4 ms·

There are a lot of jobs that have very obviously been automated though. For example: secretaries. Sure the job still kind of exists, although they give them wei

There are a lot of jobs that have very obviously been automated though. For example: secretaries. Sure the job still kind of exists, although they give them weird fake names so that people aren't insulted (executive assistant!), but it's a lot smaller than it was. It's just not that important when you have email and text messages. Same thing with factory work. Yeah, you still need people.. but you need less people. Do we really think that all the people that got displaced from their factory jobs are suddenly going to become robot mechanics or something? Sure some of them, but I just don't buy this argument that technology always creates new jobs when it destroys the old ones. There are also a lot of jobs that currently exist that I suspect are not particularly necessary, they're just convenient. You see this all the time: a manager will hire someone to do something that they just don't like to do themselves. A convenience hire, basically. As long as the budget is there, everyone feels good. For instance: "project managers" (Different places call them different things). I'd define this role as people that don't actually have any hiring or firing authority, or significant design role, but rather, they're mostly in charge of client relationships. Useful? Sure. But mostly that role exists so that the people doing the actual work have a buffer between them and the client/customer. If the economy fell of a cliff again, we'd probably not have that many project managers. I just think different economic systems make sense in different contexts. Capitalism was a pretty good idea when growth was the most important factor, but now the US Government literally sets extra wheat on fire to keep prices at a certain level. I mean if you're literally burning food and employing people in jobs that aren't that useful, maybe the whole "growth" thing has stopped making sense.

nickik 12y ago
> There are a lot of jobs that have very obviously been automated though. I think you have not understood my argument. My argument is that this happens ALL THE TIME. Do yourself a favor and go back and read the discussion going on 150 years ago. Its the same thing you are saying now. Blablabl the basket makers are unemployed because of plastic bags. The barrelmaker because of plastic barrels and so on and so on. The point is that this happens constantly and the market is the exact tool to deal with this. People get insentivised to move into the next best thing humans can still do. This has lead to more and more investment in human capital and it has been a good thing. Capitalism is the best if you want to give people as much freedom and choices as possible, it is also the best if you want to get BILLIONS of people out of poverty and since there are still BILLIONS of people in poverty turing away from it to some sort of 'lets just leave everything as it is' policy is simply madness. > I mean if you're literally burning food and employing people in jobs that aren't that useful, maybe the whole "growth" thing has stopped making sense. Thats that terrible thing. It is done to please special intrest groupes and has nothing todo with acutal markets. I would suggest reading about the politcal economy of farm subsidisment and protectionsim. Its a terrible thing and helps make us all poorer, and it worse because it makes it harder for BILLIONS of people to move out of poverty.
- overgard 12y ago
  I understand your argument, I just disagree. (also: you don't have to be a dick about it. Sometimes reasonable people can disagree, you know?) 150 years ago was a vastly different time. I don't care if they were wrong THEN. Back then they didn't even have computers and motors were inefficient. Time and technology have changed. It's like if someone had invented facebook in 1995. It's not like social networking is a bad idea, it just wouldn't have worked in 1995.
  - pm90 12y ago
    From his comments, I suspect that nickik may not be a native speaker, so I would not read too much into what you and me would assume as rudeness.
  - nickik 12y ago
    Im sorry, I was a bit angry because I felt like you did not even read my argument. > 150 years ago was a vastly different time. I don't care if they were wrong THEN. Back then they didn't even have computers and motors were inefficient. Time and technology have changed. I agree. But simular argument can be made for every decade since then. Im not arguing that it WILL go on, Im arguing that we have no reason to belive that it will stop soon. Im not hearing any new arguments and the data does not really fit the 'automation' story. So my question is, why is it diffrent now, and 'now we have tech X' is not good enougth.
- Amezarak 12y ago
  Just because it has been true up until now does not mean that it still is true and will continue to be true indefinitely. Indeed historically, rapid technological development did often lead to many years of immense economic suffering for large groups of people - it just eventually got better. I don't think it's wrong to ask if now it's possible it will never get better because we're on the verge of technology replacing so many jobs.
  - nickik 12y ago
    > Just because it has been true up until now does not mean that it still is true and will continue to be true indefinitely. My argument is not that it will go on for ever, my argument is that we can not predict when its going to stop and without some groundbreaking new line of argumentation I see no reason why I should expect it to change very soon. However the only argument I hear is 'Tech X replaced Y amount of people'. There are many things that come back again and again. Overpopulation pops up every 20 years. Resource prices will just go up (peek oil). All these arguments have one thing in common, the stay consistanly the same and they are consistently wrong. Now once in awhile some prediction turns out to be true, and then people cry 'see I was right'. However its very unlikly that these people were actually right in the sence that they had discovered some new analysis or something, they are just luck. So if there is a great new argument, please tell me and if its good I belive you. > Indeed historically, rapid technological development did often lead to many years of immense economic suffering for large groups of people True. But I dont think the last couple of years were specially revolutionary in terms of technology. > I don't think it's wrong to ask if now it's possible it will never get better because we're on the verge of technology replacing so many jobs. Its not wrong to ask. Belive me I spent quite some time reading about this, reading both sides but in the end, one side was consistently correct and the other never changed there argument or there position.
WalterBright 12y ago
Part of the reason we have a vast and highly paid entertainment industry, for example, is because automation eliminated a large number of jobs. Productivity gains enable all sorts of industries to exist that couldn't have previously, such as people who clean dinosaur bones, get paid to play baseball, do interior decorating, restore classic cars, organize your closets, etc.

nickik 12y ago

> There are a lot of jobs that have very obviously been automated though. I think you have not understood my argument. My argument is that this happens ALL THE TIME. Do yourself a favor and go back and read the discussion going on 150 years ago. Its the same thing you are saying now. Blablabl the basket makers are unemployed because of plastic bags. The barrelmaker because of plastic barrels and so on and so on. The point is that this happens constantly and the market is the exact tool to deal with this. People get insentivised to move into the next best thing humans can still do. This has lead to more and more investment in human capital and it has been a good thing. Capitalism is the best if you want to give people as much freedom and choices as possible, it is also the best if you want to get BILLIONS of people out of poverty and since there are still BILLIONS of people in poverty turing away from it to some sort of 'lets just leave everything as it is' policy is simply madness. > I mean if you're literally burning food and employing people in jobs that aren't that useful, maybe the whole "growth" thing has stopped making sense. Thats that terrible thing. It is done to please special intrest groupes and has nothing todo with acutal markets. I would suggest reading about the politcal economy of farm subsidisment and protectionsim. Its a terrible thing and helps make us all poorer, and it worse because it makes it harder for BILLIONS of people to move out of poverty.

overgard 12y ago
I understand your argument, I just disagree. (also: you don't have to be a dick about it. Sometimes reasonable people can disagree, you know?) 150 years ago was a vastly different time. I don't care if they were wrong THEN. Back then they didn't even have computers and motors were inefficient. Time and technology have changed. It's like if someone had invented facebook in 1995. It's not like social networking is a bad idea, it just wouldn't have worked in 1995.
- pm90 12y ago
  From his comments, I suspect that nickik may not be a native speaker, so I would not read too much into what you and me would assume as rudeness.
- nickik 12y ago
  Im sorry, I was a bit angry because I felt like you did not even read my argument. > 150 years ago was a vastly different time. I don't care if they were wrong THEN. Back then they didn't even have computers and motors were inefficient. Time and technology have changed. I agree. But simular argument can be made for every decade since then. Im not arguing that it WILL go on, Im arguing that we have no reason to belive that it will stop soon. Im not hearing any new arguments and the data does not really fit the 'automation' story. So my question is, why is it diffrent now, and 'now we have tech X' is not good enougth.
Amezarak 12y ago
Just because it has been true up until now does not mean that it still is true and will continue to be true indefinitely. Indeed historically, rapid technological development did often lead to many years of immense economic suffering for large groups of people - it just eventually got better. I don't think it's wrong to ask if now it's possible it will never get better because we're on the verge of technology replacing so many jobs.
- nickik 12y ago
  > Just because it has been true up until now does not mean that it still is true and will continue to be true indefinitely. My argument is not that it will go on for ever, my argument is that we can not predict when its going to stop and without some groundbreaking new line of argumentation I see no reason why I should expect it to change very soon. However the only argument I hear is 'Tech X replaced Y amount of people'. There are many things that come back again and again. Overpopulation pops up every 20 years. Resource prices will just go up (peek oil). All these arguments have one thing in common, the stay consistanly the same and they are consistently wrong. Now once in awhile some prediction turns out to be true, and then people cry 'see I was right'. However its very unlikly that these people were actually right in the sence that they had discovered some new analysis or something, they are just luck. So if there is a great new argument, please tell me and if its good I belive you. > Indeed historically, rapid technological development did often lead to many years of immense economic suffering for large groups of people True. But I dont think the last couple of years were specially revolutionary in terms of technology. > I don't think it's wrong to ask if now it's possible it will never get better because we're on the verge of technology replacing so many jobs. Its not wrong to ask. Belive me I spent quite some time reading about this, reading both sides but in the end, one side was consistently correct and the other never changed there argument or there position.

WalterBright 12y ago

Part of the reason we have a vast and highly paid entertainment industry, for example, is because automation eliminated a large number of jobs. Productivity gains enable all sorts of industries to exist that couldn't have previously, such as people who clean dinosaur bones, get paid to play baseball, do interior decorating, restore classic cars, organize your closets, etc.