12 ms·

In every technology wave so far, we've disrupted many existing jobs. However we've also opened up new kinds of jobs. And, because it is easier to retrain humans

• player1234 1y ago
  Improve how? And when? Give us the map. Making a prediction straight into sci fi territory and then become worried about that future is hella lame.
• yomismoaqui 1y ago
  Don't worry about the political leaders, if a sizeable amount of people lose their jobs they will surely ask GPT-10 how to build a guillotine.
  • HDThoreaun 1y ago
    The french revolution did not go well for the average french person. Not sure guillotines are the solution we need.
    • skinnymuch 1y ago
      How did it not go well for the avg person? The status quo does not go well for the avg person.
      • chrisco255 1y ago
        You should read French history more closely, they went through hell and changed governments at least 5 or 6 times in the 1800s.
        • skinnymuch 1y ago
          The status quo of the hegemonic structure of society is hell but because it has the semblance of authoritarian law and order people can look at that and say “that’s not hell”
      • __MatrixMan__ 1y ago
        Most of the people who died in The Terror were commoners who had merely not been sympathetic enough to the revolution. And then that sloppiness lead to reactionary violence and there was a lot of back and forth until Napoleon took power and was pretty much a king in all but heritage. Hopefully we can be a bit more precise this time around.
        • blarg-and-co 1y ago
          [dead]
        • deleted 1y ago
          [deleted]
      • MemesAndBooze 1y ago
        The French revolution was instigated by a group of shady people, far more dangerous and vile than the aristocracy they were fighting.
      • dragonwriter 1y ago
        > How did it not go well for the avg person? You might want to look at the etymology of the word “terrorism” (despite the most popular current use, it wasn't coined for non-state violence) and what class suffered the most in terms of both judicial and non-judicial violent deaths during the revolutionary period.
        • skinnymuch 1y ago
          Yeah, I am aware of how the word revolved evolved. I don’t find terrorism necessarily a bad thing. Though I’m not as revolutionary as before.
    • rectang 1y ago
      Here in the US, we have been getting a visceral lesson about human willingness to sacrifice your own interests so long as you’re sticking it to The Enemy. It doesn’t matter if the revolution is bad for the commoners — they will support it anyway if the aristocracy is hateful enough.
    • lotsoweiners 1y ago
      Yeah not guillotines but guns, bombs, and other tools should suffice. Body guards or compounds in Hawaii can help stop a small group but body guards will walk away from the job when thousands of well armed members of an angry mob show up at their employers door.
• aurareturn 1y ago
  This is the first technology wave that doesn't just displace humans, but which can be trained to the new job opportunities more easily than humans can. Right now it can't replace humans for a lot of important things. But as its capabilities improve, what do displaced humans transition to? Assuming AI doesn't get better than humans at everything, humans will be supervising and directing AIs.
  • jmathai 1y ago
    I’m not sure if that’s meant to be reassuring or not. It’s hard for me to imagine that AI won’t be as good or better than me at most things I do. It’s quite a sobering feeling.
    • xpe 1y ago
      More people need to feel this. Too many people deny even the possibility, not based out of logic, but rather out of ignorance or subconscious factors such as fear or irrelevance.
  • Refreeze5224 1y ago
    That sounds like a job for a very small number of people. Where will everyone else work?
    • LPisGood 1y ago
      Why do they have to work?
      • forgetfulness 1y ago
        Because otherwise you'd have to convince AI-owners and select professionals to let go of their wealth to give a comfortable and fulfilling life of leisure to the unemployed. More likely it will look like the current welfare schemes of many countries, now add mass boredom leading to unrest. Sam Altman has expressed a preference for paying people in vouchers for using his chatbots to kill time: https://basicincomecanada.org/openais-sam-altman-has-a-new-idea-for-a-universal-basic-income/ https://basicincomecanada.org/openais-sam-altman-has-a-new-i...
• jazzyjackson 1y ago
  I don't know maybe they can grow trees and build houses.
  • seanmcdirmid 1y ago
    The robots? I see this happening soon, especially for home construction.
    • andrei_says_ 1y ago
      How exactly? In the U.S. houses are built out of wood. What robot will do that kind of work?
• chrisco255 1y ago
  > but which can be trained to the new job opportunities more easily than humans can What makes you think that? Self driving cars have had untold billions of dollars in reaearch and decades in applied testing, iteration, active monitoring, etc and it still has a very long tail of unaddressed issues. They've been known to ignore police traffic redirections, they've run right through construction barriers, and recently they were burnt to a crisp in the LA riots, completely ignorant of the turmoil that was going on. A human driver is still far more adaptive and requires a lot less training than AI, and humans are ready to handle the infinitely long tail of exceptions to the otherwise algorithmic task of driving, which follows strict rules. And when you talk about applying this same tech, so confidently, to domains far more nuanced and complex than driving, with even less training data than to go off, I find myself firmly in the skeptics camp, that holds you will struggle even harder to apply humanoid robotics in uncontrolled environments across a diverse range of tasks without human intervention or piloting or maintenence or management. Unemployment is still near all time lows, this will persist for sometime as we have a structural demographic problem with massive amounts of retirees and less children to support the population "pyramid" (which is looking more like a tapering rectangle these days).
  • schneems 1y ago
    A few months ago I saw one driverless car maybe every three days. Now I see roughly 3-5 every day. I get that it’s taken a long time and a lot of hype that hasn’t panned out. But once the tech works and it’s just about juicing the scale then things shift rapidly. Even if you think “oh that’s the next generation’s problem” if there is a chance you’re wrong, or if you want to be kind to the next generation: now is the time to start thinking and planning for those problems. I think the most sensible answer would be something like UBI. But I also think the most sensible answer for climate change is a carbon tax. Just because something is sensible doesn’t meant it’s politically viable.
    • DiscourseFan 1y ago
      The major shift for me is now its normal to take Waymos. Yeah, there aren't as fast as Uber if you have to get across town, but for trips less than 10 miles they're my go to now.
• nikolayasdf123 1y ago
  > what do displaced humans transition to? go to any war-torn country or collapsed empire (Soviet). I have seen/grow-up myself in both — you would get desperation, people giving-up, alcohol (famous "X"-cross of birth rate drop and deaths rising), drugs, crime, corruption/warlord-ing, rural communities hit first and totally vanish, then small-tier cities vanish, then mid-tier, only the largest hubs remain. loss of science, culture, and education. people are just gone. only ruins of whatever latest shelters they had remain, not even their prime-time architecture. you can drive hundreds/thousands of kms across these ruin of what once was flurishing culture. years ago you would find one old person still living there. these days not a single human left. this is what is coming.
  • marstall 1y ago
    that was because the economy was controlled/corrupt and not allowed to flourish (and create job-creating technologies like the internet and AI).
    • monknomo 1y ago
      I'm puzzled how AI is supposed to be a job creating technology. It is supposed to either wholesale replace jobs, or make workers so efficient that fewer of them are required. This is supposed to make digital and intellectually produced goods cheaper (although, given reproduction is free, the goods themselves are already pretty cheap). To me it looks like we'll see well paying jobs decrease, digital services get cheaper, food+housing stay the same, and presumably as displaced workers do what they need to do physical service jobs will get more crowded and pay worse, so physical services will get cheaper. It is unclear whether there will be a net benefit to society. Where do the jobs come from?
      • marstall 1y ago
        in the long term: simply that from the spinning jenny on, the history of automation is the history of exponentially expanding the workforce and population. when products are cheaper, demand increases, new populations enter the market and create demand for a higher class of goods and services - which sustains/grows employment. in the short term: there is a hiring boom within the AI and related industries.
• drooby 1y ago
  Carpenters, landscapers, roofers, plumbers, electricians, elderly care, nurses, cooks, servers, bakers, musicians, actors, artists... Those jobs are probably still a couple decades plus off from displacement. some possibly never, And we will need them in higher numbers.. and perhaps it's ironic because these are some of the oldest professions. Everything we do is in service of paying for our housing, transportation, eating food, healthcare and some fun money. Most goes to housing, healthcare, and transportation. Healthcare costs may come down some with advancements in AI. R&D will be cheaper. Knowledge will be cheaper and more accessible. But what people care about, what people have always cared about, remains in professions that are as old as time and, I don't see them fully replaceable by AI just yet - enhanced, yes, but not replaced. Imagine a world where high quality landscaping exists for the average person. And this is made possible because we'll live in a world where the equivalent of today's uber driver owns a team of gardening androids. Or perhaps in the future everyone will work in finance. Everyone's a corporation. Ramble ramble ramble
  • ares623 1y ago
    Well when i get unemployable i will start upskilling to an electrician. And so will hundreds of thousands like me. That will do very well to salaries I think and everyone will be better of.
  • 000ooo000 1y ago
    What this delusion seems to turn a blind eye to is that a good chunk of the population is already in those roles; what happens when the supply of those roles far exceeds the demand, in a relatively short time? Carpenters suddenly abundant, carpenter wages drop, carpenters struggling to live, carpenters forced to tighten spending, carpenters decide children aren't affordable.. now extrapolate that across all of the impacted roles and industries. No doubt someone is already typing "carpenters can retrain too!" OK, so they're back to entry level wages (if anything) for 5+ years? Same story. And retrain to what? At some point an equilibrium will be reached but there is no guarantee it will be a healthy situation or a smooth ride. This optimism about AI and the rosy world that is just around the corner is incredibly naive.
    • 1y ago
• mips_avatar 1y ago
  We have to also choose to build technology that empowers people. Empowering technologies don't just pop into existence, they're created by people who care about empowering people.
• nikolayasdf123 1y ago
  > what do displaced humans transition to? we assume there must be something to transition to. very well, there can be nothing. we assume people will transition. very well, they may not transition at all and "dissappear" en masse. (same effect as as a war or an empire collapse)
• d2veronica 1y ago
  During the Industrial Revolution, many who made a living by the work of their hands lost their jobs, because there were machines and factories to do their work. Then new jobs were created in factories, and then many of those jobs were replaced by robots. Somehow many idiotic white collar jobs have been created over the years. How many web applications and websites are actually needed? When I was growing up, the primary sources of knowledge were teachers, encyclopedias, and dictionaries, and those covered a lot. For the most part, we’ve been inventing problems to solve and wasting a tremendous amount of resources. Some wrote malware or hacked something in attempt to keep this in check, but harming and destroying just means more resources used to repair and rebuild and real people can be hurt. At some point in coming years many white collar workers will lose their jobs again, and there will be too many unemployed because not enough blue collar jobs will be available. There won’t be some big wealth redistribution until AI convinces people to do that. The only answer is to create more nonsense jobs, like AI massage therapist and robot dog walker.
• bamboozled 1y ago
  It’s probably the only technology that is designed to replace humans as its primary goal. It’s the VC dream.
  • xgkickt 1y ago
    I do wonder if the amount they're spending on it is going to be cost effective versus letting humans continue doing the work.
    • chrz 1y ago
      It is for some shareholder as long as the hype and stocks go up
• chung8123 1y ago
  It makes me wonder if we will be much more reserved with our thoughts and teachings in the future given how quickly they will be used against us.
• visarga 1y ago
  > displace humans ... AI can displace human work but not human accountability. It has no skin and faces no consequences. > can be trained to the new job opportunities more easily ... Are we talking about AI that always needs trainers to fix their prompts and training sets? How are we going to train AI when we lose those skills and get rid of humans? > what do displaced humans transition to? Humans with all powerful AI in their pockets... what could they do if they lose their jobs?
  • 9dev 1y ago
    > ask that question to all the companies laying off junior folks in favor of LLMs right now. They are gleefully sawing off the branch they’re sitting on. > Humans with all powerful AI in their pockets... what could they do if they lose their jobs? At which point did AI become a free commodity in your scenario?
  • DrewADesign 1y ago
    > AI can displace human work but not human accountability. It has no skin and faces no consequences. We’ve gota way to go to get there in many instances. So far I’ve seen people blame AI companies for model output, individuals for not knowing the product sold to them as a magic answer-giving machine was wrong, and other authorities in those situations (e.g. managers, parents, school administrators and teachers,) for letting ai be used at all. From my vantage point, It people seem to be using it as a tool to insulate themselves from accountability.
  • ACCount37 1y ago
    Is the ability to burn someone at a stake for making a mistake truly vital to you? If not, then what's the advantage of "having skin" is? Sure, you can't flog an AI. But AI doesn't need to be threatened with flogging to perform at the peak of its abilities. A well designed AI performs at the peak of its abilities always - and if that isn't enough, you train it until it is.
  • azan_ 1y ago
    > AI can displace human work but not human accountability. It has no skin and faces no consequences. Let’s assume that we have amazing aj and robotics, better than humans at everything - if you could choose between robosurgery (completely automatic) with 1% mortality and for 5000 usd vs surgery performed by human with 10% mortality and 50000 usd price tag, would you really choose human just because you can sue him? I wouldn’t. I don’t thing anyone thinking rationally would.
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
• OneMorePerson 1y ago
  Far from an expert on this topic, but what differentiates AI from other non physical efficiency tools? (I'm actually asking not contesting). Won't companies always want to compete with one another, so simply using AI won't be enough. We will always want better and better software, more features, etc. so that race will never end until we get an AI fully capable of managing all parts (100%) of the development process (which we don't seem to be close to yet). From Excel to Autocad there's been a lot of tools that were expected to decrease the amount of work ended up actually increasing it due to having new capabilities and the constant demand for innovation. I suppose the difference would be if we think AI will continue to get really good, or if it'll become SO good that it is plug and play and completely replaces people.
  • xpe 1y ago
    Companies don’t always compete on capability or quality. Sometimes they compete on efficiency. Or sometimes they carve up the market in different ways.
    • OneMorePerson 1y ago
      Sometimes, but with technology related companies I rarely see that. I've really only seen it in industries that are very straightforward, like producing building materials or something. Do you have any examples?
      • xpe 1y ago
        Utilities. Low cost retail. Fast food. Amazon. Walmart. Efficiency is arguably their key competitive advantage. This matters regarding AI systems because a lot of customers may not want to pay extra for the best models! For a lot of companies, serving a good enough model efficiently is a competitive advantage.
  • xpe 1y ago
    > what differentiates AI from other non physical efficiency tools? At some point: (1) general intelligence; i.e. adaptivity; (2) self replication; (3) self improvement.
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
• ip26 1y ago
  For the moment, perhaps it could be jobs that LLMs can’t be trained on. New jobs, niche jobs, secret or undocumented jobs… It’s a common point now that LLMs don’t seem to be able to apply knowledge about one thing to how a different, unfamiliar thing works. Maybe that will wind up being our edge, for a time.
• nine_k 1y ago
  > And, because it is easier to retrain humans than build machines for those jobs, we wound up with more and better jobs. I think it did not work like that. Automatic looms displaced large numbers of weavers, skilled professionals, which did not find immediately find jobs tending dozens of mechanical looms. (Mr Ludd was one of these displaced professionals.) Various agricultural machines and chemical products displaced colossal numbers of country people which had to go to cities looking for industrial jobs; US agriculture used to employ 50% of workforce in 1880 and only 10% in 1930. The advent of internet displaced many in the media industry, from high-caliber journalists to those who worked in classified ads newspapers. All these disruptions created temporary crises, because there was no industry that was ready to immediately employ these people.
  • marstall 1y ago
    temporary - thats the key. people were able to move to the cities and get factory and office jobs and over time were much better off. I can complain about the socially alienated condition I'm in as an office worker, but I would NEVER want to do farm work - cold/sun, aching back, zero benefits, low pay, risk of crop failure, a whole other kind of isolation etc etc.
• solumunus 1y ago
  We also may not need to worry about it for a long time. I’m more and more falling on this side. LLM’s are hitting diminishing returns so until there’s a new innovation (can’t see any on the horizon yet) I’m not concerned for my career.
• GoatInGrey 1y ago
  Snarky but serious question: How do we know that this wave will disrupt labor at all? Every time I dig into a story of X employees replaced by "AI", it's always in a company with shrinking revenues. Furthermore, all of the high-value use cases involve very intense supervision of the models. There's been a dream of unsupervised models going hog wild on codebases for the last three years. Yet even the latest and greatest Claude models can't be trusted to write a new REST endpoint exposing 5 CRUD methods without fucking something up. No, it requires not only human supervision, but it also requires human expertise to validate and correct. I dunno. I feel like this language grossly exaggerates the capability of LLMs to paint a picture of them reliably fulfilling roles end-to-end instead of only somewhat reliably fulfilling very narrowly scoped tasks that require no creativity or expertise.
  • closewith 1y ago
    > instead of only somewhat reliably fulfilling very narrowly scoped tasks that require no creativity or expertise. This alone is enough to completely reorganise the labour market, as it describe an enormous number of roles.
    • badestrand 1y ago
      How many people could be replaced by a proper CMS or a Excel sheet right now already? Probably dozens of millions, and yet they are at their desks working away. It's easy to sit in a café and ponder about how all jobs will be gone soon but in practice people aren't as easily replacable.
      • pjmlp 1y ago
        I can tell that those whose jobs depended on providing image assets or translations for CMS, are no longer relevant for their employers.
      • 7952 1y ago
        For many businesses the situation is that technology has dramatically underperformed in doing the most basic tasks. Millions of people are working around things like defective ERP systems. A modest improvement in productivity in building basic apps could push us past a threshold. It makes it possible for millions more people to construct crazy excel formulas. It makes it possible to add a UI to a python script where before there was only a command line. And one piece of magic that works teliably can change an entire process. It lets you make a giant leap rather than an incremental change. If we could make line of business crud apps work reliably, have usable document/email search, and have functional ERP that would dissolve millions of jobs.
• bsder 1y ago
  > we wound up with more and better jobs. You will have to back that statement up because this is not at all obvious to me. If I look at the top US employers in say 1970 vs 2020, the companies that dominate 1970 were noted for having hard blue collar labor jobs but paid enough to keep a single earner family significantly above minimum wage and the poverty line. The companies that dominate in 2020 are noted for being some of the shittiest employers having some of the lowest pay fairly close to minimum wage and absolutely worst working conditions. Sure, you tend not to get horribly maimed in 2020 vs 1970. That's about the only improvement.
  • moffkalast 1y ago
    This was already a problem back then, Nixon was about to introduce UBI in the late 60s and then the admin decided that having people work pointless jobs keeps them better occupied, and the rest of the world followed suit. There will be new jobs and they will be completely meaningless busywork, people performing nothing of substance while being compensated for it. It's our way of doing UBI and we've been doing it for 50 years already. Obligatory https://wtfhappenedin1971.com https://wtfhappenedin1971.com
• torben-friis 1y ago
  >But as its capabilities improve, what do displaced humans transition to? IF there is intellectual/office work that remains complex enough to not be tackled by AI, we compete for those. Manual labor takes the rest. Perhaps that’s the shift we’ll see: nowadays the guy piling up bricks makes a tenth of the architects’ salary, that relation might invert. And the indirect effects of a society that values intellectual work less are really scary if you start to explore the chain of cause and effect.
  • ACCount37 1y ago
    Have you noticed that there are a lot of companies now that are trying to build advanced AI-driven robots? This is not a coincidence.
  • azan_ 1y ago
    The relation won’t invert because it’s very easy and quick to train guy pilling up bricks while training architect is slow and hard. If low skilled jobs will pay much better than high skilled then people will just change their job.
    • torben-friis 1y ago
      That’s only true as long as the technical difficulties aren’t covered by tech. Think of a world where software engineering itself is handled relatively well by the llm and the job of the engineer becomes just collecting business requirements and checking they’re correctly addressed. In that world the limit for scarcity might be less in the difficulty of training and more in the willingness to bend your back in the sun for hours vs comfortably writing prompts in an air conditioned room.
      • azan_ 1y ago
        Right now there are enough people willing to bend their back in the sun for hours that their salaries are much lower than these of engineers. Do you think that for some reason supply of these people will drop with higher wages and much lower employment opportunities in office jobs? I highly doubt it.
• yaur 1y ago
  I believe that historically we have solved this problem by creating gigantic armies and then killing off millions of people that couldn't really adapt to the new order with a world war.
• bambax 1y ago
  One way to think about AI and jobs is Uber/Google Maps. You used to have to know a lot about a city to be a taxi driver; then suddenly with Google Maps you don't. So in effect, technology lowered the requirements or training needed to become a taxi driver. More people can do it, not less (although incumbents may be unhappy about this). AI is a lot like this. In coding for instance, you still need to have some sense of good systems design, etc. and know what you want to build in concrete terms, but you don't need to learn the specific syntax of a given language in detail. Yet if you don't know anything about IT, don't know what you want to build or what you could need, or what's possible, then it's unlikely AI can help you.
  • brap 1y ago
    Even with Google Maps, we still need human drivers because current AI systems aren’t so great at driving and/or are too expensive to be widely adopted at this point. Once AI figures out driving too, what do we need the drivers for? And I think that’s the point he was making, it’s hard to imagine any task where humans are still required when AI can do it better and cheaper. So I don’t think the Uber scenario is realistic. I think the only value humans can provide in that future is “the human factor”: knowing that something is done by an actual human and not a machine can be valuable. People want to watch humans playing chess, even though AI is better at it. They want to consume art made by humans. They want a human therapist or doctor, even if they heavily rely on AI for the technical stuff. We want the perspective of other humans even if they aren’t as smart as AI. We want someone that “gets” us, that experiences life the same way we do. In the future, more jobs might revolve around that, and in industries where previously we didn’t even consider it. I think work is going to be mostly about engaging with each other (even more meetings!) The problem is, in a world that is that increasingly remote, how do you actually know it’s a human on the other end? I think this is something we’ll need to solve, and it’s going to be hard with AI that’s able to imitate humans perfectly.
    • marstall 1y ago
      The spinning jenny put seamstresses out of work. But the history of automation is the history of exponentially expanding the workforce and population. 8 billion people wake up every morning determined to spend the whole day working to improve their lives. we're gonna be ok.
• LightBug1 1y ago
  As someone else said, until a company or individual is willing to risk their reputation on the accuracy of AI (beyond basic summarising jobs, etc), the intelligent monkeys are here for a good while longer. I've already been once bitten, twice shy. The conclusion, sadly, is that CEO's will pause hiring and squeeze more productivity out of existing hires. This will impact junior roles the most.
  • fsflover 1y ago
    Haven't you seen companies developing autonomous killing drones?
    • LightBug1 1y ago
      They won't take my job - unless someone has put a hit out on me.
      • fsflover 1y ago
        I wanted to say that people aren't afraid of loosing their reputation even when it's about the decision of whom they kill.
        • LightBug1 1y ago
          Fair point.
• kbrkbr 1y ago
  Here is another perspective: > In every technology wave so far, we've disrupted many existing jobs. However we've also opened up new kinds of jobs That may well be why these technologies were ultimately successful. Think of millions and millions being cast out. They won't just go away. And they will probably not go down without a fight. "Don't buy AI-made, brother!", "Burn those effing machines!" It's far from unheard of in history. Also: who will buy if no one has money anymore? What will the state do, when thus tax income goes down, while social welfare and policing costs go up? There are other scenarios, too: everybody gets most stuff for free, because machines and AI's do most of the work. Working communism for the lower classes, while the super rich stay super rich (like in real existing socialism). I don't think it is a good scenario either. In the long run it will make humanity lazy and dumb. In any case I think what might happen is not easy to guess, so many variables and nth-order effects. When large systems must seek a new equilibrium all bets are usually off.
• TacticalCoder 1y ago
  [dead]
• antirez 1y ago
  I too believe that a mostly autonomous work world would be something we could handle well assuming the leadership was composed of smart folks picking the right decisions, without also being too much exposed to external powers opposing an impossible to win force (large companies and interests). The problem is if we mix what could happen (not clear when, right now) with the current weak leadership across the world.
• wouldbecouldbe 1y ago
  Yeah but those opening of new kind of jobs has not always been instantly. It can take decades and for instance was one of the reasons for the French Revolution. Internet has already created a huge amount of monopolies and wealth concentration. AI seems likely to do this further.
• pzo 1y ago
  I think UBI can only buy some time but won't solve the problem. We need fast improvement with AI robots that can be used for automation on mass scale: construction, farming maybe even cooking and food processing. Right now AI is mostly focused on automating top levels of maslov pyramid hierarchy of needs rather than bottom physiological needs. Once things like shelter (housing), food, utilities (electricity, water, internet) are dirty cheap UBI is less needed.
• Matumio 1y ago
  Those displaced workers need an income first, job second. What they were producing is still getting done. This means we have gained freedom to choose what else is worth doing. The immediate problem is the lack of income. There is no lack of useful work to do, it's just that most of it doesn't pay well.
• tomjen3 1y ago
  The industrial revolution took something like 98% of jobs and farms and just disappeared them. Could you a priori in 1800 have predicted the existence of graphics artists? Street sweepers? People who drive school buses? The whole infrastructure around trains? Sewage maintainers? Librarians? Movie stuntmen? Sound Engineers? Truck drivers?
• immibis 1y ago
  The opening of new jobs has been causally unlinked from the closing of old jobs - especially when you take the quantity into consideration. There was a well of stuff people wanted to do, that they couldn't do because they were busy doing the boring stuff. But now that well of good new jobs is running dry, which is why we see people picking up 3 really shit jobs to make ends meet. There will be a point where new jobs do not open at all, and we should probably plan for that.