4 ms·

> If you automate away your non-tech co-worker ... will he get the bonus? Yes, and you get nothing. It's fair; just don't automate away other people's jobs, au

> If you automate away your non-tech co-worker ... will he get the bonus? Yes, and you get nothing. It's fair; just don't automate away other people's jobs, automate away your own. > If someone automates you away, will you get anything? Yes, 100% of the bonus. It's not a choice, you must leave. I still think that's fair. > If you keep automating away your co-workers, who's gonna be left to help you automate yourself away? You don't automate away your co-workers unless you like doing free work. Problem solved. If you have the most difficult to automate away job, you entered into it knowingly. The market will ensure that those jobs will be higher paid by supply and demand. This model doesn't require cooperation to work, just a relatively clear set of job responsibilities and a clear definition of what it means for you to be automated away. I actually really love this idea, from an employer's perspective.

TeMPOraL 12y ago
Ok, so how about when you're an accountant? Now your employer has a strong incentive to pay someone extra to eliminate you, and you have no way of automating yourself because you don't know squat about programming. That's the kind of situation that needs to be handled.
- redeemer 12y ago
  My reply would be that if a programmer can out-account you as an accountant, then you've failed as an accountant; you need to look for another job or learn the necessary skills like programming. Of course this does mean a lot of people out of jobs, which is the crux of the article, but I don't think it's a fault or weak link in this employment model.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > and you have no way of automating yourself because you don't know squat about programming. Automating existing work is more than just programming; a big part of it is expertise provided by people knowledgeable about the existing workflow. None of the projects I've been on that involved automating existing work involved only programmers and no one with experience doing the work.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    Yes, I know, and I appreciated that fact in the post upthread. The point here is, if you go with the suggestion of 'redemeer that "if you get automated away, you get 0", said accountant will have no incentive to help with the automating, and every incentive to make it as hard as possible - which I think is not the result we want to have. To get a happy ending for everyone, we need coordination, not competition.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > The point here is, if you go with the suggestion of 'redemeer that "if you get automated away, you get 0", said accountant will have no incentive to help with the automating If you go with a principal that if you are involved in automating the job away, you get some reward, the accountant may have some incentive to help (especially if it is likely to happen, but with perhaps lesser quality -- but still perhaps a net cost savings to the company -- anyway, which would result not only in the company getting less than if the accountant was actively involved, but the accountant getting less as well.)
    - redeemer 12y ago
      > "if you get automated away, you get 0" No, I actually said the opposite. If you get automated away, by yourself or by anyone else, you instantly get the bonus and you're instantly fired. The accountant has every incentive to either be an amazing accountant so that any automation would be a pale imitation (everyone wins), or he can choose to automate himself away, move to the next job, automate himself away and pick up the bonus there, and so on (everyone gets their due). This is competition, and I think it's a happy ending for meritocracy. The only people who lose are those who desire to continue to be paid while not generating value.
      - TeMPOraL 12y ago
        Oh, I'm sorry. After re-reading your comment for the third time I realized you said something exactly opposite than what I thought.
tracker1 12y ago
Isn't what you just describe about automating other peoples jobs away a huge part of IT to begin with... we take paper forms that have long review chains and turn them into electronic forms (more effective data entry, fewer needed) with mostly automated review chains (cut middle management)... yeilding higher returns. This is why IT is considered White Collar (especially software developers and engineers)... It's our job to automate people out of jobs... which then churns the need for jobs developing ever more complex systems that aren't human. Often badly written. We'll never reach greater than say 60% unemployment... there's just to much crap to shovel (even in automation).

TeMPOraL 12y ago

Ok, so how about when you're an accountant? Now your employer has a strong incentive to pay someone extra to eliminate you, and you have no way of automating yourself because you don't know squat about programming. That's the kind of situation that needs to be handled.

redeemer 12y ago
My reply would be that if a programmer can out-account you as an accountant, then you've failed as an accountant; you need to look for another job or learn the necessary skills like programming. Of course this does mean a lot of people out of jobs, which is the crux of the article, but I don't think it's a fault or weak link in this employment model.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> and you have no way of automating yourself because you don't know squat about programming. Automating existing work is more than just programming; a big part of it is expertise provided by people knowledgeable about the existing workflow. None of the projects I've been on that involved automating existing work involved only programmers and no one with experience doing the work.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  Yes, I know, and I appreciated that fact in the post upthread. The point here is, if you go with the suggestion of 'redemeer that "if you get automated away, you get 0", said accountant will have no incentive to help with the automating, and every incentive to make it as hard as possible - which I think is not the result we want to have. To get a happy ending for everyone, we need coordination, not competition.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > The point here is, if you go with the suggestion of 'redemeer that "if you get automated away, you get 0", said accountant will have no incentive to help with the automating If you go with a principal that if you are involved in automating the job away, you get some reward, the accountant may have some incentive to help (especially if it is likely to happen, but with perhaps lesser quality -- but still perhaps a net cost savings to the company -- anyway, which would result not only in the company getting less than if the accountant was actively involved, but the accountant getting less as well.)
  - redeemer 12y ago
    > "if you get automated away, you get 0" No, I actually said the opposite. If you get automated away, by yourself or by anyone else, you instantly get the bonus and you're instantly fired. The accountant has every incentive to either be an amazing accountant so that any automation would be a pale imitation (everyone wins), or he can choose to automate himself away, move to the next job, automate himself away and pick up the bonus there, and so on (everyone gets their due). This is competition, and I think it's a happy ending for meritocracy. The only people who lose are those who desire to continue to be paid while not generating value.
    - TeMPOraL 12y ago
      Oh, I'm sorry. After re-reading your comment for the third time I realized you said something exactly opposite than what I thought.

tracker1 12y ago

Isn't what you just describe about automating other peoples jobs away a huge part of IT to begin with... we take paper forms that have long review chains and turn them into electronic forms (more effective data entry, fewer needed) with mostly automated review chains (cut middle management)... yeilding higher returns. This is why IT is considered White Collar (especially software developers and engineers)... It's our job to automate people out of jobs... which then churns the need for jobs developing ever more complex systems that aren't human. Often badly written. We'll never reach greater than say 60% unemployment... there's just to much crap to shovel (even in automation).