Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:it starts one way but ends another (Score 2) 674

Very simply our standard of living = (production - consumption)/(numbers of citizens) Robots increase production, which is good.

It is good. But the fruits of that production aren't distributed to the entire population, but rather to the owners of those robots to distribute as they see fit.

Man, I could see the above sentence turning redder and redder even as I was typing it. Just gonna call myself out on that one. :)

Comment Re:Yes it does (Score 1) 674

Tech most certianly does kill jobs. It may make even more in the long term, but they are very different jobs. For the 50 year old newly laid off factory worker with kids he has to put through college now, the fact that there are suddenly lots of new jobs in robot design isn't a lot of comfort.

Exactly. And even if he were a sharp-enough wit to retrain in another field, the cost of the kids alone going to college is going to use up all the funds that he would need to go back and get his skills up to date. When the only answer to obsolescence and unemployment is training, the only result is a new job + a load of debt you accumulated to get it.

Comment Re:Sure, to lower paying jobs (Score 5, Interesting) 674

And what happens when McDonald's introduces an automatic fry-cooker, or a machine that makes hamburgers? Just because we currently have a lot of low skill service jobs now doesn't mean that they won't be replaced by technology in the future. With the advances in robotics we can all see where this is going.

Let's assume we can separate all cooks into Grade-A, Grade-B, Grade-C, and Grade-D cooks. Grade D cooks haven't spent much time practicing cooking, and are just barely good enough at it to get a job at McDonald's, while higher grades have worked longer and harder to acquire skills. A machine comes along and replaces all the Grade D cooks. They're pissed that they don't have a job, but they haven't really sunk much time into it, so they go find a different job. But now a machine comes along and replaces the Grade C cooks. A few may just be naturally talented, but by and large they've spent a lot more time (that they can't get back) training to be better cooks.

So they go to look for a new job as a pencil pusher, and sure enough, there are Grade A-D pencil-pushing jobs. Well, there were, except the grade-D pencil-pushing job has also been mechanized. Only people who start off with enough experience to get a Grade C job can get it.

So now we have someone who has trained, but their training is no longer useful. And to compound the problem, we put the onus (and the financial burden) on this person to get themselves retrained, assuming they even have the natural abilities to be a pencil-pusher.

Thankfully, technology has created a new job: computer developer. But this job only starts at Grade B, and then you can go to A and A+. To get to Grade B you need training, education, and experience, and all of that you are expected to acquire on your own time at your own expense. Also, since all those Grade-C and B pencil pushers are out hunting for work, there's increased competition, which means that employers can get you for less. So more training, but lower wages.

Submission + - The Luddites are Almost Always Wrong (techdirt.com) 1

Mystakaphoros writes: Mike Masnick of TechDirt argues that we can all put down our wooden shoes and take a chill pill: technology "rarely destroys jobs." For example, telephone operators have largely gone by the wayside, but a (brave) new world of telemarketing and call center support jobs have opened up because of advances in technology, not to mention the Internet.



That being said, I think it's worth asking... if machines are going to replace all our fast food workers, are we going to start paying our gourmet chefs minimum wage just because we can?

Comment Re:Again, the ends justify the means? (Score 1) 250

To this day I still cannot fathom how my children are safer in a biker bar than they are a public school. If you punch someone in a bar, the police are called and you go to jail. If you do it in a public school, at worst, you spend some time in the principles office or get suspended.

Depends. There are a fair number of schools with officers patrolling the halls; the one I taught at had at least one student tazed and dragged out into the patrol car per year.

Comment Re:Again, the ends justify the means? (Score 1) 250

No, it isn't about ass covering. This move creates far more liability than it removes. This is about the school system pushing farther and farther into the role of parent in an attempt to increase the size of their bureaucracy and thus the amount of funding they get. This school has just declared that it is their responsiblility to stop kids from commuting suicide. No doubt they will soon be complaining that they are held responsible for the responsibilities they have demanded.

Yeah, the first time a parent says, "But you told us you were watching our kids 24/7! How then did my children get into a fight at the shopping mall?"

Comment Re:blame 'budget cuts' (Score 1) 250

You get what you pay *everyone*.

Teachers aren't a special category. I'm underpaid too. Blame the guy making $500billion and the congressman who kisses up to him - and when you go to blame him, take all your underpaid brethren with you - not just other teachers. Pay stagnates because people march for their own special industries instead of grouping together and demanding change for everyone. I'm sure you know this as a social studies teacher.

Now if only we had one big union... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Workers_of_the_World

Slashdot Top Deals

Air pollution is really making us pay through the nose.

Working...