41–50 of 119 posts
The most imminent threat to jobs that I can identify is drivers. Taxi's, trucks, delivery vehicles and buses. We can see rapid improvement of self-driving technology. For sure, tech moves into mainstream more slowly than we generally imagine it will, but the sheer numbers of persons who could be displaced make even a relatively protracted implementation a big problem. Drive through Mountain View, Ca. on any given day…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Think of it this way: Right now, to move one trucks' worth of cargo for one hour requires one man hour. i.e.: 1 man-hour per cargo-hour. If you have a single human that full-services 200 self-driving trucks in one day, you have: 1 man-hour per 200 cargo-hours. Sure, autonomous refueling is easier than self-driving, but self-driving trucks also makes the human relatively way cheaper to employ.
My thoughts exactly. The usual standard for automation, I believe, is 18-24 months salary - if the capital cost can be recouped in two years automation is worthwhile. For hundreds of well-paid truckers that's a relatively generous target, but automating a reliable gas pumping system just to save on one minimum-wage gas pumper looks like a much lower ROI.
This piece is utter trash founded on baseless assumptions. >Arntz, et al. argue that the estimated share of “jobs at risk” must not be equated with actual or expected employment losses from technological advances for three reasons. So in other words, the title is false. Actual employment loss is what is at issue here. >The utilisation of new technologies is a slow process, due to economic, legal and societal hurdles,…
The hard question is not whether certain jobs will get automated out of existence--they will. The hard question is why that automation will not result in the creation of new industries, which themselves will create new jobs. This has happened throughout human history. To say that won't happen anymore is a high bar. That's why the pace of change does matter. If jobs are destroyed much faster than they are created, the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My thoughts exactly. The usual standard for automation, I believe, is 18-24 months salary - if the capital cost can be recouped in two years automation is worthwhile. For hundreds of well-paid truckers that's a relatively generous target, but automating a reliable gas pumping system just to save on one minimum-wage gas pumper looks like a much lower ROI.
The factor is availability- you need three of these workers for a around the clock shift. AI does not sleep.
Do you think it's possible to deliver an automated gas pump that services 4,800 trucks per day (~1 truck every 3 minutes) for $120k? I don't.
This piece is utter trash founded on baseless assumptions. >Arntz, et al. argue that the estimated share of “jobs at risk” must not be equated with actual or expected employment losses from technological advances for three reasons. So in other words, the title is false. Actual employment loss is what is at issue here. >The utilisation of new technologies is a slow process, due to economic, legal and societal hurdles,…
Does anyone today feel as though we've lost half of our jobs to mechanized farming? Not really, it allowed other industries like entertainment to flourish. Now that less of us have to do X, we can do more Y. I think it's absolutely a valid point to say "job loss will be slow enough that people will be able to adapt."
I honestly don't get the "robots will take our jobs" thing. It's sort of like "with more technology people will work less" - which has thus far proven to not be the case. People will always find more work to do, more ways to convince other people to spend money (and since the sales of X are now supporting less people, more money is freed up for Y).
The number of "jobs" available to a given population isn't really a function of the level of automation. It's a function of who is in control of capital/wealth and how that wealth flows between entities. Thanks to the automation we've already developed, we can already technically afford to provide everyone (in the US) with a basic income for the "job" of simply existing. Or we could place a high(er) tax on top earners and use that to double the minimum wage and split those jobs in half. Boom, look at all those new jobs created simply by a policy change. We just have collectively not chosen to do those things. Jobs are a red herring. We don't "need jobs" that are being destroyed by automation. The automation is adding value, not destroying it. We just have a setup where a small number of people are capturing most of that value. What we need are socioeconomic policies that even out that distribution.
This piece is utter trash founded on baseless assumptions. >Arntz, et al. argue that the estimated share of “jobs at risk” must not be equated with actual or expected employment losses from technological advances for three reasons. So in other words, the title is false. Actual employment loss is what is at issue here. >The utilisation of new technologies is a slow process, due to economic, legal and societal hurdles,…
I don't think the assertions are that ridiculous. Look at all the automation that we've already developed. "In 1870, almost 50 percent of the US population was employed in agriculture.[16] As of 2008, less than 2 percent of the population is directly employed in agriculture." Does anyone today feel as though we've lost half of our jobs to mechanized farming? Not really, it allowed other industries like entertainment…
Someone else phrased it best, I read it from an HN user but they may have been using someone else's argument. Paraphrasing here:
"Machines made physical labor easier, requiring fewer people to do physical labor. Those people moved to doing mental labor. Now machines are replacing mental tasks too. Where can people go when fewer of them are needed for mental tasks?"
The last remaining type of labor would be creative labor. Writing, music, performance. Things machines either still struggle at or won't be able to perform until we have humanoids that move fluidly. Even then, humans seem to prefer humans performing "artsy" things - based on criticisms I've seen of robots who create art (mostly music and drawings).
Art also, notoriously, doesn't pay very well for all but a small fraction of artists. What happens when this market is over-saturated because it is the only job left for large parts of the population?
Actual OECD study: [1] The study says that, for the US, 9% of people are at "high risk" of automated out of a job. (That probably means "replaceable right now".) But 38% of people are potentially replaceable. There's an assumption in the OECD report that the entire job of a human must be replaced. But that's not how automation works. We're seeing this in the more advanced law firms. What used to take a senior attorne…
One for one replacement is a truly strange standard to hold to. After all, even trucking automation will not be a 100% loss - if nothing else, we'll see a rise in full-service highway gas stations to fuel driverless trucks. On the other hand, even 10% replacement of an industry (9 workers doing what 10 workers do now) is a big deal, and there are a lot of careers (legal, HR, document handling) that should expect to s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One for one replacement is a truly strange standard to hold to. After all, even trucking automation will not be a 100% loss - if nothing else, we'll see a rise in full-service highway gas stations to fuel driverless trucks. On the other hand, even 10% replacement of an industry (9 workers doing what 10 workers do now) is a big deal, and there are a lot of careers (legal, HR, document handling) that should expect to s…
If driverless trucking takes off, why would the gas station need to be full service (staffed with humans)? Compared to building an autonomous truck, autonomous refueling seems like the easy part.
After factoring in the cost of the robotics I suspect paying humans minimum wage is quite a bit cheaper. Especially given the diverse outdoor environments such a system would need to be maintained in
Sigh. It doesn't matter. People have this bizarre conception of the economy as an exact lock-fit between jobs and work that needs doing, and they have a hard time imagining changes to that fit, even though throughout human history there has been constant change. In truth there is a nearly infinite amount of work that needs doing. We just get by with most of the work not being done. Just go back in time and think abou…
>No matter how much we automate there will always be work for people to do. The more important question is how equitably they'll be compensated for that work and whether or not our education system is adequate for the world as it exists. And if it isn't, then those people who've been automated out of a job will find something to do, such as crime.