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

Jobs Involving Routine Tasks Aren't Growing

stlouisfed.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 113 posts

Re: Jobs Involving Routine Tasks Aren't Growing

#21

Post by leereeves »

erikb wrote: post #14
leereeves wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I touch type ("ten finger system") but I can see a point to the argument that it's not necessary to program well. Typing is only a small part of programming, and touch typing isn't a huge benefit even for that part, considering all the numbers and symbols used, auto-complete for identifiers and keywords, and macros for common idioms. And it painfully overworks the right pinky.

I see your point. Typing is not the main part of programming, so just typing faster than your colleague doesn't make you feel that much more powerful. Let me give you another example that maybe drives the point home better: Have you seen the videos of how Minecraft was made? A very short amount of time was spent on getting the I/O to the filesystem to work, of setting up a window and filling it with colors, of creati…

No, I haven't seen those videos, but they sound interesting. Could you provide a link?

I agree a mountain (of trivia, routine tasks, and communication barriers between man and machine) stands between our ideas and working code, and it's essential to deal with all that in some way.

But there's more than one way to do it.

Re: Jobs Involving Routine Tasks Aren't Growing

#22

Post by x5n1 »

sarreph wrote: post #20
x5n1 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easy to account for this in terms of education. Number of years of education should be added into the calculation for that. For instance for every year of schooling you get a a certain percentage more currency in terms of hours worked than someone with less schooling. And I am for all sorts of pilot programs to explore how else we can organize society. As for "productive societies", I don't know what that will a…

I'm not sure I agree with > Automation is 100% productive Because perfect (i.e. 100%) productivity is technically unobtainable because there will always be efficiencies to be made. Yes, machines are 'always on' and will complete a task in the most efficient way we tell them to, or that they learn to do themselves, but I think that humans will always play a role in raising productivity of even fully-automated systems…

Whatever you get there rather quickly. Things are productive enough as it is now. It will only get better. It's irrelevant. It's sad how obsessed we have become over terms like these, when they should not matter at all. Reality is that art like entrepreneurship does not care about efficiency. Only factory work does, and when it is done by robots then yes I am sure some engineer will figure out how to squeeze that last bit of performance out of that before starting to hit diminishing returns and getting himself fired in the process. Eventually machines will learn how to optimize themselves, and at that point in a very very short time they will be fully optimized and stay that way forever. These terms will become redundant and irrelevant.

Re: Jobs Involving Routine Tasks Aren't Growing

#23

Post by leereeves »

kristianc wrote: post #8

I'm interested by the classification here. Many backend jobs involve routine work from people who could be doing non-routine work if the CRUD routine job was automated. Within an industry or a profession it seems like there could be a mix of routine and non-routine work. Similarly, how many people's jobs have changed from being routine jobs to non-routine jobs through either retraining or automation allowing them to…

I was wondering about the classification too.

Is the distinction between routine and nonroutine manual occupations simply technical vs service?

> Nonroutine manual occupations, which include service occupations related to assisting or caring for others

> Routine manual, which include construction, transportation, production and repair occupations

For example, why is driving a truck considered more routine than being a nursing assistant or phlebotomist?

Re: Jobs Involving Routine Tasks Aren't Growing

#24

Post by executesorder66 »

leereeves wrote: post #9
erikb wrote: post #7

Oh well, please let us not connect softwaredevelopment and management too much with non-routine work. On a daily basis I see so many people who work on less than 50% of their capabilities because they haven't created routines in their work, thinking that their work is 90% non-routine. Think about the last time you heard how a developer tells you that you don't need to learn the ten finger system to program well, or t…

I touch type ("ten finger system") but I can see a point to the argument that it's not necessary to program well. Typing is only a small part of programming, and touch typing isn't a huge benefit even for that part, considering all the numbers and symbols used, auto-complete for identifiers and keywords, and macros for common idioms. And it painfully overworks the right pinky.

> And it painfully overworks the right pinky.

Wut?

I've been touch typing for years, and none of my fingers have experienced any strain, or ever been overworked. In fact, the reason I learned how to touch type was to _reduce_ the strain on all my fingers.

Re: Jobs Involving Routine Tasks Aren't Growing

#25

Post by leereeves »

executesorder66 wrote: post #24
leereeves wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I touch type ("ten finger system") but I can see a point to the argument that it's not necessary to program well. Typing is only a small part of programming, and touch typing isn't a huge benefit even for that part, considering all the numbers and symbols used, auto-complete for identifiers and keywords, and macros for common idioms. And it painfully overworks the right pinky.

> And it painfully overworks the right pinky. Wut? I've been touch typing for years, and none of my fingers have experienced any strain, or ever been overworked. In fact, the reason I learned how to touch type was to _reduce_ the strain on all my fingers.

Perhaps it depends on what you're typing.

The right pinky is used for the most common symbols, and for the ENTER key. It's really bad in C/C++, with {} and [] and ; and = and _ everywhere.

Or maybe it's just different between individuals.

Re: Jobs Involving Routine Tasks Aren't Growing

#26

Post by sklogic »

erikb wrote: post #7

Oh well, please let us not connect softwaredevelopment and management too much with non-routine work. On a daily basis I see so many people who work on less than 50% of their capabilities because they haven't created routines in their work, thinking that their work is 90% non-routine. Think about the last time you heard how a developer tells you that you don't need to learn the ten finger system to program well, or t…

What's your issue with 10-20 programming languages? I'd say 20 is not enough, you need dozens and dozens of languages to be efficient.

Re: Jobs Involving Routine Tasks Aren't Growing

#27

Post by netcan »

petra wrote: post #18
kristianc wrote: post #8

I'm interested by the classification here. Many backend jobs involve routine work from people who could be doing non-routine work if the CRUD routine job was automated. Within an industry or a profession it seems like there could be a mix of routine and non-routine work. Similarly, how many people's jobs have changed from being routine jobs to non-routine jobs through either retraining or automation allowing them to…

>> Many backend jobs involve routine work from people who could be doing non-routine work if the CRUD routine job was automated Interesting, could you please expand ?

I'm not the OP, but I think he means this:

A bookkeeper/accountant might be manually entering invoices into a system, emailing managers to approve payments and such. It takes 3 hours per day. This work is "routine" in the relevant sense (it can be automated) but our young, congenial and soon-to-be-replaced-by-robots accounts payable woman (her name's Lynne) also does and is capable of doing "non-routine" tasks. She can call up suppliers to negotiate payment terms, have lunch with the manager in the next office to clandestinely suss out some questionable expense charges, etc.

Calling Lynne a "routine worker" is kind of problematic. She does routine work because it needs doing. When that work disappears, she's not out of work by default. Generally when technology creates efficiencies, the unemployment rate does not just increase by the number of people that did that work yesterday. People who are capable of doing other useful things do those things, if it's useful to do more of those things. There's still a question of whether the economy can use up these newly available Lynne hours. Often it can.

What happens when some technology automates a lot of "routine" programming work? Programmers make more program(s).

Re: Jobs Involving Routine Tasks Aren't Growing

#28

Post by amelius »

erikb wrote: post #7

Oh well, please let us not connect softwaredevelopment and management too much with non-routine work. On a daily basis I see so many people who work on less than 50% of their capabilities because they haven't created routines in their work, thinking that their work is 90% non-routine. Think about the last time you heard how a developer tells you that you don't need to learn the ten finger system to program well, or t…

Programming in the internet age is 1% intellectual and 99% plumbing.

Re: Jobs Involving Routine Tasks Aren't Growing

#29

Post by netcan »

kristianc wrote: post #8

I'm interested by the classification here. Many backend jobs involve routine work from people who could be doing non-routine work if the CRUD routine job was automated. Within an industry or a profession it seems like there could be a mix of routine and non-routine work. Similarly, how many people's jobs have changed from being routine jobs to non-routine jobs through either retraining or automation allowing them to…

I think you've hit on the right point. I'm also always curious about how far these definitions can and should be pushed.

Talking in terms of "automation of routine tasks" sounds reasonably descriptive of how the spread of technology works. But, technology is a concept that is notoriously elusive in economics. That's because it's hard to clearly define in concrete terms useable in the context of economic theories, whether they're mathematical conceptual.

For example, we've always been imagining "robots" as tin humans that do stuff people where doing. You have science fiction movies, books and such being written right now with this imagery, just like the 1950s sci fi art, Jetsons. Just like the mechanical turk and automatons of the 1700s.

I think robots are a useful mental placeholder. "Technology will be doing task X." But in reality, technology is usually more like "tools." Imagine a mechanic in the future. Maybe the cars come in with better self diagnosis before he sees them. The parts he needs are already known so he has them ready ahead of time. An AR (or whatever) info delivery thingy tells him exactly how to install or remove parts. etc.

What you have is a more useful mechanic. As long as a mechanic is still involved, I think "tool" is a better description. If people are no longer involved, "robot" seems a bit better. Ahead of time, when you are trying to imagine where technology is going it is very hard to discern tools from robots. Is a lawnmwer a robot? Is a a self guiding scalpel a tool?

Re: Jobs Involving Routine Tasks Aren't Growing

#30

Post by ross-life »

leereeves wrote: post #25
executesorder66 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And it painfully overworks the right pinky. Wut? I've been touch typing for years, and none of my fingers have experienced any strain, or ever been overworked. In fact, the reason I learned how to touch type was to _reduce_ the strain on all my fingers.

Perhaps it depends on what you're typing. The right pinky is used for the most common symbols, and for the ENTER key. It's really bad in C/C++, with {} and [] and ; and = and _ everywhere. Or maybe it's just different between individuals.

Interesting, I touch type okay enough but don't use the pinky for symbols/ENTER. I use the ring finger of my right hand for symbols/ENTER and and the pinky for just the shift while pressing symbols with middle/index finger. I use pinky on my left heavily though, I wonder if it's a sign of anything (unbalanced typing?).
Post reply on HN