3 ms·
The sexist undercurrent of the article was thick, but it didn't ripple the surface until about half way though. The mere idea of the 'pink collar' is silly. Ha
by debacle 15y ago
The sexist undercurrent of the article was thick, but it didn't ripple the surface until about half way though.
The mere idea of the 'pink collar' is silly. Hair cuts are a highly elastic service, and nursing and teaching are seeing a huge downward pressure in wages are are only being protected by unions.
> Nurses may be more valued than surgeons; kindergarten teachers paid better than university professors.
Dogs and cats living together, human sacrifice, mass hysteria!
This article completely misses the point - 2000 years ago, machines did the work of 1000 men through pulleys and levers. 500 years ago, machines did the work of 1000 men through gears and belts. 100 years ago, machines did the work of 1000 men through steam and rail. 50 years ago, machines did the work of 1000 men through internal combustion. Ten years go, machines did the work of 1000 men through the transistor, and today machines do the work of 1000 men through advanced heuristic systems, statistical analysis, etc.
We will continue to automate processes so that we can all, collectively, lead better lives.
- _delirium 15y agoI'm not quite as sanguine on what technological change will do to employment, though I'm not sure what precisely it will do, either. I don't think the smooth progression you paint is quite accurate; there have been really major upheavals that had significant social impacts, not a slow transition with a constant ratio. The industrial revolution led to a large proportion of the population rushing to cities, and a whole host of urban problems (tenement housing, large-scale homelessness, urban crime, hygiene problems) that produced backlashes such as, at one extreme, Marxism, and at the moderate middle-ground, the modern welfare state and trade unionism. In particular, there was a large, relatively short-term shift in employment, from "almost everyone" working in agriculture to a majority of people working in factories. It's not 100% clear to me what today's version of "factories" will be in that analogy, the mass employment sink that people can migrate to, the way they migrated agriculture->factories. I guess "the service industry" is as good a guess as any, which is roughly what this article is proposing a more specific version of (essentially, the high-touch, hard-to-automate subset of the service industry).
- debacle 15y agoI think it's pretty clear that the shift from agri->factories will be mirrored by the shift from factories->unemployment. There's simply nothing left for uneducated people to do. The service economy is a myth.
- _delirium 15y agoIn that case, it's not clear to me how we'll "all, collectively, lead better lives", unless we transition to a much stronger welfare state, like in one of those sci-fi utopias where everyone's basic needs (food/shelter/healthcare) are taken care of by robots, and you only need to work if you want luxuries or feel a particular inner drive to do so. If, on the other hand, we have a proportion of people doing quite well, and a large number of people unemployed in slums, that seems not too good as a collective outcome.
- debacle 15y agoI think we're seeing option #2 right now. Unfortunately we'll probably be here for a while before we get to see option #1.
- reinhardt 15y agoWhat makes you optimistic that we will get to see #1 at some point?
- fumar 15y agoVery much like Asimov's "The Naked Sun." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Naked_Sun http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Naked_Sun
- moocow01 15y agoLets also consider that there is no such thing as "uneducated" Everyone has different forms of education they may just not materialize into having capital letters after their name. What we need to be thinking about is how to mend the system to better prepare and incentive people to work on whatever problems society deems to be worthy. That may be through formal education programs or it may be through something completely different.
- scarmig 15y ago2000 years ago, machines did the work of 1000 mules through pulleys and levers. 500 years ago, machines did the work of 1000 mules through gears and belts. 100 years ago, machines did the work of 50 mules through steam and rail. 50 years ago, machines did the work of no mules through internal combustion. Some people's marginal product just isn't enough to make employing them more useful than turning them into glue. In a metaphorical sense.
- debacle 15y agoThat is the less humanist view, but I do agree with you. I just don't believe that route is evolutionarily sound.
- moocow01 15y agoI don't know about teachers but believe me nurses are not seeing a huge downward pressure in wages.