Slashdot Mirror
It's Not Technology That's Disrupting Our Jobs (nytimes.com)
The history of labor shows that technology does not usually drive social change, argues Louis Hyman, director of the Institute for Workplace Studies at the ILR School at Cornell. On the contrary, social change is typically driven by decisions we make about how to organize our world. Only later does technology swoop in, accelerating and consolidating those changes. From a report: This insight is crucial for anyone concerned about the insecurity and other shortcomings of the gig economy. For it reminds us that far from being an unavoidable consequence of technological progress, the nature of work always remains a matter of social choice. It is not a result of an algorithm; it is a collection of decisions by corporations and policymakers. Consider the Industrial Revolution. Well before it took place, in the 19th century, another revolution in work occurred in the 18th century, which historians call the "industrious revolution." Before this revolution, people worked where they lived, perhaps at a farm or a shop. The manufacturing of textiles, for example, relied on networks of independent farmers who spun fibers and wove cloth. They worked on their own; they were not employees.
In the industrious revolution, however, manufacturers gathered workers under one roof, where the labor could be divided and supervised. For the first time on a large scale, home life and work life were separated. People no longer controlled how they worked, and they received a wage instead of sharing directly in the profits of their efforts. This was a necessary precondition for the Industrial Revolution. While factory technology would consolidate this development, the creation of factory technology was possible only because people's relationship to work had already changed. A power loom would have served no purpose for networks of farmers making cloth at home. The same goes for today's digital revolution.
In the industrious revolution, however, manufacturers gathered workers under one roof, where the labor could be divided and supervised. For the first time on a large scale, home life and work life were separated. People no longer controlled how they worked, and they received a wage instead of sharing directly in the profits of their efforts. This was a necessary precondition for the Industrial Revolution. While factory technology would consolidate this development, the creation of factory technology was possible only because people's relationship to work had already changed. A power loom would have served no purpose for networks of farmers making cloth at home. The same goes for today's digital revolution.
The Industrial Revolution didn't start in the 19th century, it started in the 18th century.
This isn't a real story. It is a story about an academic who selected some niche terminology to make normal stuff sound like something new. But a new phrasing is something new in the present, not something newly discovered about the past.
So, it's not the technology, but the people that no longer need to hire people that are 'at fault'... lovely. Thanks for that insight!
The whole point isn't who to blame. It's the fact that technology is exposing a deep, deep flaw in the structure of our society.
If folks don't need to use other people to make money and own virtually everything, the economy itself is useless for any meaningful society.
And if technology makes it so that anyone that gets ahead can almost automatically build to the point where they break the idea of a meaningful economy.. then basing that society or economy on people being paid for things that can be automated is a losing move in the larger game.
If society at large seeks to actually serve to expand human experience beyond just the needs of the ultra-rich, then it likely should seek to use that same technology to get people to legitimately help other people, rather than just have the rich monetize more aspects of their lives.
The whole idea of corporations is kind of a new idea historically - we can invent other ideas, with more forethought than the way courtrooms defined the things we have running the world right now.
But we do have to understand why technology will end the good things about our current economy, beyond just finding folks to blame.
Ryan Fenton
This is an example of learning too much from history. Pick one or two examples that fit nicely into a theory, declare it a law or principle, and then use it to judge or predict other events. Other events may or may not fit the pattern, so it's still a crap shoot whether you can use this to predict or understand anything else.
Uber was enabled by technology, not by some sort of social pattern.
Uber was enabled by a pattern of companies getting away with skirting regulation, calling it "disruptive" tech and pretending they aren't really just taxicabs. That's a social pattern, the tech just enabled the app. Don't be stupid.
Yeah, because no companies got away with skirting regulations until 2010. It is a totally new thing.
It is not a result of an algorithm; it is a collection of decisions by corporations and policymakers
And those decisions are made from a range of options. Options that are created by technology.
Until there were computers, there was no option to send email. A telegram being a poor substitute. Until there were webcams, there was no option for cheap and reliable video-conferencing. Until there were photocopiers the only option to copy documents was carbon paper or Banda copiers: poor alternatives, but the only ones.
Technology created the options that corporations then adopted. Sometimes (like with video recorders) there were multiple options and people made a choice. But before those options appeared, there was no choice.
So it is quite reasonable to say that it is technology that is causing the disruption. It is providing the options for disruption. All businesses do is choose which one to adopt.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
... money has been decoupled from productive activity and investment seeking the highest returns and so gone largely into speculation and basically sophisticated forms of rent seeking and fraud. Let's be honest, technology just speeds this along by enabling big compaies to engage in labour arbitrage. Taking advantage of the huge wage differences of people across the globe thanks to the internet and most people don't have the money or are incapable of moving from where they are at from different reasons. This naive idea that human beings are fungible widgets has put a serious strain on society.
Let's not forget the concept of dead money, corporations are sitting on billions they are not investing in anyone or anything. We're experiecing total failure of capitalism and nobody noticed. AKA money is pooling in the hands of ceo's and the ceo's are just sitting on it, at sane society woud intervene and just start investing in people, tools and jobs if the corporate fatcats won't do it. So it's pure politics and mass political ignorance that's at the root of our problems. Basically people are rotting on the sidelines because our corporate leadership is an emporer with no clothes.
https://www.theglobeandmail.co...
What social phenomenon preceded Uber that enabled it? Unemployment? If that's the answer, then this pattern predicts everything and thereby predicts nothing.
People leaving restaurants and having to stand in the rain yelling at cars to flag down medallion cabs, and pondering, "There has to be a better way of doing this..."
So the whole Feudal system didn't exist? Castles as economic units controlled by a hierarchical power system were also a myth? So this is just wrong on facts. It's also wrong on conclusions. Without decimal numbers there would not have been a technology leap which occured in Europe after the crusades. That means no algebra. No subsequent cartesian geometry. And no calculus. No industrial revolution. Oh and all social orders stayed the same during all of these advances. It was all happening during the feudal time. Technology enables social changes. Sometimes they subsequently occur and sometimes they don't.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
If I had mod points, I'd mod you up. The reason people don't want to hire people to do the work is because Technology is overall cheaper.
While it makes good business sense to do so, if those now unemployed workers can't find a job because other people aren't hiring people, then eventually there will be few people left to buy goods and services. Peak capitalism looks horrible.
You could make the case that taxicab rent seeking created an environment where the public was very poorly served. And that was the social phenomenon that led to Uber. But then every business opportunity caused by incumbent businesses offering poor service fits the pattern and we are back to this theory predicting everything.
A little etymology.
See... Those farmers/"makers" processed raw materials into stuff and sold their stuff to people who did things with them and they were called "factors".
Then they were gathered into FACTORIES where they processed those same raw materials.
I often sneer at academics, but the level of academics has declined so far that's no fun anymore.
I expect better of NYT.
that it wasn't a bullet that killed JFK, it was the person who fired it. Which sounds reasonable, except that in the absence of said bullet he'd still be alive and that it was the accuracy of modern firearms that made the shot possible...
In the last 50 years America has doubled it's manufacturing output while cutting manufacturing jobs by 1/3. Our public policy has almost completely ignored that. The end of large scale manufacturing jobs as the primary employer is more than anything what killed Unions, and most economists agree that loss of bargaining power is why wages aren't going up even though unemployment is low.
This entire article strikes me as yet another attempt to fit the square peg that is corporate capitalism into the round whole that is society's well being. It's working backwards from it's conclusion.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Under the 'corruption' people were making a living wage. Now those people are comitting suicide as teenagers do their jobs. The teenagers in the meantime used to make better wages at fast food restaurants. I'll take that corruption any day of the week.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
It really is that simple. Just solve more problems than you create, and you will never have trouble getting or keeping a job. Technological innovation, government policies, cultural conventions, and the opinions of the director of workplace studies at Cornell have nothing to do with it.
There are two ways of making this formula work. You can minimize the term on the right, or you can maximize the term on the left. Let's consider both cases.
The principal problem you will create as an employee (or business owner) is that you will expect to be paid. Your employer/customer does not want to do this. It will be a problem for them. This is an unavoidable problem. There are other factors on the right-hand side that are avoidable, however. You can minimize the problems you create by being a nice person. Don't be a prima donna or a jerk. There is an entire self-help industry devoted with minimizing the right-hand side of the formula, so I'll say no more about it here.
While there are limits on how much you can minimize the right-hand side, there are no limits on how much you can increase the left-hand side. So the best approach for getting and keeping a job is to maximize the number of problems you solve. Note that the better of a problem solver you become, the more income you can command without unbalancing the formula. So if you want to achieve "employment security", probably your best approach is just to learn to be a better problem solver.
So how do you learn to solve problems? Practice solving problems!
Everybody is all about STEM education these days, as they observe that people with STEM degrees tend to be better employed. My theory is this has not so much to do with the subject matter of STEM as it does with the way STEM is taught. In your STEM classes, the homework and the tests and most of what you do is solve problems. You get lots and lots of practice solving problems. And that ends up making the students better problem solvers. Courses in which you write long papers tracing the development of gender stereotypes in 17th century New England farming communities do not provide nearly as much practice at problem solving, which results in graduates who are not as good at solving problems, and who therefore have more difficulty making the aforementioned formula work.
The problems you solve need not be technical problems. Problem solving tends to be an easily transferable skill. You might develop problem solving skills in math class, or playing chess, or working puzzles, but then end up applying your problem-solving prowess to management or administrative or marketing problems.
The key is to practice solving problems. Practice constantly. Make it your lifestyle to solve problems. Make problem solving part of who you are. Do you see some litter on the ground? Pick it up and you have solved a problem. Are there dirty dishes in the sink? Wash them and put them away - another problem solved. Do you see a shopping cart that some prior patron has left in the middle of the parking lot at the grocery store? Push that cart to the cart corral, or back into the store. (Do not be tempted to say "that is somebody else's problem". Your goal should be to solve problems, not assign blame for them.)
If you dare: end each day be reviewing what you have done and detailing the problems you have created and the problems you have solved, and resolve to do better the next day. If you are very brave, you can ask your spouse/significant-other to help you with that task, as they will often be able to point out countless problems that you created or problem-solving opportunities that you omitted because
Under the 'corruption' people were making a living wage. Now those people are comitting suicide as teenagers do their jobs. The teenagers in the meantime used to make better wages at fast food restaurants. I'll take that corruption any day of the week.
Note how you don't care about the public at all. That's why Uber wins, because you guys think the public exists to provide someone with "a living wage" rather than ride services existing to serve the public at a market wage. The public decided they wanted to ride, not be ridden.
Simple minded view which indicates blindness to the complications which have arisen.
It starts out that to consume resources, man must invest and work to gather those resources.
Next, trade enters the picture and individuals exchange resources and both are better off.
Then banking enters the system, and rather than storing valuable resources, a placeholder is stored, an I.O.U. of sorts. Wealth is no longer perishable, it can be accumulated or saved over time.
Then those that save wealth, who store favors, gain a disproportionate advantage over those that don't. They are able to acquire ownership over greater means of production, and take a larger share of the resources, or the stored value of those resources.
Next the wealthy are then able to incentivize the workforce to engineer more effect means of production. Which allows them to gain more resources for less effort.
Then things start to break down. A growing population requires more resources. Those who control the means of production can do so at such high levels of efficiency that they do not need the laborers. Without a need, there is no incentive to redistribute resources. Any resources the workers provide only dilute the value of those resouces, and thus reduces the resources gained in return.
The next stage is one of two things, either those who have optimized the means of production begin giving generously from their capacity, rather than according to supply and demand economics, or the there is a layering effect, where the classes become separate economies or even nations. A third world country living amongst a first world country, potentially warring for the resources contained within.
Apparently you are ignoring the fact that Uber makes the roads more congested for everyone else. More cars means more wear and tear on the roads and more pollution. Many passengers who would have taken a bus or train or walked or biked, now use an Uber. You may be happy you can get a cheap ride, but since Uber also operates at a loss, you are being subsidized by tax payers, drivers, and Uber shareholders. Don't talk to me about not caring about the public.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
There is a old Bible verse about feeding 5,000 people. It starts with one basket containing a few loaves of bread and fish.
As a people we produce more everday than we need. We have more than enough for everybody, but our economic system does not value human life intrinsically.
Thus we value the individual's ability to increase production capacity and wealth stores. Not all are equally suited to such advanced thinking and foresight. In a purely evolutionary system these once strong laborers, the former backbones of our economy, the shoulders upon which we have stood, would die off due to not being able to acquire and manage the resources to compete in an ever increasingly intellectually challenging economic game.
But there are those which ask the moral and ethical questions of "what am I working for?"... Are we merely working to i crease the wealth of a "noble few", while hoping to skim enough resources off the top to survive? Or are we working for some greater purpose? Are we working to ensure that all of humanity is free to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
Many passengers who would have taken a bus or train or walked or biked, now use an Uber.
People in my home town wouldn't have taken a bus today because today is Sunday, one of the 58 days of the year when the bus drivers are at home with their families. (Source: fwcitilink.com)
Many passengers who would have taken a bus or train or walked or biked,
Or just drove home drunk.
now use an Uber.
Yeah, they get to choose instead of corrupt governments choosing for them. That's why Uber wins — by serving the public.
The government mandated various thing like workers and public liability insurance this could be dealt with too it affected everyone and could be shown to clients and the better employers had it anyway, actually levelled the playing field a bit. Then the last 3-4 years the workers got lazy spent to much time on their phones so the job started taking longer and longer on top of the extra costs impact from distracted workers on insurance etc.. So I made a piece of very low tech less than $500 that modified the main tool used on the job. A robot was available for $130,000. The job is now done by 1 person in 2 days. I no longer hire those workers and cut insurance costs by 80% as its based on number of workers and wages paid.
So I like said a combination of things. All it takes is one last push for that the necessity to go over the edge
Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
Results are widely varied
"The team delved into whether ride-hailing affected crash rates in four cities: Las Vegas, Portland, Ore., Reno, Nev., and San Antonio, Texas — American cities in which Uber, the nation's largest ride-sharing company, launched, ceased, then resumed operations. And the results were mixed. Crashes involving alcohol decreased as Uber resumed services in Portland and San Antonio, but not Reno. And in no case did Uber's resumption of service result in fewer total injury crashes or serious crashes overall."
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Especially when everyone thinks they should "get ahead".
The kinds of social decisions we can make, that is to say, the kind that are practical, are determined by the technology available.
You can't choose to have a city, and to have zero slave labor, if you tech level is only what the Romans had. The choice to abolish slavery was made only after the tech level made people productive enough that the city could function on the effort of paid laborers who are free to choose their own jobs.
And so on.
Actually, the Romans had access to a whole bunch of technology that could have replaced a lot of the slave labour but chose not to use it. They 1) thought it would be a bother to have a lot of jobless slaves and 2) figured slaves were cheaper in most cases. In other cases, they just didn't see the technology as something that could be useful for work and production, since they had slaves for that and didn't think there was any need to tinker with that.
Just like today, there are a lot of things you could easily automate (the technology exists), but it's still cheaper to have people do the work...especially if you can outsource the labour to a cheap and poor country. You can see today when you go from a country where labour is cheap to a country where labour is expensive, that in the latter, there is a lot more automation.
As for whether slavery was necessary in Roman society to build its cities...well, ancient China also had large cities, was technologically similar to Rome, but was much less reliant on slaves. Slaves existed yes, but were usually a much smaller portion of the population than in the Roman Empire and many emperors actively tried to ban slavery or reduce it.
Oversimplification on your part, as well..
No doubt you are partially correct, but I'd like to add that the government certainly played a role. What's a taxi license cost in SF? Here's an excerpt from a news article
Some drivers spent 10, 15 or even 20 years on a waiting list, just for a chance to buy one for upwards of $20,000 to $25,000.
That is fucking insane...The government created or at least maintained an artificial shortage of taxis.. That fucks over the consumer.. We haven't ever (that I am aware of) had anything even approaching a free market..
$25K is not reasonable... And 20 years is not reasonable...
It amazes me that the USA offshores the transcription of medical notes and prescriptions to India, where in the UK, we just have our doctor print out the medication. In Norway, it's sent direct to the pharmacy.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
It amazes me that the USA offshores the transcription of medical notes and prescriptions to India, where in the UK, we just have our doctor print out the medication. In Norway, it's sent direct to the pharmacy.
I live in the US and my doctor contacts my pharmacy directly when I need a prescription. Then I go pick it up. If there is particular urgency, it is available within the hour. This has been going on for at least ten years. So perhaps your information requires updating.
The employees of a business do not produce enough value to keep the company viable. By their very definition, they get less for their labor than what the company gets in value. So they can never afford more than what their company continuously produces; employed or not.
Additionally, lets say the market demands drop because of earnings shortages. What happens is either the service ends or the company gets replaced by a cheaper running solution to reduce their market price. Such as lower wages for the employees or shutting down of production lines.
Keeping people employed for the sake of employment has been proven to be detrimental to society many many times in history. Just because someone is employed and obtaining a salary doesn't mean anything. There must either be value generate or subsidized from somewhere else; reducing the efficient of that other process.
As for Automation, we have yet to see an instance in history where it has been detrimental to society as a whole over the long term.