You pay them enough and they will come. There are many remote places that need doctors and medical people, those industries don't seem to have an issue with holding recruiting drives to get people where they need them. This is how a healthy market is supposed to work, why does the tech industry get a free pass?
But these companies would be doing better if they treated their employees well with high compensation packages. Kids coming out of high school go into professions that show a history of being interested in the workers. If the problem is as these tech companies say, not enough kids learning programming, then the solution is to make the industry better for workers and more people will go into it. This may not help them this quarter, but they have spent years digging themselves deep so what do they expect?
You must be new here. It has long been known that tech companies are finding ways around these rules. There have been many documented cases of domestic workers losing their jobs and being replaced by these workers, I'm sure if that is the case then companies aren't going out of their way to find someone somewhere in the US to fill open positions. I'd be interested in knowing what skills you have that no American anywhere would have. I'm sure there are people out there but it has to be a rare circumstance and a rare specialty.
That's all true, but here we have an aggressive fight by 97 tech companies that don't seem to give a crap about people in their own back yard. You have to wonder what their real motivation is.
Why don't we just allow them to get exemptions for anyone they have that qualifies as a truly highly skilled employee that they can't get locally and be done with it? Personally I feel there wouldn't be that many and this is actually about cheap labor.
Well part of that I can agree with. If I look where they are with AI now it seems pretty abysmal and will take years. I have yet to see any driving AI that doesn't make absolutely comical errors like going the wrong way down a one way and being unable to fix the mistake like a human can. Yet a a lot of people here seem to think there is a huge breakthrough just around the corner so maybe there is. Also a couple fast food ceos have already said publicly that they are automating.
You seem to write it off, but between fast food servers and truck drivers, that's 10 million jobs alone that we never get back. Fast food is especially concerning since that is where a lot of less privileged students get money for an education. What other jobs are at risk of being lost? Middle management, accountants, receptionists and clerical staff, programmers, bus drivers, and pilots off the top of my head. I'm sure I'll think of a lot more after I hit submit. It is a known fact that large American corporations are having trouble finding growth areas. Sure there are emerging markets but there is also a lot of competition to take advantage of them.
From a business point of view these are two very different things When the American economy was young and not quite so saturated with large corporations it wasn't so important how many people you had working for you because you knew more people meant more growth and you always had growth space in your market. So the people you had you needed to do more with in order to profit. Today businesses find that there isn't as much space to grow in their respective industries. How much more Coca-Cola can people really drink and how many different soda flavors can there really be? Yet these corporations still have to make more and more money every year for their shareholders. So they look to do the same amount of work with less people. Some are even to the point that they are operating on an outdated model, like cable providers, but governments are protecting them with bailouts and regulation. Netflix is succeeding but look how tied their hands are by geographical limits and such.
It's the difference between increasing profits by expanding output, and increasing profits by cannibalizing everything inside the corporation. Now that we are into the latter phase and they have AI and cheap overseas labor available to do it with, humans are on the chopping block more than ever before and we haven't even begun to see the beginning of it.
To put it another way, automobiles were about the same number of people doing more work. On the contrary, automation is about a lot less people doing the same amount of work.
When the gasoline powered carriage replaced horses the only thing they were meant to replace was horses. They were designed to augmemt humans not replace them. Back then, companies embraced the things that humans could do for them and in fact automobiles employed more people than horse carriages because companies realized they needed people to make money. This is very different to how a business plans to use automation.
Except companies will never use machines that are anywhere near as expensive to operate. If the machines required that much work then it wouldn't make sense for a McDonalds to let go of their 20 employees because the machines would be just as costly to operate. The very reason we are talking about automation is because there is *vastly* less money that goes into the machines than goes into people.
Were steam engines created with the sole purpose of replacing human labor? Nope.
What about power tools, cars and computers? Nope, nope, nope.
Automation? YEP. And there's a bonus. Companies can get any kind of remaining labor from overseas now easier than they ever could before.
I have seen so many people say new jobs will be created, but no one gives any examples. If you think the average McDonalds restaurant is going to let go of 20 people and then require 20 automation engineers per site you're dreaming. The whole point of automation is to prevent companies from requiring labor. Any business anyone wants to create that requires labor will not be competitive enough to make it.
There are a lot of problems with flat salaries, but the biggest one is that the salaries of CEOs are not flat. I could accept your brush off if everyone was experiencing the same thing. Do CEOs not compete with other CEOs in the same way that all workers compete? Yet somehow everyone seems to be affected by this except for the highest echelon. We are all in the same economic system, yet the forces do not seem to apply to all players equally.
I wasn't sure about the NHTSA investigation. All it seems to prove to me is that people heard about how not to use Autopilot through the first crash and were shit scared/shocked into using it more sparingly and cautiously. Somehow it got spun that Autopilot was safer but I wonder if they tracked whether people were just disengaging it more often because they were afraid. People will forget eventually until the next thing happens.
So an online video of one person taking over means all people have the attention span to be able to do it. That's some interesting logic there.
Autopilot is half baked. I don't think he's even looking into the fact that humans cannot safely 'take over' from autopilot. This from a person who is apparently so afraid of how AI will be dangerous for people, he makes no effort to make it as safe as possible in his own products.
Slashdot Mirror
You pay them enough and they will come. There are many remote places that need doctors and medical people, those industries don't seem to have an issue with holding recruiting drives to get people where they need them. This is how a healthy market is supposed to work, why does the tech industry get a free pass?
lack of people willing to work in the location
Ah yes that's the game they play. At one time they would have to pay someone specifically to move to that location but today they don't.
But these companies would be doing better if they treated their employees well with high compensation packages. Kids coming out of high school go into professions that show a history of being interested in the workers. If the problem is as these tech companies say, not enough kids learning programming, then the solution is to make the industry better for workers and more people will go into it. This may not help them this quarter, but they have spent years digging themselves deep so what do they expect?
You must be new here. It has long been known that tech companies are finding ways around these rules. There have been many documented cases of domestic workers losing their jobs and being replaced by these workers, I'm sure if that is the case then companies aren't going out of their way to find someone somewhere in the US to fill open positions. I'd be interested in knowing what skills you have that no American anywhere would have. I'm sure there are people out there but it has to be a rare circumstance and a rare specialty.
That's all true, but here we have an aggressive fight by 97 tech companies that don't seem to give a crap about people in their own back yard. You have to wonder what their real motivation is.
Why don't we just allow them to get exemptions for anyone they have that qualifies as a truly highly skilled employee that they can't get locally and be done with it? Personally I feel there wouldn't be that many and this is actually about cheap labor.
Well part of that I can agree with. If I look where they are with AI now it seems pretty abysmal and will take years. I have yet to see any driving AI that doesn't make absolutely comical errors like going the wrong way down a one way and being unable to fix the mistake like a human can. Yet a a lot of people here seem to think there is a huge breakthrough just around the corner so maybe there is. Also a couple fast food ceos have already said publicly that they are automating.
You seem to write it off, but between fast food servers and truck drivers, that's 10 million jobs alone that we never get back. Fast food is especially concerning since that is where a lot of less privileged students get money for an education. What other jobs are at risk of being lost? Middle management, accountants, receptionists and clerical staff, programmers, bus drivers, and pilots off the top of my head. I'm sure I'll think of a lot more after I hit submit. It is a known fact that large American corporations are having trouble finding growth areas. Sure there are emerging markets but there is also a lot of competition to take advantage of them.
From a business point of view these are two very different things When the American economy was young and not quite so saturated with large corporations it wasn't so important how many people you had working for you because you knew more people meant more growth and you always had growth space in your market. So the people you had you needed to do more with in order to profit. Today businesses find that there isn't as much space to grow in their respective industries. How much more Coca-Cola can people really drink and how many different soda flavors can there really be? Yet these corporations still have to make more and more money every year for their shareholders. So they look to do the same amount of work with less people. Some are even to the point that they are operating on an outdated model, like cable providers, but governments are protecting them with bailouts and regulation. Netflix is succeeding but look how tied their hands are by geographical limits and such.
It's the difference between increasing profits by expanding output, and increasing profits by cannibalizing everything inside the corporation. Now that we are into the latter phase and they have AI and cheap overseas labor available to do it with, humans are on the chopping block more than ever before and we haven't even begun to see the beginning of it.
Should we be teaching kids to cook over an open fire too? At a certain point it becomes ridiculous to look that far back.
To put it another way, automobiles were about the same number of people doing more work. On the contrary, automation is about a lot less people doing the same amount of work.
When the gasoline powered carriage replaced horses the only thing they were meant to replace was horses. They were designed to augmemt humans not replace them. Back then, companies embraced the things that humans could do for them and in fact automobiles employed more people than horse carriages because companies realized they needed people to make money. This is very different to how a business plans to use automation.
Except companies will never use machines that are anywhere near as expensive to operate. If the machines required that much work then it wouldn't make sense for a McDonalds to let go of their 20 employees because the machines would be just as costly to operate. The very reason we are talking about automation is because there is *vastly* less money that goes into the machines than goes into people.
Were steam engines created with the sole purpose of replacing human labor? Nope.
What about power tools, cars and computers? Nope, nope, nope.
Automation? YEP. And there's a bonus. Companies can get any kind of remaining labor from overseas now easier than they ever could before.
I have seen so many people say new jobs will be created, but no one gives any examples. If you think the average McDonalds restaurant is going to let go of 20 people and then require 20 automation engineers per site you're dreaming. The whole point of automation is to prevent companies from requiring labor. Any business anyone wants to create that requires labor will not be competitive enough to make it.
Except apparently a corporation can be treated as a person when they see fit.
There are a lot of problems with flat salaries, but the biggest one is that the salaries of CEOs are not flat. I could accept your brush off if everyone was experiencing the same thing. Do CEOs not compete with other CEOs in the same way that all workers compete? Yet somehow everyone seems to be affected by this except for the highest echelon. We are all in the same economic system, yet the forces do not seem to apply to all players equally.
Basically when accounting for inflation, salaries have been flat since the 70's.
One used to be able to say the employers that didn't offer at least 5% per year were not worth staying at.
I wasn't sure about the NHTSA investigation. All it seems to prove to me is that people heard about how not to use Autopilot through the first crash and were shit scared/shocked into using it more sparingly and cautiously. Somehow it got spun that Autopilot was safer but I wonder if they tracked whether people were just disengaging it more often because they were afraid. People will forget eventually until the next thing happens.
So an online video of one person taking over means all people have the attention span to be able to do it. That's some interesting logic there.
You get a cost of living raise? Wow, I bow to you sir.
Autopilot is half baked. I don't think he's even looking into the fact that humans cannot safely 'take over' from autopilot. This from a person who is apparently so afraid of how AI will be dangerous for people, he makes no effort to make it as safe as possible in his own products.
More half-assed crap brought to you by the person so worshipped here.
You forgot
So if Trump wins in the Netherlands as well, will he continue to deny the Russians had any involvement?
Except you probably don't want to do this on the machine you are going to watch Netflix on while waiting for the download to complete.