Slashdot Mirror
Bankers Publicly Embracing Robots Are Privately Fearing Job Cuts (bloomberg.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: Within the upper echelons of many financial firms, there's a lot of soul searching as executives prepare to roll out a new generation of technology. Publicly, they're upbeat, predicting machines will perform almost all repetitive tasks, freeing humans to focus on more valuable pursuits. Privately, many confide to peers, consultants and sometimes journalists that they're worried about what will happen to their staffs -- and what to tell them. There's also uncertainty. Maybe it's all overblown, executives say, because the tech will be hard to implement and humans will find new roles. Or perhaps it's the beginning of the end for legions of professionals in one of the world's most lucrative fields. Can jobs held by office-dwelling millionaires disappear like those on factory floors? The result, is that employees aren't getting a clear message on what's to come.
For a rosy scenario, look to McKinsey & Co. In July, the consulting firm published a report estimating machines are ready to assume roughly a third of the work now performed by banks' rank and file. The authors framed it as positive: People will have more time to tend to clients, conduct research or brainstorm ideas. So far, it noted, firms at the forefront aren't slashing jobs. At JPMorgan Chase & Co., one of the most tech-savvy banks, Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon predicted in June that his workforce will more likely grow than shrink over the next 20 years. Technology may displace workers, he's said, but it also creates opportunities. Yet in interviews, about a dozen Wall Street executives and consultants responsible for deploying technologies -- and steeped in their capabilities -- were more bearish on humans. Machines will take over task after task, they said, and banks simply won't need nearly as many people.
For a rosy scenario, look to McKinsey & Co. In July, the consulting firm published a report estimating machines are ready to assume roughly a third of the work now performed by banks' rank and file. The authors framed it as positive: People will have more time to tend to clients, conduct research or brainstorm ideas. So far, it noted, firms at the forefront aren't slashing jobs. At JPMorgan Chase & Co., one of the most tech-savvy banks, Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon predicted in June that his workforce will more likely grow than shrink over the next 20 years. Technology may displace workers, he's said, but it also creates opportunities. Yet in interviews, about a dozen Wall Street executives and consultants responsible for deploying technologies -- and steeped in their capabilities -- were more bearish on humans. Machines will take over task after task, they said, and banks simply won't need nearly as many people.
and I'm guessing we're not going to do a damn thing about it because a good chunk of us can't bear the thought of somebody having a nice things in life and not working relentlessly to get it. It comes down to an antiquated concept of 'fairness'. They worked and sacrificed and suffered to get what little they've got in life so why shouldn't everybody else? Hell, I've seen it with some of my liberal LGBTQ friends even, who were upset that the younger generation of LGBTQ folks didn't go through as much shit as they did. It's a pretty common sentiment and one that the ruling elite have always been good at exploiting.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm thinking we're in for a second industrial revolution. And that includes the 80 years of rampant unemployment, poverty, social unrest and war they don't talk about in grade school.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
In the US at least, banks are so deeply in bed with the government that they ought to just be nationalized. For the average person, they only use a bank to keep their money safe (insured by FDIC), process checks, get a car loan or mortgage, and maybe a certificate of deposit for people who like safe investments. Time-bomb mortgages were bought writ large by the government. When the banks were about to go under, the federal reserve handed them trillions of dollars. 'Quantitative easing' afterward involved giving them another $trillion. You want discretion with your accounts and who you transfer money to and from? Your bank happily gives all that info to the govt. already, and you need an SSN and background check to even open an account.
Sure, maybe the government shouldn't be doing investments with these nationalized banks, but arguably savings & loan banks shouldn't either. With Glas-Steagal repealed, bad investments are going to lead to banks being 'too big to fail' due to taking down savings accounts (FDIC insured) with them. I seem to recall some Nordic countries had trouble when their nationalized investment banks went tits up during the recession. Sure, the nationalized banks will become another pork-barrel jobs program that's slow and inefficient, but it'll disempower the banking elite which currently rule our country, and IMO that's worth it. Maybe some of the fees and debit card liability bullshit will go away as well.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
... unless you're a plumber, electrician. I.e., any job that requires your physical presence and is not easy to automate.
"conduct research or brainstorm ideas"
Too many people doing this just creates chaos.
"workforce will more likely grow than shrink over the next 20 years"
Most people doing unrewarding, low-paid, make-work jobs precariously (since it'll be easy to replace anyone). Hire people or face big taxes.
"creates opportunities"
For a select few aided by automated systems.