3 ms·

Except that it was a viable career and now you have feel that were earning a living finding their skills useless economically. Next thing you know their skills

by ArtB 15y ago

Except that it was a viable career and now you have feel that were earning a living finding their skills useless economically. Next thing you know their skills are just as marketable as a highschool drop-outs. I think one of the great problems of this age is that skills and wages fluctuate too wildly to make long-term plans like our parents did. I'll take more inefficiency for more stability any old day.

MartinCron 15y ago
I'll take more inefficiency for more stability any old day. As would all of the newspaper classified ad salespeople, VHS tape manufacturers, blacksmiths, haberdashers, etc. I see where you're coming from, and it's a valid perspective, although I don't know how realistic it is. All of the attempts to stabilize skills/wages seem to lead to guilds/cartels which keep prices artificially high and harm innovation. If anything, this economic reality makes the case for a strong social safety net. If someone's livelihood is profoundly disrupted by technology, they should be given a meaningful opportunity to retrain and/or pivot onto something workable without suffering complete and total financial (or physical, in the case of losing one's health care) ruin.
tomjen3 15y ago
Well that is, naturally your choice, just as long as you don't try to force this on others. You see I am pissed that I don't have my flying care and robotic servant already. I want progress and will take whatever stability that is necessary to do that.
ilkandi 15y ago
It takes a long time to accumulate enough knowledge to get the pattern recognition and competent creativity to be an expert in any field. Brains have speed limits. It'd be nice if the valuation of the field lasted long enough to make it worth acquiring and increasing that knowledge. Fun thought; what's it like to compete directly against 7 billion people? Do all specialized skills become close to worthless if you're not part of a restrictive "guild" (bar exams, medical board exams, etc) or part of a corporation?

by ArtB 15y ago

MartinCron 15y ago

I'll take more inefficiency for more stability any old day. As would all of the newspaper classified ad salespeople, VHS tape manufacturers, blacksmiths, haberdashers, etc. I see where you're coming from, and it's a valid perspective, although I don't know how realistic it is. All of the attempts to stabilize skills/wages seem to lead to guilds/cartels which keep prices artificially high and harm innovation. If anything, this economic reality makes the case for a strong social safety net. If someone's livelihood is profoundly disrupted by technology, they should be given a meaningful opportunity to retrain and/or pivot onto something workable without suffering complete and total financial (or physical, in the case of losing one's health care) ruin.

tomjen3 15y ago

Well that is, naturally your choice, just as long as you don't try to force this on others. You see I am pissed that I don't have my flying care and robotic servant already. I want progress and will take whatever stability that is necessary to do that.

ilkandi 15y ago

It takes a long time to accumulate enough knowledge to get the pattern recognition and competent creativity to be an expert in any field. Brains have speed limits. It'd be nice if the valuation of the field lasted long enough to make it worth acquiring and increasing that knowledge. Fun thought; what's it like to compete directly against 7 billion people? Do all specialized skills become close to worthless if you're not part of a restrictive "guild" (bar exams, medical board exams, etc) or part of a corporation?