375 million jobs may be automated by 2030

[untermensche]

In related news: workers becoming obsolete is going to be difficult for workers-are-the-source-of-all-value fetishists.

Where did all the wealth needed for automation come from?

Labor is the source of all value.

That is Adam Smith, not Karl Marx.

 

[Underseer]

A new report has a stern warning for the global workforce: stay flexible.

The McKinsey Global Institute cautions that as many as 375 million workers will need to switch occupational categories by 2030 due to automation.

The work most at risk of automation includes physical jobs in predictable environments, such as operating machinery or preparing fast food. Data collection and processing is also in the crosshairs, with implications for mortgage origination, paralegals, accounts and back-office processing.

To remain viable, workers must embrace retraining in different fields. But governments and companies will need to help smooth what could be a rocky transition.

"The model where people go to school for the first 20 years of life and work for the next 40 or 50 years is broken," Susan Lund, a partner for the McKinsey Global Institute and co-author of the report, told CNN Tech.

"We're going to have to think about learning and training throughout the course of your career."

http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/28/tec...r=twCNN112817job-automation-report0839PMStory

As long as the wealthy elites get wealthier, who honestly cares about what happens to hundreds of millions of commoners? It's not as if anyone cares if they suffer or even if they survive at all. If they don't do anything that makes life better for the elites, then they don't deserve to exist. [/conservolibertarian]

 

[TV and credit cards]

In related news: workers becoming obsolete is going to be difficult for workers-are-the-source-of-all-value fetishists.

Where did all the wealth needed for automation come from?

Labor is the source of all value.

That is Adam Smith, not Karl Marx.

A new report has a stern warning for the global workforce: stay flexible.

The McKinsey Global Institute cautions that as many as 375 million workers will need to switch occupational categories by 2030 due to automation.

The work most at risk of automation includes physical jobs in predictable environments, such as operating machinery or preparing fast food. Data collection and processing is also in the crosshairs, with implications for mortgage origination, paralegals, accounts and back-office processing.

To remain viable, workers must embrace retraining in different fields. But governments and companies will need to help smooth what could be a rocky transition.

"The model where people go to school for the first 20 years of life and work for the next 40 or 50 years is broken," Susan Lund, a partner for the McKinsey Global Institute and co-author of the report, told CNN Tech.

"We're going to have to think about learning and training throughout the course of your career."

http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/28/tec...r=twCNN112817job-automation-report0839PMStory

As long as the wealthy elites get wealthier, who honestly cares about what happens to hundreds of millions of commoners? It's not as if anyone cares if they suffer or even if they survive at all. If they don't do anything that makes life better for the elites, then they don't deserve to exist. [/conservolibertarian]

When the commodity is no longer needed, it will be left to fallow.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I see a world with a lot of crappy little $15 an hour jobs, some necessary, some not. This is your UBI.
And you thought you were going to get to sit on your ass and play with a potter's wheel or get into watercolors...find yourself.

I disagree. It's the $15/hr jobs that are far more on the chopping block.

 

[bilby]

The jobs will be in the creation and maintenance of the automation. Coding, it would seem, will remain relevant for a while anyway.

I've also heard claims that jobs requiring social skills will remain relevant, like managerial stuff. Although others will claim that even CEOs are at risk.

In any case, the next few decades will be interesting.

I am not sure that robots care whether their managers have good social skills.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That's not close to what I mean.

If the workers had control over the direction and evolution of automation they could easily replace the masters with it.

And the direction of the evolution of automation would be totally different.

Automation is not something that just happens. It is carefully planned and directed.

Right now it is being directed to make most more and more helpless.

Talking about automation in a dictatorial rigid top-down system is to talk about something evil.

You continue to preach rather than discuss. Ideology is your answer to everything.

I've actually created some of that automation and worked with others creating more of it--and it doesn't remotely replace the people at the top!

What it does is pick off jobs or pieces of jobs that are repetitive in nature, leaving the jobs or pieces of jobs that actually require thought. A perfect illustration is what we went through in cutting raw boards down to what we called sticks (precisely-sized and generally defect-free pieces of wood used to build up other parts.)

Original version when I started there:

One saw that cut pieces to width. One saw that the operator loaded the board into, pushed the pedal and it sliced it. The decision as to what pieces to cut was up to the operator (he had a list of what he needed to produce) and error-prone as he had to cut around defects that could mess up the yield. A third operation was then required to cut them precisely to length.

First automation:

Still one saw cutting the pieces to width. At that point an operator picks up a board and uses a special crayon to mark any flaws in the wood. The machine runs a camera along the board, noting the marks and deciding how to get the best yield. The human still made the decision about flaws but the computer did the heavy number crunching for yield optimization--and was considerably better than a human. The machines were accurate enough that there was no need to trim to length, the output boards went straight to inventory.

Version 1.1:

A slight modification to the machines plus backwards machines. Now the operator marked the board and then turned around and did the same thing on the machine directly behind him while the machine picked up and cut the board. The time he previously spent waiting for the board to be cut was instead spent on the other machine, doubling his production.

Second automation:

A new machine, capable of cutting in both directions and capable of taking it's own wood from a whole bunk of it (how it came from the supplier) that was loaded by forklift. It could generally make it's own decisions about defects in the wood. The operator occasionally had to flip over a board (if the board was bowed away from it's path of travel there was only one point of contact and it could rock and that would produce trash) and look at the proposed cuts to make sure there weren't problems. (The camera basically only looked at contrast--it would generally fail to note wood-colored defects {damage to the surface} and could be fooled by marks on the boards.)

The machinery took over more and more of the mechanical side of the job. It took over more and more of the number crunching. It spotted the easy defects, it couldn't get them all. It didn't even try to look at the big picture--what do we need?

The jobs for humans are those that require creative thought--and that definitely includes management. A computer might be able to keep a company on course, it couldn't innovate.

 

[untermensche]

You don't discuss things with dictators or their supporters.

You eliminate them. You move past their primitive dog-like society.

If you have any humanity.

 

[DBT]

There are some reports that suggest that automation could have been far more widespread right now if it wasn't for Government intervention, tax breaks and other inducements, bribes in effect, for industry to employ people rather than expand their automation programs.

What incentives are those? You can expense the costs associated with paying for an employee like any other expense. Whereas you have to depreciate expenses associated with capital equipment. But that's not strong enough incentive on it's own IMO. Government could do more to incentivize companies hiring more.

As I mentioned, Tax breaks and Subsidizing wages in order to get young people into employment, training, programs, apprenticeships, etc. More or less investing in future tax payers while avoiding social unrest associated with high unemployment rates.

The mantra of our Politicians being ''Jobs and Growth' ''Jobs and Growth'



Wage subsidies

Financial incentives are available to encourage businesses to hire and retain new employees.


The Youth Bonus Wage Subsidy is a financial incentive that can help grow your business
Watch The Youth Bonus Wage Subsidy is a financial incentive that can help grow your business
The Youth Bonus Wage Subsidy allowed Morris Corporate to reinvest in their on-site training and hire more staff. The subsidy is a financial incentive up to $10,000 that helps employers grow their business and young people find sustainable work.

Up to $10,000 (GST inclusive) is available for new employees who are:

between 15 and 25 years of age or
50 years of age and over.

Up to $6,500 (GST inclusive) is available for new employees who are either:

between 25 and 29 years of age
parents
Indigenous Australians or
individuals who are registered with an employment services provider for 12 months or more.

Employment incentives
Most grants for hiring and training staff are offered to businesses if they employ a diverse workforce. This includes people with disability, mature-age workers, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and unskilled workers.

The Australian Government provides the following employment programs.
Help with wages

Government subsidies to help employers offset the cost of wages include:

the Indigenous Wage Subsidy
the Wage Subsidy Scheme and the Supported Wage System if you employ people with disability.


Recruitment and training

Help recruiting staff is available through the national employment service, Job Services Australia. Job Services Australia has employment service providers around the country. They can work with you to identify your staffing needs and help you find the right person for the job.

Some training programs, including those for mature-age workers and apprentices, attract government support.

For more information on government funding and support for training, visit:

Skills Connect
Industry skills.

Apprentices

Incentives are offered to help employers to take on trainees and apprentices. Read more about the benefits of employing an apprentice.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You don't discuss things with dictators or their supporters.

You eliminate them. You move past their primitive dog-like society.

If you have any humanity.

In your world faith trumps reality.

This is an atheist board, however.

 

[untermensche]

You don't discuss things with dictators or their supporters.

You eliminate them. You move past their primitive dog-like society.

If you have any humanity.

In your world faith trumps reality.

This is an atheist board, however.

In other words dictatorship in any form is an immorality.

You simply are not a very advanced human when it comes to morality.

You are primitive and think morality is religion.

 

[lpetrich]

2030 seems like a pretty reasonable time horizon for this to happen. Automated vehicles seem like they're going to start coming at us fast, and beside that the technology, manpower, and money is now there to automate whatever we want, so it's really just a matter of time. 12 years is *eons* in the tech world these days.

There are plenty of problems with navigating real-world environments, both technical and social. So I suspect that the first automated flat-road vehicles will likely be trucks in long-haul trucking duty. I suspect that such trucks will first travel in convoys led by a truck with a human driver.

One thing I wonder about is software development. They say, in the long run, it's at risk too, but I suspect that one is a bit trickier and may take more time.

Software development is more-or-less taking desired behavior and appearance features and writing software that has those features. Understanding what the software is supposed to do is something that likely requires some strong AI, or at least, very good natural-language comprehension.

But it must be noted that parts of software development are already automated, and have been for some decades. I'll look at the process of giving instructions for CPU's. One can compose those instructions in the 1's and 0's that they directly interpret. That is "machine language", and it has not been used very much since the early days of electronic computers. One has to keep track of a lot of flow-of-control addresses and data addresses and the like, and also which strings of 0's and 1's are which instructions. Something called "assembly language" was invented around 1950 that represents all the locations and operation codes ("opcodes") symbolically. Soon following were "macros", commands that could be expanded into assembly-language commands. When one goes far enough with macros, one gets a "high-level language", and the first ones started appearing in the late 1950's. These usually have an algebra-like appearance, though a natural-language-like appearance has been tried a few times.

To illustrate high-level programming languages, I'll show one adds up the integers from 1 to 100, a problem from mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss's childhood.

#!/usr/bin/env python
#
# Does Carl Friedrich Gauss's childhood problem
#

n = 1 # The numbers to add -- start with the first one
nsum = 0 # Sum of all the numbers

# This will be rather Mickey-Mouse,
# but it's to illustrate the algorithm

# Start the loop
while True:
	# Add in the number
	nsum = nsum + n
	
	# Are we done?
	# If so, we quit looping
	if n >= 100: break
	
	# Next number
	n = n + 1

# Final result
print nsum

I wrote it in a few minutes, and it gets the right result: 5,050.

So try to think about what's necessary to get from a natural-language description like "Add up the integers from 1 to 100" to what I wrote.

 

[Elixir]

\ Seems kinda low, unless that loss is concentrated in developed countries mostly.

That's what I thought too.

Besides usual suspects for being fully automated I expect doctors, including surgeons being replaced. A lot of teachers too.

I huge component of medical care is the human component. There will be a lot of sub-optimal outcomes if the doctors are removed from the equation.
What's the medical system in Russia, and how to people like it?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You don't discuss things with dictators or their supporters.

You eliminate them. You move past their primitive dog-like society.

If you have any humanity.

In your world faith trumps reality.

This is an atheist board, however.

In other words dictatorship in any form is an immorality.

You simply are not a very advanced human when it comes to morality.

You are primitive and think morality is religion.

The religion involved is your version of anarchy.

 

[untermensche]

In other words dictatorship in any form is an immorality.

You simply are not a very advanced human when it comes to morality.

You are primitive and think morality is religion.

The religion involved is your version of anarchy.

It is Anarchism not anarchy and you just looked very stupid.

You are defending dictatorship. Defending immorality.

There is no defense for it.

 

[barbos]

\ Seems kinda low, unless that loss is concentrated in developed countries mostly.

That's what I thought too.

Besides usual suspects for being fully automated I expect doctors, including surgeons being replaced. A lot of teachers too.

I huge component of medical care is the human component. There will be a lot of sub-optimal outcomes if the doctors are removed from the equation.

There are a lot of crap result now with human doctors. Imagine robot surgeon which does not make mistakes and 10 times faster.

What's the medical system in Russia, and how to people like it?

It's crappy, sometimes extremely crappy.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

But, on the bright side, if you get out of the hospital, you're able to look forward to a bleak and dreary life in an economic hellhole where your future has been stolen from you by a psychotic dictator.

 

[barbos]

But, on the bright side, if you get out of the hospital, you're able to look forward to a bleak and dreary life in an economic hellhole where your future has been stolen from you by a psychotic dictator.

Obama is not psychotic.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In other words dictatorship in any form is an immorality.

You simply are not a very advanced human when it comes to morality.

You are primitive and think morality is religion.

The religion involved is your version of anarchy.

It is Anarchism not anarchy and you just looked very stupid.

You are defending dictatorship. Defending immorality.

There is no defense for it.

Anarchism, anarchy--same religion.

 

[untermensche]

It is Anarchism not anarchy and you just looked very stupid.

You are defending dictatorship. Defending immorality.

There is no defense for it.

Anarchism, anarchy--same religion.

To the poorly educated no distinctions exist.

You are the one with the religion. You worship dictatorship and tyrannical power.

You stand in the way of real human freedom and progress. But you are no different from anybody too blind to question the immorality they were born in. That takes being a moral person not a mindless tool of others.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is Anarchism not anarchy and you just looked very stupid.

You are defending dictatorship. Defending immorality.

There is no defense for it.

Anarchism, anarchy--same religion.

To the poorly educated no distinctions exist.

You are the one with the religion. You worship dictatorship and tyrannical power.

You stand in the way of real human freedom and progress. But you are no different from anybody too blind to question the immorality they were born in. That takes being a moral person not a mindless tool of others.

I'm not saying to take anything on faith, you are.