Slashdot Mirror
AI is Rapidly Changing the Types and Location of the Best-Paying Jobs (technologyreview.com)
Artificial intelligence and automation are not likely to cause vast unemployment, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about the impact on jobs. From a report: "I'm not worried about technological unemployment," said Laura Tyson, a prominent economist at the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley. "But I am worried about the quality of jobs created and the location where they are created." Speaking this week at EmTech Digital, an annual AI conference organized by MIT Technology Review, Tyson suggested we look the effects of increasing automation over the last 30 years. What we know, says Tyson, is that automation has taken away many routine jobs.
Particularly hard hit have been middle-skill and middle-income jobs, such as those in manufacturing. "We know from the past that the jobs that require low skills are more likely to be automated," said Tyson. "I worry about income inequality." Automation and AI will create new jobs. But, said Tyson, those new jobs might not be in the same parts of the country in which employment has been decreased by automation. And that has created frustrations and concerns in many parts of the US, including the Midwest. Technology advances have greatly changed jobs in the past, of course, most notably during the Industrial Revolution. But, Tyson said, the rate of change is much faster today, and there are some vital questions unanswered. Can we come up with a way to retrain workers? And, asked Tyson, who will pay for that retraining?
Particularly hard hit have been middle-skill and middle-income jobs, such as those in manufacturing. "We know from the past that the jobs that require low skills are more likely to be automated," said Tyson. "I worry about income inequality." Automation and AI will create new jobs. But, said Tyson, those new jobs might not be in the same parts of the country in which employment has been decreased by automation. And that has created frustrations and concerns in many parts of the US, including the Midwest. Technology advances have greatly changed jobs in the past, of course, most notably during the Industrial Revolution. But, Tyson said, the rate of change is much faster today, and there are some vital questions unanswered. Can we come up with a way to retrain workers? And, asked Tyson, who will pay for that retraining?
Yay!
"We know from the past that the jobs that require low skills are more likely to be automated," said Tyson. "I worry about income inequality."
Just what is wrong with lower skilled people getting less income? Or inversely, what's wrong with paying higher skilled people more? You should be paid based on what you bring to the table. If all you offer is a warm body that's nominally slightly smarter than a chimp, we should pay you slightly more than we would a chimp.
Maybe things are changing but for years I've seen resistance to automating software testing, despite the costs of automation being not much higher than manually running the tests one time. Automated tests are not only faster but more repeatable and reliable. Plus it isn't usually someone qualified to run the tests that run them, it is someone that is qualified to develop the tests, and would rather be doing something more interesting, that is running them.
Speculative staements presented as current facts are not indicative of anything meaningful. Silly Valley really needs to understand at some point that they are not the center of the universe.
The article neatly outlines the problem. Can you retrain thousands of older, high school educated factory workers to become coders, creative types, etc.? Even if you theoretically could, would they want to, or do we have the systems in place to do it? In the United States at least, worker retraining has not proven that effective. Finally, even if you could retrain them, how can they afford to go where the jobs are? Can a retrained air condition factory worker afford to move to Silicon Valley, New York City, or some other high cost area to leverage those shiny new skills? Even if they get there, would companies even want to hire a middle aged, retrained worker especially with existing age discrimination?
"We know from the past that the jobs that require low skills are more likely to be automated," said Tyson. "I worry about income inequality."
Just what is wrong with lower skilled people getting less income?
The worry is not about lower skilled people getting "less" income; it's about them having zero income and zero prospect of getting income.
Right now, the approach to welfare is to prioritize making anybody on welfare get a job. But what do we do if there are no jobs available, even if they are willing, even desparate, to work?
Of course, you can just take the libertarian approach: let them starve. The problem only exists if we have a society that is unwilling to have people starve to death if they are unable to find a job.
AI and automation will result in a walled corporate cities protected by private security forces surrounded by slums where the remaining 75% of unemployed society will be trying to eek out gig and sustenance living economy.
It is absurd myth that there will be new types of jobs. Just look at laid off coal miners or rust belt manufacturing workers. They are pretty much done for, and for multiple generations. The same will happen to office workers.
Conveniently, the unemployed have nothing better to do and have lots of free time on their schedules to support retraining. So no need to spend any money there.
As far as the costs of hosting the training itself (instructors, materials, etc) the companies should be able to recoup those costs from the future pay of the retreads.
I fail to see why any of this represents a financial challenge...
That's a good thing. A very good thing. Nobody — no human — likes doing a routine job. We do them because we need the money, but if a machine can do it instead, humanity wins.
Think of it as the revenge of the nerds upon the jocks. If you preferred gym to a Math class, you should be paid less the rest of your life, and have fewer children so that humanity could continue evolving.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
from the summary
Can we come up with a way to retrain workers?
That question reveals a complete misunderstanding of circumstances. Its is not that long-standing skills are being obsoleted; That has been going on for centuries, yet never substantially harmed the employability of the middle class. The new change is that low-IQ individuals are being priced out of the market by smarter machines. Retraining does no good if there is nothing you are capable learning which a machine can not perform better.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
As a poor graduate student in the sciences, I was forced to move to a different place to get my first job. It happened to many people in the past; so, what's new?
News to me. Look at Wisconsin - just hit record low unemployment at 2.9% - well below the national average - and that's before Foxconn moves in.
https://www.jsonline.com/story/money/2018/03/22/wisconsin-unemployment-rate-hits-record-low-2-9-february/449748002/
Conveniently, the unemployed have nothing better to do and have lots of free time on their schedules to support retraining. So no need to spend any money there.
Right, because education is free in America. Nobody poor needs to worry.
Oh, and that "student loan debt" thing? A myth. Nobody's worried about debt because pay is so high once you're educated it doesn't matter.
As far as the costs of hosting the training itself (instructors, materials, etc)
"hosting" the training? Is English actually your first language? You mean: the cost of education. Which is high, and the trend is for it to get even higher.
the companies should be able to recoup those costs from the future pay of the retreads.
Ah, let's see-- so, you're saying that companies should become schools that train unskilled laborers into useful professions, then they will be indentured servants until they pay for their education?
Yeah, that'll work.
I fail to see why any of this represents a financial challenge...
Your inability to see is fine, but is not really relevant to the conversation,
Why are people conflating "automation" and "AI"? Why does Slashdot continue this myth and VC hype? There is no AI! There is automation.
Certainly.
But the only reason anyone uses automation is to increase production per cost.
Automation frees up grunts to do other things, but (hypothetically) McDonalds isn't doing that out of the goodness of their hearts, they are "freeing up" labor so they don't have to pay unskilled grunts to flip burgers when robots become cheaper than workers.
Those grunts aren't going to do "robot maintenance" for 8 hour shifts full time.
Remember all the crap a couple years ago about the Google buses and the resentment? That's the beginning of what's happening.
But in reality in the USA is that unless you picked your parents well and got the genes and nurturing to be big and smart for high paying jobs, you'll be relegated to shit jobs.
See, we were all brought up with the cultural myth that if you just work hard enough, you can achieve anything.
But the reality is that you have to be born in the right family.
The Meritocracy in the USA is a fairy tale and something that the Haves tell themselves when they have no empathy and compassion for the have-nots.
The parent's attitude is why we are going to have a class war. The, we'll see a Venezuela situation instead of a Western European one.
the companies should be able to recoup those costs from the future pay of the retreads.
Ah, let's see-- so, you're saying that companies should become schools that train unskilled laborers into useful professions, then they will be indentured servants until they pay for their education?
Yeah, that'll work.
This is precisely where we're going to end up. The corporation is god now, cash value the holy spirit, and damned be anyone that disagrees. Bow to your god.
I just got done reading a story about how FedEx cancelled plans to build a plant in Indiana (and the 500 jobs that went with it) because increases in efficiency meant they just plain didn't need it.
Maybe we need to broaden the term of what it means to be technologically unemployed. It doesn't just mean "My boss replaced me with a robot". The ruling class knows damn well there'd be crazy social unrest if they just fired the lot of us. They're smart enough to let attrition and inflation do the work quietly. Like boiling a frog.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
No need to run an automated business in the highest cost states.... (CA, NY, etc,,, )
" But, said Tyson, those new jobs might not be in the same parts of the country in which employment has been decreased by automation. "
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
poor people with no hope and no options are expensive and dangerous. But baring that level of oppression they're going to get violent and organized, find themselves a strongman style dictator and fire up a junta. You might be able to keep a lid on that with gulags and violent oppression like the Chinese do. But is that what you really want?
Basically, there are consequence for abandoning 50-70% of the population to desperate poverty.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Nah, see the movie "Idiocracy".
Evolution isn't directed.
Particularly hard hit have been middle-skill and middle-income jobs
This time, it may be different. At least the people picking strawberries seems to be fine so far.
there's lots of folks who don't know what to do with themselves if they're not working. People in their 60s and 70s who refuse to retire even when they can afford to. People who want a sense of self worth and purpose but lack the talent to find something on their own that gives them that. Those folks are especially bad for those of us who want to just do our own thing. They work 50, 60, 70 hours/week, driving down the value of everybody's wages.
And for Pete's sake, Jocks and Nerds shouldn't be fighting once they're both in the workforce. We're no longer playing kiddy games here. We're fighting over who controls the wealth generated by society. Us nerds need to be smart enough (and big enough) to set aside a smug sense of vengeance and work together with everyone to protect the working class. It's either that or we all get screwed by the ruling class.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
> Artificial intelligence and automation are not likely to cause vast unemployment,
[citation needed]
Look, idiots: automation will only be introduced if it reduces costs, meaning that the money avaliable for labor will be less.
Since our economy is at the moment demand-limited, reducing the money paid to workers will reduce demand. That means that the potential increase in productivity won't be going into more production (who's going to buy "even more stuff"?). That means even less available income. We will soon have less jobs, and the bad news is that there's a positive feedback loop in there: the start will be exponential (it will settle at some point, of course: it won't be exponential all the way). It won't be pretty.
It's the economy, stupid!
I suggest we live up to the libertarian ideal of the second amendment. Give all those without work a rifle and all the ammo they can use....
That's socialism. The libertarian solution would require them to buy a rifle.
But, in the libertarian paradise rifles will be cheap, because free enterprise.