5 ms·

I've seen reports that up to 70% of workers are in jobs that could eventually be automated. This is a pretty scary statistic when you think about it, which is w

I've seen reports that up to 70% of workers are in jobs that could eventually be automated. This is a pretty scary statistic when you think about it, which is why I'm also a huge proponent of the idea of a basic income guarantee. With numbers like that, pretty much every job is going to be overcome by competition for the position, no matter how intricate it is, as long as we have this notion that everyone HAS to work in order to earn the right to live—even if there's no work available. But if you're looking for jobs where your likelihood of being outsourced is negligible, look for the ones that are hardest for machines to do. These, by the way, aren't necessarily those at the top of the knowledge spectrum. Doctors as a profession, for example, will eventually fall to machine learning systems like Watson, and medical school will become more a technician's school than anything else. Nurses, however, perform a wide variety of functions that are difficult to automate safely, nor can they be offshored. Its difficult to outsource sticking a needle in someone. Last thing: I'd argue with the idea that web development is commoditized. At the lower end of the spectrum, sure—tons of wordpress themes out there, its easy to offshore something like that, basic development provided by good software. But higher up the food chain, where you're at the end of the market where you actually DO stuff like write original javascript, or develop some new server platform, or whatever it is on that end of the spectrum—those jobs aren't going anywhere for awhile.

imacommodity 13y ago
Thanks for your comment, I appreciate your insights - and the way you've insightfully looked for jobs that are less likely to be outsourced. One point I wanted to reply to: > But higher up the food chain, where you're at the end of the market where you actually DO stuff like write original javascript, or develop some new server platform, or whatever it is on that end of the spectrum—those jobs aren't going anywhere for awhile. I agree, but I feel this part of the market is shrinking as more people squash into it. More and more of my current clients - and I could well have ended up in a backwater of sub-$18000 projects - are considering that 'good enough' is good enough while money's tight and there's a recession on. Perhaps the interesting jobs will move away from agencies and into the tech players (Google, Facebook, Oracle etc), and the self-employed market will struggle as anything other than contractors? Despite what I hear myself say I know other industries have gone through this doom-and-gloom over the last few centuries, and not all have become like manufacturing...
ZachPruckowski 13y ago
Productivity increases (including robotization/automation) mean that the US economy can produce the same goods with less work or more goods with the same work. If we're in a situation where the prospect of being able to produce more goods or work less is "pretty scary", then we're doing something wrong as a society. These sorts of changes should be Pareto-efficient.
- al2o3cr 13y ago
  "Should be" is a pretty strong phrase in that last sentence. There's also a big difference between being able to work less (when productivity gains translate into wage gains) and having to work less (when productivity gains translate into shrinking labor demand).
- karmajunkie 13y ago
  Newsflash: we're doing something wrong as a society. Because socially we're not going to accept that people should be working less—not because they need to work more, but because idle hands offend.
aoxfordca 13y ago
Since when is right to live equal to a basic income guarantee? That's like saying all bacteria, whether benign or malignant, should be given free agar solution so that they can grow and prosper in the world. It just doesn't make sense.
- nicholas73 13y ago
  Well, all organisms have the right to try to live, so it might not be a bad idea to pay off the angry peasants.
- informatimago 13y ago
  The difference between humans and bacteries, is that humans a higher order than bacteries. In humans, you have intelligence and self consciousness, and consciousness of the univers, and the ability (very very tiny small for now, non withstanding the proponent of human made climate heating), to act retrospectively, introspectively and consciously on the universe. AFAIK, no other entity is able to do so, and therefore we are an essential part of the universe, giving it an entirely different ontology. You could eradicate some kind of bacteria, and the universe wouldn't change of essence. If you eradicated humanity, it would (at least, until and IF, it can evolve another sapiens sapiens specie, which is probably, but still seems to take a lot of time, even at the scale of the universe). But even without taking into account those mechanistic considerations, as a human agent, you can choose to build around yourself (and ourselves), any kind of society you want. So the question is whether you want to build a Nietzschean or a Christian or some other kind of society. Do you want the rule of the Jungle, or do you want some kind of higher civilization? Do you want the brutal application of natural selection, (don't provide any medical care, let the strongest survive and multiply), or would you prefer to let the humanity choose its evolutive path, by applying artificial selection and having even ill-fitted members survive and prosper? Finally, occidental civilisation, ie. greco-roman civilization, always has been about, and been developed by, citizen having a lavish life of leisure and culture, provided by hordes of slaves. Thanks to the judeo-christianism influence, we now know that slavery is bad, and thanks to the technical progress, we're about to be able to replace it entirely by robots and other computerized systems. The result is that instead of having 2000 citizens, we'll have seven billion citizens, and instead of having a million slaves, we'll have trillions of little robots and computers, to provide us the leisure and culture we want.
aoxfordca 13y ago
Since when is right to live equal to a basic income guarantee? That's like saying all bacteria, whether benign or malignant, should be given free agar solution so that they can grow and prosper in the world. It just doesn't make sense.
aoxfordca 13y ago
Since when is right to live equal to a basic income guarantee? That's like saying all bacteria, whether benign or malignant, should be given free agar solution so that they can grow and prosper in the world. It just doesn't make sense.
gcmartinelli 13y ago
Could you please source some of the reports that talk about the automation of the workforce? I agree with the gist, but I lack sources to defend the point.

imacommodity 13y ago

Thanks for your comment, I appreciate your insights - and the way you've insightfully looked for jobs that are less likely to be outsourced. One point I wanted to reply to: > But higher up the food chain, where you're at the end of the market where you actually DO stuff like write original javascript, or develop some new server platform, or whatever it is on that end of the spectrum—those jobs aren't going anywhere for awhile. I agree, but I feel this part of the market is shrinking as more people squash into it. More and more of my current clients - and I could well have ended up in a backwater of sub-$18000 projects - are considering that 'good enough' is good enough while money's tight and there's a recession on. Perhaps the interesting jobs will move away from agencies and into the tech players (Google, Facebook, Oracle etc), and the self-employed market will struggle as anything other than contractors? Despite what I hear myself say I know other industries have gone through this doom-and-gloom over the last few centuries, and not all have become like manufacturing...

ZachPruckowski 13y ago

Productivity increases (including robotization/automation) mean that the US economy can produce the same goods with less work or more goods with the same work. If we're in a situation where the prospect of being able to produce more goods or work less is "pretty scary", then we're doing something wrong as a society. These sorts of changes should be Pareto-efficient.

al2o3cr 13y ago
"Should be" is a pretty strong phrase in that last sentence. There's also a big difference between being able to work less (when productivity gains translate into wage gains) and having to work less (when productivity gains translate into shrinking labor demand).
karmajunkie 13y ago
Newsflash: we're doing something wrong as a society. Because socially we're not going to accept that people should be working less—not because they need to work more, but because idle hands offend.

aoxfordca 13y ago

Since when is right to live equal to a basic income guarantee? That's like saying all bacteria, whether benign or malignant, should be given free agar solution so that they can grow and prosper in the world. It just doesn't make sense.

nicholas73 13y ago
Well, all organisms have the right to try to live, so it might not be a bad idea to pay off the angry peasants.
informatimago 13y ago
The difference between humans and bacteries, is that humans a higher order than bacteries. In humans, you have intelligence and self consciousness, and consciousness of the univers, and the ability (very very tiny small for now, non withstanding the proponent of human made climate heating), to act retrospectively, introspectively and consciously on the universe. AFAIK, no other entity is able to do so, and therefore we are an essential part of the universe, giving it an entirely different ontology. You could eradicate some kind of bacteria, and the universe wouldn't change of essence. If you eradicated humanity, it would (at least, until and IF, it can evolve another sapiens sapiens specie, which is probably, but still seems to take a lot of time, even at the scale of the universe). But even without taking into account those mechanistic considerations, as a human agent, you can choose to build around yourself (and ourselves), any kind of society you want. So the question is whether you want to build a Nietzschean or a Christian or some other kind of society. Do you want the rule of the Jungle, or do you want some kind of higher civilization? Do you want the brutal application of natural selection, (don't provide any medical care, let the strongest survive and multiply), or would you prefer to let the humanity choose its evolutive path, by applying artificial selection and having even ill-fitted members survive and prosper? Finally, occidental civilisation, ie. greco-roman civilization, always has been about, and been developed by, citizen having a lavish life of leisure and culture, provided by hordes of slaves. Thanks to the judeo-christianism influence, we now know that slavery is bad, and thanks to the technical progress, we're about to be able to replace it entirely by robots and other computerized systems. The result is that instead of having 2000 citizens, we'll have seven billion citizens, and instead of having a million slaves, we'll have trillions of little robots and computers, to provide us the leisure and culture we want.

aoxfordca 13y ago

gcmartinelli 13y ago

Could you please source some of the reports that talk about the automation of the workforce? I agree with the gist, but I lack sources to defend the point.