Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The future of jobs: The onrushing wave

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 141 posts

Re: The future of jobs: The onrushing wave

#61

Post by JshWright »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #57
JshWright wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm all for advances in technology making things safer and putting fewer people in harms way. I just don't think there is anything close to a 17% chance that it will happen in the next two decades. I say this as someone who has a foot in both worlds, so to speak... I work in technology, build UAV quadcopters (including playing with various sensors) as a hobbyist, and work at least one shift a week as a firefighter/pa…

Sounds like you have a good grasp of the subject. One comment: as for batteries, they are almost there, not at all far away. Metal-air batteries are already capable of over a thousand watt-hours/kg. As for reading smoke, a machine could be adapted to ready everything - heat, smoke, particle size, explosive residue, gas leak - and factor all that in. I don't mean to denigrate an experience firefighter's skills. But a…

I don't know much about metal-air batteries... Based on some quick reading, it seems most of them use water as the electrolyte solvent. Wouldn't they have issues with ambient temperatures north of 100˚C?

Re: The future of jobs: The onrushing wave

#62

Post by grandalf »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #45
glesica wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope you were being sarcastic... but in case you weren't, why would we ever create meaningless work instead of just giving people money for pursuing whatever makes them happy? A basic income guarantee seems like a much more reasonable solution than "put everyone to work digging holes and filling them in again".

Many people, for some strange reason, believe they would rather see the end of the world than the end of capitalism.

My point was that employment is not something to be overly focused on. The idea of creating millions of jobs by outlawing the combine is absurd to most people, as should be the idea of ever trying to "create jobs" via policy.

In a dynamic economy there will always be lots of demand for labor. At the margins, some labor is priced very low, which is a separate social issue for which I favor some kind of welfare system.

We should be wary of the idea that anyone "deserves" a job or a particular wage, since the next thing we know we are all being required to pay for something we don't want or need. Imagine how much a loaf of bread would cost if we outlawed the combine and required all the workers to be paid minimum wage.

I strongly support a social welfare system to help people adapt to changing economic conditions, but in my opinion it does not make sense to try to pretend that the economy is something it is not. Just because we may nostalgically want manual wheat harvesters working on honest day for an honest wage, someone will come along and invent a combine that drastically increases society's productivity because it frees up that labor for some more productive purpose, benefitting us all.

Some of us in the course of our careers will be forced to find another line of work b/c someone invents a "combine" for our industry. There is nothing noble about holding a job that exists only because some politician outlawed that combine.

Fearmongering about massive economic shifts is particularly silly b/c never before in history has it been so easy to learn new skills, and never before have there been so many low cost ways to obtain education.

Re: The future of jobs: The onrushing wave

#63

Post by gregpilling »

I am always stunned with statements like this:

"For those not in the elite, argues David Graeber, an anthropologist at the London School of Economics, much of modern labour consists of stultifying “bullshit jobs”—low- and mid-level screen-sitting that serves simply to occupy workers for whom the economy no longer has much use. Keeping them employed, Mr Graeber argues, is not an economic choice; it is something the ruling class does to keep control over the lives of others."

Yes, I, as an employer, keep my staff doing "bullshit jobs" because I want to "keep control over the lives of others." WTF?!?! Why would I do that? Why not fire the bullshit job person and use that money to take my family on vacation 4x a year?

It amazes me that some people think there is some ruling cabal in a dark castle somewhere, deciding how to keep the masses in line. Maybe the answer is less evil - I have the person doing the work because I can't afford to automate it yet, or it is not currently possible.

What does the author think of the maker movement? This "Capital Equipment" is now priced at a weeks wage for many US workers. Marx would love it - it puts the means of production in the hands of the common man. I sold capital equipment for years, and what I used to sell for $50,000 you can now do with a $5000 machine. Prices keep coming down, and the machines I sold are no longer made. My job was eaten by progress :)

People will keep re-inventing themselves. It's what humans do.

Re: The future of jobs: The onrushing wave

#64

Post by JshWright »

derekp7 wrote: post #60
JshWright wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the same chart lists a 17% chance that "firefighters" will be automated... I'm equally curious what then definition of "firefighter" is. If they are talking about woodland (or "forest") firefighting, then _maybe_ (I could see drones accomplish at least some of the tasks involved). But for structural firefighting? No way... Not in 20 years.

Actually, that 17% doesn't mean that robots will replace firefighters -- it just means there will be 17% less need for human firefighters. This could take a number of forms -- we've already seen some of them, such as better electrical codes that have reduced the number of electrical fires. Another recent trend is residential sprinkler systems. Now imagine a smart sprinkler, with thermal imaging cameras that can pinpo…

Hmm... upon closer reading, I see the charts says that there is a 17% chance that there will be some degree of job losses due to computerization. I think that's a more reasonable thesis (though not for the reasons you mention).

Fire prevention will only take you so far. You still need to be able to deal with the inevitable fires that still occur, and you need to have the capacity to deal with them 24/7/365. You can only reduce staffing so much and still have the ability to put a single structure fire out, and many departments are at that point already.

I do see a potential for job losses due to augmentation technologies (exoskeltons, etc) that will enable one firefighter to do tasks that previously took two, etc...

Re: The future of jobs: The onrushing wave

#65

Post by api »

gregpilling wrote: post #63

I am always stunned with statements like this: "For those not in the elite, argues David Graeber, an anthropologist at the London School of Economics, much of modern labour consists of stultifying “bullshit jobs”—low- and mid-level screen-sitting that serves simply to occupy workers for whom the economy no longer has much use. Keeping them employed, Mr Graeber argues, is not an economic choice; it is something the ru…

Bullshit jobs arise in two ways. One is through the crazy inefficiencies of huge companies and governments. This is likely not you. Second is as an emergent property of red queens races in the economy, escalating complexity or overhead that does not actually increase overall macro productivity. The latter requires at least a casual familiarity with evolutionary game theory, but once comprehend cannot be un-comprehended. Most global military competition also falls into this category, and that's double digits of the economy in some countries.

I feel like these kinds of emergent pathologies are a species scale IQ test that so far we have utterly failed.

Re: The future of jobs: The onrushing wave

#67

Post by api »

ExpiredLink wrote: post #13
josephg wrote: post #4

There's a great 15 minute video by CGP Grey introducing the same set of concepts that technology will contribute to unemployment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU Its a bit pop-sciency, but its very approachable and well explained.

It sounds like the technology forecasts in the 50ies and 60ies but with a pessimistic instead of an optimistic undertone.

Pessimistic because we now live in an "I've got mine, screw you" society where the means justifies the end.

Re: The future of jobs: The onrushing wave

#68

Post by Adlai »

ap22213 wrote: post #17
danmaz74 wrote: post #3

Very interesting analysis. But they don't consider at all one very relevant change that happened during the last 30 years in most wealthy economies, especially the USA: That the taxation of the rich and the highest-earners in general was massively lowered. This contributed a lot to the concentration of wealth and capital in fewer hands.

Taxation for the purpose of running a government and providing basic services seems to be long gone. Most of the discussions these days are more about what the 'right' and 'fair' level of redistribution should be. But, the rates of taxation are so arbitrary. Legislators get together to determine fixed rates and tiers of taxation. Aside from the complexities of accounting (which should be simpler with computers), coul…

As much as I like this idea, there's an equally strong incentive, for those who can afford to do so, to engage in "tax optimization".

Re: The future of jobs: The onrushing wave

#69

Post by rapind »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #35
JshWright wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the same chart lists a 17% chance that "firefighters" will be automated... I'm equally curious what then definition of "firefighter" is. If they are talking about woodland (or "forest") firefighting, then _maybe_ (I could see drones accomplish at least some of the tasks involved). But for structural firefighting? No way... Not in 20 years.

Why not? Is it the chaotic environment? The temperature extremes? The unpredictability of each situation? All those are strong reasons TO automate firefighting. Machines can function better in heat/smoke/violent structural collapse situations. They can make objective analysis when their own mortality is not an issue. Nobody made money betting against advances in computing.

I don't think that the general idea is replacing specific jobs with robots. Probably not very pragmatic most of the time. Rather it's jobs that simply become obsolete due to technological advances.

You could probably eliminate the need for most firefighters by installing more and smarter networked sprinkler systems, using different materials for building, building smarter oven's / toasters / whatevers, or any number of other innovations... but all of that costs. It seems less threatening when viewed this way, instead of a robot replacement, but the effect is the same.

Automation is also elitist. I'm betting that a building housing Google's servers has more fire prevention capabilities and far less need of human firefighters than say a sweat shop in Bangladesh.

Re: The future of jobs: The onrushing wave

#70

Post by toomuchtodo »

api wrote: post #65
gregpilling wrote: post #63

I am always stunned with statements like this: "For those not in the elite, argues David Graeber, an anthropologist at the London School of Economics, much of modern labour consists of stultifying “bullshit jobs”—low- and mid-level screen-sitting that serves simply to occupy workers for whom the economy no longer has much use. Keeping them employed, Mr Graeber argues, is not an economic choice; it is something the ru…

Bullshit jobs arise in two ways. One is through the crazy inefficiencies of huge companies and governments. This is likely not you. Second is as an emergent property of red queens races in the economy, escalating complexity or overhead that does not actually increase overall macro productivity. The latter requires at least a casual familiarity with evolutionary game theory, but once comprehend cannot be un-comprehend…

Great comments from both you and OP. Thanks for this.
Post reply on HN