- Feature Articles
- CodeSOD
- Error'd
-
Forums
-
Other Articles
- Random Article
- Alex's Soapbox
- Announcements
- Best of…
- Best of Email
- Best of the Sidebar
- Bring Your Own Code
- Coded Smorgasbord
- Mandatory Fun Day
- Off Topic
- Representative Line
- News Roundup
- Editor's Soapbox
- Software on the Rocks
- Souvenir Potpourri
- Sponsor Post
- Tales from the Interview
- The Daily WTF: Live
- Virtudyne
Admin
Thank you. The deliberate misunderstanding of what Hatterson was trying to say was making me crazy.
However, I still have to disagree with him. Automation and efficiency gains can indeed reduce the total number of jobs available. For a given level of output, greater efficiency means fewer jobs are needed. To replace the old jobs with an equivalent number of new jobs requires economic growth. Endless economic growth is a myth.
What I don't get is why we all work 40+ hours a week, 9-5 every day, on "meaningless" tasks, when economic productivity has been increasing for the last few centuries.
Admin
Admin
You guys are approaching this from the wrong angle. Let me help you:
When a company gains efficiency through technological advances, jobs eliminated is always greater that jobs creating by using the new technology. That is the definition of efficiency. However, new technology does create growth. This happens because new technology leads to the ability to do things that were never possible before. This drives innovation so the company can create new thing that people will buy and the increased efficiency provides capital that can be used to invest in the business through infrastructure, marketing etc.
Admin
Yes it is!
Admin
No it isn't!
Admin
Look, if you're going to be so pedantic, I'll out-pedanticize you. It's still not a contradiction.
NOT(A) A->B
These two statements are not contradictory.
Admin
Indeed! Looks like A Gould hasn't had the 'pleasure' of working in such an organisation which requires at least some of the above to effect a change to Production data.
Admin
What do you think it is, then - an elephant?
Admin
I definitely wouldn't trust a Gould.
[image]Admin
Zebras do not fly. They have stripes and hooves, but not wings.
Now, if you see a zebra flying...
Admin
Consider a single software developer, who works on a company's internal software... Currently it takes 10 people to perform job x. The single software developer works on the software to increase 'efficiencies' and now the same job, assisted by the computer, takes 8 people. 1 person has lost a job.
The job market as a whole is not universally balanced.
Admin
and then they got motion detectors
Admin
Because we want a better standard of living than people had in 1700. (Who also, for the most part, worked far more than 40 hours a week, especially if they were farmers.)
Productivity increases are why an hour of your labor is worth far, far more than an hour of labor from some guy guiding a plow in Virginia in 1700. (And indeed why modern farmers produce so much more produce per man-hour of labor).
If people now were willing to live by 1700 standards of quality of life, they could probably do so on 5 or 10 hours of work a week, most of which would be to pay rent (assuming codes were changed to allow people in urban or semi-urban areas to live like that!).
Part of the problem here, I think, is that people don't grasp how poor everyone but the most astoundingly wealthy were in previous centuries.
(And even the richest King in Europe in 1700 would still die of things we'd shrug off after two weeks on an antibiotic, have a cold house every winter, and not have fresh fruit half the year.
We are living in a golden age right now.)
Admin
Computers certainly eliminate jobs, as did machinery before it. Instead of 10 people working on an assembly line, you've got one guy maintaining the machinery/computers...
But, then that money not spent on A generally goes to B... ie. Once you've got food, shelter and security, you want fun and entertainment. Once nobody is needed to operate the machines, there are people free to work other jobs, which creates new job positions in and of itself...
Admin
technology can reduce the amount of people required to do a certain task. this means that there are more people free to do more advanced tasks. as more and more tasks are automated, more and more people are free to do higher level tasks, which in turn produces more and more wealth. those higher level tasks are more focused on creative management of those lower level tasks, so in effect technology is turning us all into managers of one kind or another, and the new minions are not unskilled people, but machines.
this new efficiency (where one creative person can do the work of many uncreative people) will always create more wealth as long as their are raw resources available (and, of course, absent any mitigating factors, like oppressive governments). as long as their are untapped resources available (and "resource" could really mean anything: time, space, matter) creative minds will invest time and money trying to tap those resources and turn them from nearly worthless raw materials into goods that hold a higher value.
it is this gain in efficiency (where it take fewer people to go from dirt to ceramic bowl, or crude oil to action figure) that allows our standard of living to increase. absent outside influences every gain in efficiency will inevitably mean an increase in the standard of living, as long as their remains untapped resources, because every increase in efficiency will mean that more people are free to tap more resources and turn them into more goods.
due to general human nature, as long as you produce the right kinds of goods, their will always be demand for those goods, and there is no real upper limit to the amount of goods a given amount of people will demand if they can afford it. this in turn means there will never be any lack of demand for people who can bring increases in efficiency, which pretty much closes the loop.
in short, the only real limit on possible wealth creation is the supply of raw resources. technological advancements will allow us to more efficiently tap those resources, which means we can crate more wealth faster.
Admin
It was always the Utopian prediction made circa 1950's/60's that advancing technology would give everybody more free time. Of course, that never happened, because if two people are doing the same job for 40 hours a week and then some new technology makes it possible for them to do the same amount of work in 20 hours, their employer doesn't keep them both on working 20 hours a week for the same pay. Instead their employer fires one of them and has the other do both jobs working 40 hours a week, probably for the same pay as before.
Admin
I guess that maybe there is a parallel here with the current Utopian visions of the "Information Economy™", where everybody will be a "Knowledge Worker™" and some how this will bring great gains for workers. You'll be connected and able to "work from anywhere". Of course, work from anywhere will ultimately end up being "work all the time" and rather than having more flexibility and more free time, we'll end up with less....or none.
Admin
Those people had to actually buy coffee at their workplace? WTF?
Admin
No, just because it eliminated YOUR job doesn't mean it hasn't created different jobs with different skillsets.
Somehow despite vast automation, even at a 10% unemployment rate, the US employs far more people now than say 1970 when there was far less automation.
CAPTCHA: facilisi (v) The ability to facilitate change.
Admin
People are strange. Automate 50% of their work, and they love you. Automate 90% of their work, and they hate you.
Admin
"I couldn’t help but wonder, why am I spending my life building cold, meaningless business applications?"
It's called a Job, which is what most grownups in the Real World have to do.
Suck it up.
Not everyone can be an idealist hippie spending their life traveling to Africa or someplace to find themselves.
Admin
Tell me what you mean by efficiency (reducing rote jobs like this article suggests?) so I can provide a counterexample.
Admin
I really think that the world will have to come to terms that virtually all jobs can be automated. There is much more dignity being unemployed spending your time reading books and spending quality time with your loved ones then spending years of your life changing all the 99's to 50's. I think that our industry is potentially what will liberate us from the depression of meaningless work even if at first our automating tasks put people at risk of destitution.
Admin
Huh,
I've been slowly working my way through the archive (backwards) and it just so happens that I ran across the original post of this article....
Admin
And the important bit - that nobody ever mentions - putting the telegraph operators out of work had a benefit. It saved the customer money - which means the customer's wages will buy him more, which is the same as being paid more.
So introducing new technology, while harsh on those displaced by it, has an equal and opposite benefit on the rest of society.
Admin
Interestingly, Maynard Keynes thought much the same in the Thirties - that by now, people wouldn't all be working full-time. I'm not sure he was far wrong, really. There are plenty of people who don't chase the money because they can be perfectly comfortable on an amount that, in proportion to the top earners, would have seen them destitute a century ago. Flexible working is starting to see more take-up.
What I find most annoying is that employers expect/insist that their employees work five days a week, even if four people working five days gives the same amount of work and costs the same as five working four days.
Admin
Admin
I don't create meaningless business applications, I create beautiful pictures with logic (prefereably with lots of xml and hopefully an "isNotNullRule" in there somewhere), it just happens to trade shares and managed funds when someone interacts with it.
Admin
Your easily made crazy. What other things bother you? That way I can avoid them in the future ;)
Admin
+1
Admin
(The sad thing was, I was often the last one in the building, and I WANTED the lights out... so the motion detectors actually cost more.)
Admin
I had the very same thing happen to me about 6 years ago. We had a person who was promoted straight from an entry-level telemarketing position to a managerial position. She was way out of her league, and had absolutely no computer experience whatsoever. I know what people are thinking: how could anyone in the 21st century in the United States not have any computer experience? Believe me, it can happen. She was elated to learn that you don't have to manually total an electronic spreadsheet. It was a WTF moment for me until I learned a little more about her.
Admin
It used to be that one adult could work, and the other stay home helping with the family. But then, under the sales pitch of "equality" (like that's ever going to happen, or anyone really even wants it) we sent both adults to work and took nearly 50% of their income in various direct and indirect taxes. So folks in general aren't that much better off even though twice as much work is being done.
Admin
Only you still need money to live. And you get money by working. There's no dignity in starving and being homeless.
Admin
Only it doesn't. There is lots of overhead in employing a person beyond what wages you pay them. So it's not the case that getting say, 200 man hours, of work from 4 people costs the same as getting 200 man hours of work from 5 people. For example, a person working 30 hrs a week still cost the same for health insurance as somebody working 40 hrs a week. Unless you drop the 30 hrs person's health insurance on the grounds that they aren't working full-time.
Admin
OK, I have a great idea that will end the recession/depression/whatever. Outlaw possession of all brooms or similar cleaning equipment. This will force companies to hire hundreds of janitors to wander the halls all night picking up crumbs of dirt between their fingernails. With all the new jobs, tax revenues will go up and our governments will finally have enough money to keep all their promises. Plus think of all the unemployment money that will be saved!
And let's make the minimum wage for janitors at least $50 an hour so everyone will be wealthy. They'll take that money home and spend it on big screen 3D TVs and expensive cars, boosting the economy for everyone else. Why it will be absolutely wonderful I tell you!
What? You're worried about the evil corporations and their stupid shareholders? Screw them all. What do you mean you're a shareholder too, through your retirement plan? How's that working out for you lately? Give up your greedy ways and stop saving for retirement. Social Security will take care of you.
Yeah the fat bastard corporations will have to raise their prices, but they won't go out of business because every other corporation will be in the same boat. OK maybe prices will get so high that your $50 and hour won't buy anything more than dried bread crusts, unless we buy everything from China, but hey, that's a problem for the next administration, which will probably be run by Them instead of Us, so we can escape any blame.
Admin
Of course, there is an issue with the imbalance between the skills people have the skills required to use the current automations available (plus many other things that reduce the flexibility of the overall job market, etc.) but generally speaking, at a whole-economy level, more automation is a good thing. If you're committed to doing a particular thing though, well, automation may well not look like such a good thing after all. It's all a matter of perspective.
Moreover, smarter automation is often needed so that it doesn't always demand people of high ability (which is different from being highly trained). While I can use compilers to build software just fine, I'm under no illusion that this is something that the majority of the population could do well at no matter how much they were trained. For software development, that's not a problem as it is a small enough part of the overall economy as to be able to work with only a small subset of the population as employees, but if every job required that level of ability then we'd be in deep trouble as a society.
Because that tends to be about as long as people actually want to work, and they might not think what they're doing is meaningless. People really want to feel that what they are doing has value.And automation is about multiplying the value that one gets from that work.
[The Real WTF is this site's tendency to give errors when attempting to submit a comment. What's it doing? Locking the database for hours on end?]
Admin
Alex was going to replace him with a very small script, but he's only two years from retirement...
Admin
+1
Admin
Most middle class families do not require both adults to work. My fiance's father drives a truck for a living and raised a family of four on that salary, in a 1800^2 house, with yearly vacations, etc. You could make a point that they went into a bit of debt to do it, but you cannot make the point that both parents need work.
Minimum wage here in FL is 7.25/hour. Average household income for the United States is roughly 40K/year. Making the LOWEST POSSIBLE SALARY (15K/year) with two working adults puts you at 75% of the average income for the United States. Average truck driver salary is 48K/year. UPS drivers make $25/hour (52K/year). Cutting grass makes 25K/year. (uneducated) Electricians make 36K/year. Welders make 37K/year.
Don't give me this crap about "both parents need to work". If one parent CUTS LAWNS (25K) for a living, and the other FLIPS BURGERS (15K), they they are making the AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME. If one parent, say, has a college degree in something like Liberal Arts (http://www.campusgrotto.com/average-starting-salary-by-degree-for-2009.html) (36K), they START OFF making 90% of the average American family.
Admin
It's amazing how often people come to this with mistaken assumptions about just how things were then, with the idea that there really was that much poverty then. The truth of the matter is, for most of recorded history and even before according to the archaeological record, the average amount of time people needed to work to live was only about 20 hours per week anyway (there was seasonal variation, so 40 hour work weeks could happen at harvest time) - if they only needed to support their own households. That made a lot of surplus and little necessary poverty. However, people needed to work a lot harder and didn't get all that surplus if they had to pay rents, tithes and taxes too (i.e. added distortions) - but oddly enough, even in Europe that workload wasn't as great as 40 hours per week in 1700 (it increased to more than that during that century, and it had been closer to 20 hours per week in late Tudor England). In the Americas things were easier still, unless you want to count in the additional effort clearing new land (but I count that as investment, not production for consumption supporting people). Median and mode lifestyles are not vastly better now; it's hard to compare, but it's probably only a factor of two or three more than people would have had without their added distortions.
Oh, the kings and even quite middle class people had year round fruit (if they cared for it, and at a cost) and heated houses in winter, courtesy of orangeries and burning coal. And this is no golden age, because we too have distortions that stop it being one. Certainly a lot of people are worse off now than their equivalents one, two, or three centuries ago (depending on just where they live and where their ancestors lived).
Admin
Sounds very familiar. At a place I worked we had some work experience students (I gues my US cousins would call them "interns") helping out with some R&D work.
I spotted one of them plowing very carefully through a spreadsheet, notebook in hand and complaining bitterly to her partner about how tedious this all was.
Asked her what the grief was about and she told me they'd captured some data from a sensor, exported it as CSV data, imported it into Excel and now she had to read through some 11,000 lines of data counting the number of occurences of one exact value that signified the sensor was crossing over it's zero-point. A bona-fide case of someone using "visual grep"!
There's probably a more elegant way of doing it, but I showed here how to add another column with a conditional something like: "=IF(A1=$REQUIRED_VALUE, 1, 0)", and then sum the new column to give the number of occurences.
In her case, she actually knew all the spreadsheet stuff already, but it never occurred to her to put the disparate bits of knowledge together to save a shitload of time and effort. Brainiacs, huh?
Admin
Your employer pays you for hours. If he provides you the tools (technology) to be more productive with those hours, he reaps the benefits.
Admin
I saw the URL: http://inedo.com/landing/buildmaster I was disappointed when I realized it wasn't: http://inedo.com/building/landmaster because <3 Star Fox.
Now the question is, did this guy tell anyone what he'd done? Was there perhaps some data stored within each device that also needed to be updated during this process? He may have given these guys a fantastic opportunity to slack off for a while, or just made them look like idiots, or even made their job harder.
Admin
To earn money for rich people, of course.
Admin
Apparently you've never worked hourly low wage -- there are plenty of places that will fire you for working 30 hours, so they can do this exact thing without incurring the overhead.
Admin
Apparently I missed quoting the original back there claiming that flexible work hours are more expensive for the employer because of overhead ....
Admin
The answer is here.
Notice the way that unemployment rises steadily over time? me neither.
Technology eliminates the need for some jobs whilst creating the need for other jobs.
So, 10 factory workers can do the same job as 5 workers plus a computer program? Great, now that company can have the 10 workers achieving twice as much output, or 5 workers plus 5 branching into a new revenue generating stream, or 5 workers plus 5 tech guys to maintain the system etc..
If anyone wants to argue that technology is costing jobs, please argue your point with some form of factual basis. Where are all of these people who have lost their jobs?
Admin
Not true. Try working in government some day, you might be surprised. I was. Long hours and low pay are not the preserve of private enterprise.
Admin
Why is the floor of nice, hardworking people more deserving than MegaCorp's shareholders?
Because they are nice and hardworking.