|
rscott posted:You do realize the labor participation rate is lower right now than at any time since (white) women entered the workforce And robots were the secret cause of this and the giant economic crash in 2008 was just a cover story to hide the robots or something?
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 17:04 |
|
|
rscott posted:You do realize the labor participation rate is lower right now than at any time since (white) women entered the workforce *who aren't looking for a job edit: some more good news, the long-term unemployment rate is the lowest it's been in a while http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/long-term-unemployment-rate SaTaMaS fucked around with this message at 16:16 on Dec 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
Discouraged workers are not part of the labor force either
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:And robots were the secret cause of this and the giant economic crash in 2008 was just a cover story to hide the robots or something? Jesus loving Christ you are dumb as hell, the whole point is that seven years later there are less workers in your "full employment" scenario despite the fact that the population of United States has increased largely through the immigration of working age adults in that time frame.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
rscott posted:Jesus loving Christ you are dumb as hell, the whole point is that seven years later there are less workers in your "full employment" scenario despite the fact that the population of United States has increased largely through the immigration of working age adults in that time frame. The point is that robots embody the people's anxieties in every age and they represented an oppressed underclass when we were afraid of the oppressed underclass then they represented world war III when people worried about world war III now they are just a stand in for millennial fear about unemployment. Like we have two threads on D&D, this one and the AI one and in the AI one we are thousands of years away from AI and progress has stopped and everything is terrible, but in this one we are 5 minutes away from robots being able to take all jobs and all problems that need to be solved to let robots do basically anything is just boring spreadsheet problems and technology is moving super fast and everything is terrible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:And robots were the secret cause of this and the giant economic crash in 2008 was just a cover story to hide the robots or something? I see you are living up to your reputation. I don't really expect you to make a good faith effort to understand the following paragraph, but here it goes: The problem is that lots of low skill jobs are on the cusp of automation and these emerging technologies, despite being advanced enough to replace workers, don't provide for anywhere near the number of jobs that they will replace. People are pointing out how bad the labor market actually is right now to demonstrate how vulnerable the workforce is to this trend. This is not the loving singularity, this is just how widespread refinement and implementation of currently available technology, such as self driving cars and touch screen ordering as two non exhaustive examples, will displace tons of low skill jobs without offering meaningful replacements. For god's sake, Trump's picked labor secretary is a former fast food exec that has seriously flirted with the latter. MooselanderII fucked around with this message at 16:57 on Dec 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:And robots were the secret cause of this and the giant economic crash in 2008 was just a cover story to hide the robots or something? The economic crash motivated employers to look at streamlining their workflows and making better usage of the automation they already had, as well as identifying ways to consolidate the workload onto a smaller number of people using the software they already had. That's the problem - it's gradual change, heavily focused around moving people from medium-wage jobs to low-wage jobs, with the effect intensifying as automation gets cheaper and endangers lower-wage jobs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
The decline in prime age labor force participation goes back about 2-3 decades and actually coincides with a downward trend in employees per customer served for many firms. It's also not particularly useful to look at post-2008 trends until there's another recession, since one of the notable things about the last few recoveries is that workers have been failing to make up lost ground (ie, losses during recessions are offsetting growth during recoveries). Most economic trends happen on pretty long time scales. edit- Owlofcreamcheese posted:Like we have two threads on D&D, this one and the AI one and in the AI one we are thousands of years away from AI and progress has stopped and everything is terrible, but in this one we are 5 minutes away from robots being able to take all jobs and all problems that need to be solved to let robots do basically anything is just boring spreadsheet problems and technology is moving super fast and everything is terrible. It's awesome how you continue to insist that anyone is saying that all jobs will be replaced even though all we're actually saying is that a specific subset of jobs or job functions will be replaced. Your weird utopian (dystopian?) vision of all jobs being done by robots is probably a better outcome than what we're actually talking about, which is a slow bleed of excess labor. For the third or fourth time: 47% of jobs being replaced does not mean a 47% unemployment rate. Paradoxish fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Dec 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:This is not the loving singularity, this is just how widespread refinement and implementation of currently available technology, such as self driving cars and touch screen ordering as two non exhaustive examples, will displace tons of low skill jobs without offering meaningful replacements. For god's sake, Trump's picked labor secretary is a former fast food exec that has seriously flirted with the latter. Sounds an awful lot like you are talking about the singularity, but then just pretending you are being more grown up by making it grimdark. People keep listing technologies "like self driving cars" without giving other examples or saying what technologies are like self driving cars because they don't dare to commit to what technologies they want to say are actually going to come and take all these jobs. Because their story starts to fall apart once they start actually listing what all these "emerging technologies" are and what specific jobs they are going to take. (although I think there is an element that people look down on low paying jobs and assume they must be easy, and thus it's easy to hand wave that a computer could probably clean hotel rooms or pick tomatoes or whatever)
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Sounds an awful lot like you are talking about the singularity, but then just pretending you are being more grown up by making it grimdark. How about deep learning (e.g. Watson), better data-driven models, faster parallelized map/reduce, etc, and the ever improving field of voice recognition providing a better user-experience for IVRs where you can do about 90% of most frequent operations on a service line? Because that will definitely help cut back a lot on human agents required on many call-centres all over the world, and it's already happening, I know it is because I've worked on that stuff. That's like, a perfect example and there's no crazy sci-fi in anything I wrote, you literally can use all of those technologies right now right from your laptop if you want to (it will take some setup and a big dataset, but it's doable), corporations have been investing in it for a while, and it's slowly getting better and better. I 100% commit to the fact that the technologies I listed will make many job positions redundant in the next 10 years as they continue to improve. You have my absolute personal guarantee on that. I committed, I gave specific examples, what else do you need?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:How about deep learning (e.g. Watson), better data-driven models, faster parallelized map/reduce, etc, and the ever improving field of voice recognition providing a better user-experience for IVRs where you can do about 90% of most frequent operations on a service line? Because that will definitely help cut back a lot on human agents required on many call-centres all over the world, and it's already happening, I know it is because I've worked on that stuff. So all we need to do is advance AI to the level it can make conversation to the point it obsoletes all call center functions then we will have reduced a job that less than 1% of americans do? Sounds simple! AI that can converse like a human will happen any second now I'm sure and have no effects other than this. I can run it on a laptop now!
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:So all we need to do is advance AI to the level it can make conversation to the point it obsoletes all call center functions then we will have reduced a job that less than 1% of americans do? Sounds simple! AI that can converse like a human will happen any second now I'm sure and have no effects other than this. I can run it on a laptop now! You're loving dumb and/or disingenuous and should stop posting out your rear end in a top hat. There's plenty of poo poo on here already.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
Machines, that can talk like a person?! I'll believe it when I see it...
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:You're loving dumb and/or disingenuous and should stop posting out your rear end in a top hat. There's plenty of poo poo on here already. No, this whole thread is just the millennial version of the robot apocalypse mixed in with a really lovely kind of classism where every low wage job is clearly super easy and some idea that they are so simple that a modern laptop could probably do it if you just loaded the right spreadsheet in excel. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
I think that guy is a Markov chain bot operating with keywords 'robots', 'singularity' and 'millennials'.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:And what does this have to do with robots? The difference between technology creating jobs and technology eliminating jobs had to do with simplifying high-skill jobs into middle class jobs. The Oxford Martin study suggests this process came to an end in the 90's and has begun to break down middle class jobs into lower class. Oh and what a coincidence, a bunch of jobs lost during the recent recession were middle class. The service sector absorbed a lot of those jobs, but the majority of them are lower class wages. And won't you look at that, former McDonalds president/CEO Ed Rensi has been threatening the $15 minimum movement with replacing them with touch screen kiosks. I don't know how feasible that tech is yet, but there are some locations with a functioning kiosk and if they work well enough, someone at the company will run the numbers and see how much cheaper it is to have kiosks over cashiers. It could technically happen sooner if the national minimum was $15 an hour. On top of all this, we have a lot of prototype examples. Driverless combine harvesters, Amazon's kiva robots, Boston Dynamic's atlas, BRETT and other hands-on learning robots, robot brick layers (one of which uses a small fleet of drones), and a pizza making machine that needs no human assistance. Many of these are in various testing stages with different degrees of success, but even the worst performing robot will likely have their faults removed and the parts their made of become cheaper in 15 years if not sooner.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
I believe humans need humans for some task because preference. But preference can change over time. Like, I usually do my bank transactions using the ATM machine or some website. Probably many calls to call centers will stop when people start enjoing interacting more with websites. Provided that the websites are well made. Personally, If I can, I want to talk to a machine, not have to interact with a human that will judge me If I want to take 30 minutes to think about some concept that is new to me, or ask the same question 8 times, because I can't still understand the answer. My point is... when more people is like me, there will be a smaller need for people in places like call centers. I dunno if the future will be more people like me, or less. But I have grown with computers in my face 24 hours each day, and I think thats will be more the norm with each future generation. Owlofcreamcheese, my friend. Nobody here is talking about any robotapocalypse. You are fighting strawmans. Everyone replying to you is telling you has much.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:
Yeah, but according to not-autist Owlofcreamcheese, all of those examples demonstrate SINGULARITY level of technology, that will only ever be possible with the arrival of other singularity level technology that renders the notion of employment itself moot. After all, who cares that millions of jobs could be obsolete when we all can just hook our minds up to Jupiter Brain orbital stations and live as immortal cybernetic demi-gods? Fears of imminent political, economic, and technological trends that suggest that their implementation is just around the corner are just millennial Luddites freaking out that the sky is falling.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:And won't you look at that, former McDonalds president/CEO Ed Rensi has been threatening the $15 minimum movement with replacing them with touch screen kiosks. I don't know how feasible that tech is yet, but there are some locations with a functioning kiosk and if they work well enough, someone at the company will run the numbers and see how much cheaper it is to have kiosks over cashiers. It could technically happen sooner if the national minimum was $15 an hour. That sounds like something that wouldn't need a $15 minimum wage to be cost effective - there's no reason it should be any more expensive to install or operate than the self-checkout lanes that supermarkets have been using for years. If McDonalds' leaders don't think it's ready for prime-time, there must be other reasons which wouldn't be affected my a livable minimum wage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
Likely large install cost and maybe not quite effective enough... yet. That yet is key, and as effectiveness goes up and min wage (hopefully right) goes up it maybe starts looking better to let go of a few people. It's never going to replace the whole store, but if you can let go of a few part timers and make the leftovers learn to troubleshoot that's one step.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
Yeah, the technology is here and it's not even cutting edge. Cashiers in McD also serve you food, so a kiosk would replace only a part of the cashier's job. To extract more value from kiosks you need a different process and a different setup of the restaurant. Maybe a kiosk for each table. My guess is they are not ready yet for such drastic changes. Or, maybe their research shows that customers like it when a real person takes their order.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
Tei posted:Like, I usually do my bank transactions using the ATM machine or some website. Probably many calls to call centers will stop when people start enjoing interacting more with websites. Provided that the websites are well made. Yeah, I think a lot of the infrastructure for job "automation" has really already taken root and it's just a matter of adapting business models at this point. The fact that everyone has a computer in their pocket at all times now opens up a ton of possibilities for streamlining basic tasks that would normally require some human interaction. Hell, I already don't know anyone who prefers ordering fast food in person/at a drive through if there's an app available and that's barely been a thing for two years. Doctor Malaver posted:Yeah, the technology is here and it's not even cutting edge. McDonald's already has a kiosk proof-of-concept store set up, so my guess is that they just want to roll the technology out slowly so they can iterate on the model and figure out what works best. Obviously that isn't stopping them from using it as a bargaining chip in the fight to screw their workers over, though. Paradoxish fucked around with this message at 01:08 on Dec 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
Taco bell has an ordering app and burger King has delivery in some areas. Add in driverless vehicles and every fast food job that isn't making food disappears, automate that, even partially, and entire stores get run by a few maintenance men and a few managers who keep the barely existent front end running
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
Can someone explain to me what the magic technology is that makes 2016 touchscreens magically able to replace cashiers? Someone smart could probably have rigged up a good electromechanical system to relay orders from tables to the kitchen in 1890. Why is it just a threat now?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:And this thread is just the millennials version of the fear of the "robot apocalypse' but mashed into a weird place where instead of robots rising up to kill everyone as a civil rights metaphor or using nuclear bombs on us in a MAD metaphor now the robots are going to raise unemployment in a housing crash metaphor. This thread is tame compared to what I'm being told about automaton in my transportation management masters. Just saying.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Can someone explain to me what the magic technology is that makes 2016 touchscreens magically able to replace cashiers? No, there actually wasn't good technology to deal with issues like payment as the ability to accept bills (as opposed to coins) only became cheap and widespread fairly recently. Also, automats were in fact a thing until they got outcompeted on cost (their main advantage) by even cheaper fast food. You could have done it in the 1980s, but UI design for touchscreen interfaces has only really blossomed over the last decade or so and the technology itself is drastically better, cheaper, and more reliable. Oh, and there's the fact that people are actually accustomed to using touchscreen interfaces now and carry around devices which can place orders for them before they're even physically at the restaurant. You're completely ignoring the myriad of small technologies and improvements in efficiency that actually lead to things being adopted in a widespread way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:No, there actually wasn't good technology to deal with issues like payment as the ability to accept bills (as opposed to coins) only became cheap and widespread fairly recently. Okay so why didn't they fire the whole staff in 1890 then just hire one kid to stand at the door and collect payments?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Okay so why didn't they fire the whole staff in 1890 then just hire one kid to stand at the door and collect payments? They kind of did! Like I said, automats were actually a thing and very popular, although they just accepted coins instead of bills and had someone who would make change for you. They went away because fast food was cheaper, the automat model had difficulty expanding to reach car suburbs, and, ironically, computerization allowed traditional cashiers in fast food restaurants to be more efficient. People legitimately liked them, though. The idea of having somewhat automated fast, cheap food isn't new at all, but it's happening now because the technology is mature and cheap enough to do it. You seem to be missing the point that the idea isn't to just replace cashiers, it's to replace cashiers with something that's actually faster, better, and cheaper. The fact that people might lose their jobs is incidental.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
New technologies failing to go anywhere and then succeeding wildly way later when technology and design has advanced to make it feasible and cost-effective isn't even a new thing. Take the computer, for instance. The word itself used to refer to somebody who computed numbers for a living and now hell if anyone but word enthusiasts remember that. Not to mention cellphones were a joke in Clueless when they were big and bulky and hard to read, now that they aren't any of those things everyone has them.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Can someone explain to me what the magic technology is that makes 2016 touchscreens magically able to replace cashiers? There are a bunch of restaurants I eat at in Japan that have an iPad ordering system, then the order comes down a belt with a RFID in the tray and comes out onto the right table. It owns and you never have to interact with another person, and the menu can be switched to tons of languages. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0yE3pRcIBM The population is expected to contract like crazy so there is a big push to automate everything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
Uncle Jam posted:There are a bunch of restaurants I eat at in Japan that have an iPad ordering system, then the order comes down a belt with a RFID in the tray and comes out onto the right table. Asia has had resturants you self serve yourself plates of food then pay at the end by the number/type of plates you have forever and ever. There has never been a technological barrier to getting rid of waiters in restaurants. If restaurants dump them it's not because touch screens were some wild invention that let customers call orders out to the kitchen for the first time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 04:04
|
|
|
Mcdonalds has actually rolled out the kiosks, at least in my area of Canada. Turns out they're much better for ordering stuff, (all the options are laid out decently, you can adjust parts of the order to your preference, take all the time you want without someone staring at you, etc and so on), to the point where the cashier tills were completely unmanned. I'm sure some of the staff in the kitchen could have gone to them if necessary, but it wasn't, and basically everyone used the kiosk. This is anecdotal of course, and a sample size of one, but it works how you'd expect, with most people using the kiosk and the cashier position essentially being made redundant. At this point, all Mcdonalds needs to do is automate food creation (which isn't that difficult considering it's broken down into repeatable steps - the sort of thing that automates easily) and most of the human work it'll need will evaporate. I imagine the rest of the various fast food companies will follow suit sooner or later, for cost reduction if nothing else. However, I think what bugs me about this in general is the assumption that, in some way, humans are special. That there is work that a machine can't possibly do, because it requires a human brain to be creative and solve the problem, whatever it is. But as deep learning progresses, it's becoming more evident, that, really, we're not. Take AlphaGo, for instance. Go is not a game we can program a machine to play at a level necessary to beat humans. The nature of the game is such that, doing it that way would require impossible amounts of computing power to computate all the variables all of the time. So, instead, the DeepMind people created a method for AlphaGo to teach itself Go. We didn't program Go into it, it figured it out itself. And this bears out in the games it played against Lee Sedol, as it used moves that humans would almost never make. "At first, Fan Hui thought the move was rather odd. But then he saw its beauty. “It’s not a human move. I’ve never seen a human play this move,” he says. “So beautiful.” It’s a word he keeps repeating. Beautiful. Beautiful. Beautiful." (Source) "To everyone's surprise, including ours, AlphaGo won four of the five games. Commentators noted that AlphaGo played many unprecedented, creative, and even “beautiful” moves. Based on our data, AlphaGo’s bold move 37 in Game 2 had a 1 in 10,000 chance of being played by a human." (Source) And, as we can see, they were effective, they solved the problem, and Lee Sedol lost. Of course, this carries the caveat of it being very specialized into one area, as well as being quite primitive and simple in practice. AlphaGo isn't going to create creative solutions to managerial problems. But the larger point is that we have created systems that can learn like we do, be creative like we are, and solve problems like we do. In short, this leads to a simple conclusion: humans themselves are in the process of being obsoleted entirely in terms of labour. We say to reeducate and put people into smarter jobs, but it's only a stopgap until we have a machine that can just learn the job like we do and takes it over completely. Now, this isn't to say that this will lead to some super general AI that is better than humans at everything. That may or may not be possible, who knows. But using this technology, in a focused way and in various applications - this is the real danger, I think. You don't need a general AI to drive a car, move things around in a warehouse, pack stuff, interact at retail, or prep food. Just an AI designed to learn that specific task and complete it, which the technology exists for already. And personally, I don't see why deep learning won't continue to progress and improve, or why it would be incapable of replacing us in terms of creativity in labour. The timescale might be fairly long, and really, impossible to guess accurately, but a lot of companies are developing deep learning applications and it shows no signs of slowing down or stopping. Lord Justice fucked around with this message at 11:10 on Dec 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 11:03
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Hell, I already don't know anyone who prefers ordering fast food in person/at a drive through if there's an app available and that's barely been a thing for two years. These preferences are interesting. For me personally, communication with a person is a positive. I don't know if there are apps available for fast food places in my city and even if they are, I wouldn't use them. I spend enough of my time with computers and I don't need more apps and more interaction with software when I'm outside. It's probably different with millennials and younger who grew up with a smartphone. Maybe the future is alienated people who seek to minimize face time with anyone as it's awkward and inefficient. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 11:22
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:These preferences are interesting. For me personally, communication with a person is a positive. I think this is a flip flop of cultural preferences that wax and wane with decades of inaccessibility to things. Like the resurgence of vinyl records, or subscription-based information reporting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 11:39
|
|
|
I'm your typical introverted goony rear end in a top hat and although I do enjoy having face to face business meetings or even just hanging out with friends, I don't really see how the type of human interaction that you get at a grocery check out or drive through is in any way enjoyable for anyone. Not only are the people on the other side paid to be nice to you, the interaction level is still at the barest minimum required by your local politeness customs. Here, it's usually limited to hello and thank you. In the US I've noticed you might get a "how are you", but they of course don't actually care. gently caress it, replace this bullshit with scripts and robots. I'd rather be done with this quicker and go speak with somebody who really wants to talk to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 11:59
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:I'm your typical introverted goony rear end in a top hat and although I do enjoy having face to face business meetings or even just hanging out with friends, I don't really see how the type of human interaction that you get at a grocery check out or drive through is in any way enjoyable for anyone. People pay lip service to things like living in a small town and knowing the name of the people that sell you the meat. It may be for ideological reasons, but some people say that they value these interactions more because are with humans. Theres two ways to win at chess: a) - Playing better than the other guy. b) - Kicking the game board away, Changing the game from a chess game into a boxing contest. I don't see people interacting with people being happy with changing that to interacting with a program to do the same thing (case A). But if the game change completely (case B) it could be smooth.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 13:15
|
|
|
Well if you goons are looking for long term job security from the singularity, may I recommend getting into a skilled mechanical construction trade? Skilled plumbers, electricians, HVAC, and fire protection installers are facing significant labor shortages in the coming years. Furthermore they are pretty much automation proof for the foreseeable future due to a combination of needing both organic problem solving abilities, and physical dexterity in complex and ever changing 3D environments.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 14:50
|
|
|
SpaceCadetBob posted:Well if you goons are looking for long term job security from the singularity, may I recommend getting into a skilled mechanical construction trade? Skilled plumbers, electricians, HVAC, and fire protection installers are facing significant labor shortages in the coming years. Furthermore they are pretty much automation proof for the foreseeable future due to a combination of needing both organic problem solving abilities, and physical dexterity in complex and ever changing 3D environments. Everyone says this, nobody ever thinks about the reality of actually doing it. For one you'd better be able-bodied and young to even consider it, and a projected labor shortage in the future doesn't mean it's easy to get a job now - any given town can only support so many trade workers even if the nationwide tally is high. And realistically, even though boy do goons hate being asked to think about this stuff, those jobs are largely only open to men, and in a lot of places you'd better be white. It's an apprenticeship system too so if nobody will take you on you're poo poo out of luck. This career path gets gliby suggested so often I started making a point of asking every trade worker I meet how they got into the gig, and to a man they are all blood relatives of someone already doing it. Are you related to an electrician? Will he help you make the connections you need to get into the field? Then sure, do it. Having family connections is a great career choice for any field. But you can't walk off the street and just start doing it, and even if you could it would collapse from tragedy of the commons labor oversupply just like every other "secure" job did, just ask all those people who went to law school because someone told them to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
SpaceCadetBob posted:Well if you goons are looking for long term job security from the singularity, may I recommend getting into a skilled mechanical construction trade? Skilled plumbers, electricians, HVAC, and fire protection installers are facing significant labor shortages in the coming years. Furthermore they are pretty much automation proof for the foreseeable future due to a combination of needing both organic problem solving abilities, and physical dexterity in complex and ever changing 3D environments. I dunno. Theres this idea of building homes using standard blocks. So building a house would be like putting together lego pieces. Has not succeeded yet (the cost probably are higher than the saving and the tradeoffs puts everyone off) but if finnaly works for some people, it will reeduce the need of humans building homes. Then theres the problem of immigration. Some skilled plumber from argentina can move to los angeles and he will not have to be retrain much or really "go to plumber school" for a diploma or anything. A plumber from argentina will face much less problems competing for your job than (maybe) a argentinian doctor. Anyway maybe plumber is a good choice because people understand that paying for a good plumber is worth it (for whatever reason), while theres many other jobs where people look at you like a crazy con men if you ask for anything like that (I think is because a plumber may have to deal with literal poo poo). Tei fucked around with this message at 15:54 on Dec 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 17:04 |
|
|
Front-of-house is never going to be fully automated. Automation is already making inroads as an option at many places - I've been to restaurants that have little touchscreen ordering devices on the table, complete with card swipes for payment - but it will never fully replace waitresses and cashiers. A lot of people do value the human element, often in ways that they don't fully realize consciously and in ways that machines can't possibly replace. However, automation still poses a risk to waitresses and cashiers and such. While those jobs can't be fully replaced by machines, they can partially be replaced by machines (some people are fine without the human element), and that decrease in FOH jobs per location is unlikely to be accompanied by an increase in the number of locations because labor is a relatively small percentage of food service running costs anyway. Besides, it's the back-of-house jobs with no real human interaction, like dishwashing, that are really under threat from automation. While the public obsesses over self-checkout stations, the supermarket companies are waiting with bated breath for Amazon to figure out automated shelf-stockers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 15:53
|
|