More technology doesn't mean we have less need for human; it just means that we need human to provide different skill.
I disagree with your perspective.
We will need engineers and scientists with the proper skill to design the technology. We will need educators with the proper knowledge to train people on how to use the technology. We will need mechanics with the proper training to maintain and repair the technology. The list goes on and on.
What you are describing is called "frictional unemployment" in economics term. It means that there are folks who are unemployed because they don't have the right job skill to match what the current business ventures are looking for. It's not that people are no longer needed; it means people who don't possess current and relevant skills are not needed in the evolving labor market.
It's no different than a horse carriage driver losing jobs when people started riding Ford Model T. Or old school scribes losing jobs when people developed printing press. It's a transition period until he learns how to drive a car, or operate a printing press. But should they choose to not embrace the new technology despite the obvious evidence that the new technology improves everyone's quality of life, then they may be just being stubborn or are afraid of change.
I am one of the co-founders of a tech start-up that is currently going through expansion, and I completely agree with Xest's point. We recently gave an offer out to someone with an O-1 visa, with a competitive salary. For a small, lean company, we are extremely mindful about our burn rate. But he is certainly one of the best in his field and we didn't even think twice about having to sponsor the O-1.
At the end of the day, the labor market is a free market like everything else in this capitalistic society. If people have rare and special skills, they will command a higher market price. It doesn't matter if someone needs a visa sponsorship, has 11 fingers, or is a midget and needs a different furniture setup. If I don't acquire the necessary talent for the company to excel, then I am doing my team, my customers, my shareholders, and myself, a disservice. If I need to do or give extra to make the hire, then I absolutely will be glad to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
More technology doesn't mean we have less need for human; it just means that we need human to provide different skill. I disagree with your perspective. We will need engineers and scientists with the proper skill to design the technology. We will need educators with the proper knowledge to train people on how to use the technology. We will need mechanics with the proper training to maintain and repair the technology. The list goes on and on. What you are describing is called "frictional unemployment" in economics term. It means that there are folks who are unemployed because they don't have the right job skill to match what the current business ventures are looking for. It's not that people are no longer needed; it means people who don't possess current and relevant skills are not needed in the evolving labor market. It's no different than a horse carriage driver losing jobs when people started riding Ford Model T. Or old school scribes losing jobs when people developed printing press. It's a transition period until he learns how to drive a car, or operate a printing press. But should they choose to not embrace the new technology despite the obvious evidence that the new technology improves everyone's quality of life, then they may be just being stubborn or are afraid of change.
I am one of the co-founders of a tech start-up that is currently going through expansion, and I completely agree with Xest's point. We recently gave an offer out to someone with an O-1 visa, with a competitive salary. For a small, lean company, we are extremely mindful about our burn rate. But he is certainly one of the best in his field and we didn't even think twice about having to sponsor the O-1. At the end of the day, the labor market is a free market like everything else in this capitalistic society. If people have rare and special skills, they will command a higher market price. It doesn't matter if someone needs a visa sponsorship, has 11 fingers, or is a midget and needs a different furniture setup. If I don't acquire the necessary talent for the company to excel, then I am doing my team, my customers, my shareholders, and myself, a disservice. If I need to do or give extra to make the hire, then I absolutely will be glad to do so.