his path. :)
It's not technology that's really killing the labour-force, it's companies who jump at the opportunity to get rid of thousands of employees and essentially delete their productivity from the economy.
- brazzy 15y agoNonsense. Companies can want to eliminate jobs till the cows come home and write it on their Santa wishlist - whether they actually can eliminate jobs is determined mostly by technology. In your example, either the company bought new, more technologically advanced digital projectors that actually do need much less supervision and maintenance, or their plan simply failed and they had to re-hire people to run and repair the projectors after they had some expensive downtime and/or management and technical staff burnt out or quit.
- tatsuke95 15y ago>"This is when I realised that the old myth of "as old jobs disappear new ones will take their place" wasn't true. The company had no intention of generating new work" The jobs are very unlikely to be created at the point of elimination. The theory is that the jobs will be created somewhere else. And remember, somewhere else is now global.
- ArtB 15y agoAlso, no one says the job will be at a comparable skill-level. The jobs that are often created are much more technologically sophisticated so that those who lose them have no where to go while those well off merely get more employment options. My genuine concern is that the jobs that can provide people with just a decent lifestyle are beyond the mental talents of many people.
- Drbble 15y agoSocial welfare/workfare for mentally talentless. Is there anything morally objectionable to paying a living wage for menial. There will always be plenty of low value work to to (cleaning, beautifying, entertaining) Involuntary unemployment would not exist if wages were higher. And if machines are doing so much for us, we can afford to "overpay "