Slashdot Mirror
The Robot Revolution Will Be Worse For Men
Recode's Rani Molla shares the findings of a new study from the Brookings Institution, which finds that automation will impact men at a higher rate than women. Here's an excerpt from the report: Young people -- especially those in rural areas or who are underrepresented minorities -- will have a greater likelihood of having their jobs replaced by automation. Meanwhile, older, more educated white people living in big cities are more likely to maintain their coveted positions, either because their jobs are irreplaceable or because they're needed in new jobs alongside our robot overlords. The Brookings study also warns that automation will exacerbate existing social inequalities along certain geographic and demographic lines, because it will likely eliminate many lower- and middle-skill jobs considered stepping stones to more advanced careers. These jobs losses will be in concentrated in rural areas, particularly the swath of America between the coasts.
However, at least in the case of gender, it's the men, for once, who will be getting the short end of the stick. Jobs traditionally held by men have a higher "average automation potential" than those held by women, meaning that a greater share of those tasks could be automated with current technology, according to Brookings. That's because the occupations men are more likely to hold tend to be more manual and more easily replaced by machines and artificial intelligence. Of course, the real point here is that people of all stripes face employment disruption as new technologies are able to do many of our tasks faster, more efficiently, and more precisely than mere mortals. The implications of this unemployment upheaval are far-reaching and raise many questions: How will people transition to the jobs of the future? What will those jobs be? Is it possible to mitigate the polarizing effects automation will have on our already-stratified society of haves and have-nots?
However, at least in the case of gender, it's the men, for once, who will be getting the short end of the stick. Jobs traditionally held by men have a higher "average automation potential" than those held by women, meaning that a greater share of those tasks could be automated with current technology, according to Brookings. That's because the occupations men are more likely to hold tend to be more manual and more easily replaced by machines and artificial intelligence. Of course, the real point here is that people of all stripes face employment disruption as new technologies are able to do many of our tasks faster, more efficiently, and more precisely than mere mortals. The implications of this unemployment upheaval are far-reaching and raise many questions: How will people transition to the jobs of the future? What will those jobs be? Is it possible to mitigate the polarizing effects automation will have on our already-stratified society of haves and have-nots?
They're not counting sexbots, are they?
When women lose economic opportunities, marriage rates go up. When men lose economic opportunities, rioting rates go up.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
For once, bwcause, you know, women are banned from those jobs or something.
I'm 40 and never once in my lifetime has it been illegal for a woman to do a job in my lifetime. At 40 I'm at the age where whatever experience I've had is AVERAGE.
Stop pretending it's 1950.
I suggest you identify as a robot instead.
the problem is that the jobs men traditionally do are most likely to be automated. That's it. That's all there is to it. You can't really automate watching kids, for example, because kids are emotional and except a parental figure to be near. So short of perfect androids that ain't happening. People want nurses still. And yes, they want doctors, but there are a lot more nurses than doctors.
Also, to be blunt, women do better academically than men. The reason's really simple: girls calm down and start studying and an earlier age than boys so they get an extra year or two of education.
Yes, this does mean we're going to eventually need to start shifting from helping girls catch up (necessary because they were discouraged from doing anything short of having babies for hundreds of years) to helping boys catch up.
The trick is doing this rationally and without it devolving into identity politics from both sides used to distract us all from economic issues. Right wing Dems like identity politics because it lets them pretend to be progressive while supporting the same supply side/trickle down economics as the GOP does. Meanwhile the subject is so emotionally charged it's easy to rile people up and point them at the polls to vote for whoever without considering the economic factors involved.
The solution is a) more education for everyone (if nothing else it'll help absorb some of the unnecessary workforce) and b) be wary of anyone who talks identity politics without also talking sound, demand side economics.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Pretty sure women are going to be affected just as badly as men.
Imagine, hundreds of single men with bad game just stop feeding the egos of all these women on social media and instead buy a robot that looks like a straight 10 that will cook, clean, and well **** without complaining.
That will be a real crisis worth watching. /Sarcasm... Sort of
Texas teachers are required to work six hours a day, 187 days per year. That's not terrible.
I don't know what it likes in texas but here teachers generally work 3x the hours the actually teach. Unless you think reports write them selves, assignments just appear and are magically marked, lessons come pre planned and differentiated etc etc etc. Obviously it varies with subject and level but the idea that teachers only work while they teach is a stupid as saying soldiers only work when they fight.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
"However, at least in the case of gender, it's the men, for once, who will be getting the short end of the stick."
Setting aside suicide, drug use, drug abuse, being a victim off violent crime, fighting in wars, at-work deaths, shorter life spans, vulnerability to disease, aids, heart disease, yes, "for once" men get the short end of the stick.
-Styopa