4 ms·

designing, producing, selling, installing, operating, and maintaining automation are activities carried out by actual human beings

by MWil 13y ago

ebiester 13y ago
How many of those jobs can be done by a dull person? Consider someone smart enough not to be classified as disabled, but not smart enough to do more than semi-skilled labor under supervision. They used to have factory jobs. These have been automated. Agriculture is increasingly automated. We are finding ways to build our systems around fewer and fewer people. More capable people are fighting further down the food chain. Do we just throw people who can't adapt on disability? That's what we did for the group below them, after all. (Who themselves, mind you, we're once capable of being functional members of society, even if they needed help and we're often exploited.)
- MWil 13y ago
  it doesn't automatically follow that "finding ways to build our systems around fewer and fewer people" in a SPECIFIC area = a system for fewer and fewer people. What if the journey to automation elevated job positions to something far greater than if the job had remained off-limits to automation?
  - ThomPete 13y ago
    You are grabbing for straws now. The whole point of technology is to increase production output. To do more with less. This might open up new areas but it doesn't follow at all either. And unless you can point to something like the semiconductor revolution it's hard to see what you are referring to.
    - MWil 13y ago
      I don't feel like I'm reaching at all. I feel like I'm describing a pretty general truth. Job A gets replaced by Automation 1.0. Automation 1.0 required the labor of Jobs B, C, and D to become a reality. Now, not only can Jobs B, C, and D become greatly automated but Automation A is going to eventually lead to Automation 2.0 which led to Jobs E, F, and G being created. Within one generation of the death of Job A, six other jobs were created. You're arguing that specialization isn't opened up but someone specialized in something enough (robotics, AI, mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, something) to lead to the automation in the first place.
      - ThomPete 13y ago
        That's not a general truth at all. Thats the point. There is no data that shows that new jobs are created to replace those lost by automation. So not it's not a general truth at all.
        MWil 13y ago
        How in the world did the automation become a reality without at least one new job having come into creation? Replacement is at least guaranteed (not obviously analogous by hours or skills required). The question is can we say that more now jobs exist (although they might not need filling or lead to the displaced workers finding new work).
        ThomPete 13y ago
        Because at the same time new markets where liberalized. In fact it was a major part of the US doctrine since second world war. To open up new markets for American companies which they have done very successfully. You could have jobs for everyone if you just gave them 50 cent an hour so no that is not question as it's missing the point. I find the continued apologetic nature of your and some others argument amazing. Technology does not create more jobs than it destroys it help create new markets. But at the same time it removes jobs from the middle class and leaves only either high tech jobs or Wallmart like jobs in the US (and europe) If you think that is a sustainable model and proves that the market works just fine I think you are mistaken.
  - ebiester 13y ago
    Using IQ in the abstract sense, I am suggesting instead that we can automate any job that someone who is 70 IQ now, possibly 80 IQ, and that there are very few jobs where it would be more expensive to automate than hire them. Those jobs (Agriculture, light manufacturing) have largely been outsourced or automated, and those that have been outsourced are largely in the process of being automated now. These people will not suddenly be able to get jobs in IT. Now, I'm not saying that automation is bad, but I am saying we have a structural unemployment situation on our hands and we are going to have to figure out something.

designing, producing, selling, installing, operating, and maintaining automation are activities carried out by actual human beings

by MWil 13y ago

designing, producing, selling, installing, operating, and maintaining automation are activities carried out by actual human beings

ebiester 13y ago

How many of those jobs can be done by a dull person? Consider someone smart enough not to be classified as disabled, but not smart enough to do more than semi-skilled labor under supervision. They used to have factory jobs. These have been automated. Agriculture is increasingly automated. We are finding ways to build our systems around fewer and fewer people. More capable people are fighting further down the food chain. Do we just throw people who can't adapt on disability? That's what we did for the group below them, after all. (Who themselves, mind you, we're once capable of being functional members of society, even if they needed help and we're often exploited.)

MWil 13y ago
it doesn't automatically follow that "finding ways to build our systems around fewer and fewer people" in a SPECIFIC area = a system for fewer and fewer people. What if the journey to automation elevated job positions to something far greater than if the job had remained off-limits to automation?
- ThomPete 13y ago
  You are grabbing for straws now. The whole point of technology is to increase production output. To do more with less. This might open up new areas but it doesn't follow at all either. And unless you can point to something like the semiconductor revolution it's hard to see what you are referring to.
  - MWil 13y ago
    I don't feel like I'm reaching at all. I feel like I'm describing a pretty general truth. Job A gets replaced by Automation 1.0. Automation 1.0 required the labor of Jobs B, C, and D to become a reality. Now, not only can Jobs B, C, and D become greatly automated but Automation A is going to eventually lead to Automation 2.0 which led to Jobs E, F, and G being created. Within one generation of the death of Job A, six other jobs were created. You're arguing that specialization isn't opened up but someone specialized in something enough (robotics, AI, mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, something) to lead to the automation in the first place.
    - ThomPete 13y ago
      That's not a general truth at all. Thats the point. There is no data that shows that new jobs are created to replace those lost by automation. So not it's not a general truth at all.
      - MWil 13y ago
        How in the world did the automation become a reality without at least one new job having come into creation? Replacement is at least guaranteed (not obviously analogous by hours or skills required). The question is can we say that more now jobs exist (although they might not need filling or lead to the displaced workers finding new work).
        ThomPete 13y ago
        Because at the same time new markets where liberalized. In fact it was a major part of the US doctrine since second world war. To open up new markets for American companies which they have done very successfully. You could have jobs for everyone if you just gave them 50 cent an hour so no that is not question as it's missing the point. I find the continued apologetic nature of your and some others argument amazing. Technology does not create more jobs than it destroys it help create new markets. But at the same time it removes jobs from the middle class and leaves only either high tech jobs or Wallmart like jobs in the US (and europe) If you think that is a sustainable model and proves that the market works just fine I think you are mistaken.
- ebiester 13y ago
  Using IQ in the abstract sense, I am suggesting instead that we can automate any job that someone who is 70 IQ now, possibly 80 IQ, and that there are very few jobs where it would be more expensive to automate than hire them. Those jobs (Agriculture, light manufacturing) have largely been outsourced or automated, and those that have been outsourced are largely in the process of being automated now. These people will not suddenly be able to get jobs in IT. Now, I'm not saying that automation is bad, but I am saying we have a structural unemployment situation on our hands and we are going to have to figure out something.