• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

What will be some new jobs of the future?

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
Joined
May 9, 2014
Messages
2,172
Location
Santa Mira
Basic Beliefs
Utilitarian
Will high-level scientists and certain other experts/professionals be the only ones not replaceable by robots/computers, in the future?

It's possible that most of the current medium- and low-level jobs will be replaced by computers/robots, and that only a minority of today's "jobs" will still be necessary. Plus even many (most?) high-level jobs also will be replaced.

But will there be new jobs different than those of today, needing to be done by humans? And especially, will there be jobs for humans of only average I.Q., who would not have the aptitude to be scientists? Even if a greater percent of humans could be scientists, it seems unlikely that half or even 1/4 of humans have the necessary ability to do scientific research. Only a tiny percent could be an Einstein or George Washington Carver, etc. Hopefully all those with such ability will be "discovered" and channeled into such careers, but the vast majority probably don't have those abilities.

So, what about average humans, whose jobs of today will disappear? What new jobs for average folks will emerge in the future, needing to be done, but which won't be do-able by computers/robots?

I will name one here. This is only one very specialized job, out of millions of other possible future jobs. I'll call this "Political Candidate Test-Creating," for lack of a better term.



Political Candidate Test Creator

In the future -- if not already -- there will be a need to have political candidates be tested to determine their competency. Even now we seem unaware how stupid many of the political candidates are, and so it doesn't occur to us that these job-seekers need to be tested in order to determine their competency to make good decisions.

Sooner or later it will finally become apparent that we need something beyond the current speech-making abilities they show, as a guide to their competency. It is too easy for them to fake it, pretending to have knowledge, when in reality their only talent is to give good speeches. The ability to give a good speech is little or no indicator of one's knowledge of the subject matter they are to deal with.

A state could require all candidates seeking ballot status to take tests on history or public affairs etc., to demonstrate their knowledge. It possibly could even be voluntary, and those refusing to take the tests would be identified to the voters as unwilling to take the tests. So the system could in effect put pressure on them to take the tests, and most or all of them would have their ranking shown on the ballot, indicating how they scored on the tests.


Who would create the tests, to determine what is tested?

The items/questions on the test need not be highly specialized. An ordinary person would have the ability to choose what is included in the tests and put forth to the candidates for them to answer.

These tests need not be only for rating political candidates, but absolutely anyone wishing to take them to determine how their knowledge rates in comparison to others. The tests might be useful for many other purposes beyond judging political candidates. Teachers should also be expected to take such tests, to demonstrate their competency or superior knowledge.

The creation of the tests should be open to absolutely anyone wishing to participate, as volunteers, and some would be hired to do this and paid. Probably those hired would be chosen from among earlier volunteers, after a period of serving and demonstrating special ability or interest in creating the tests.

Isn't this a job which computers/robots could not do? Of course they could make some choices of the content of the tests, but choosing what is important to be tested is not something a machine could do. Deciding what should be tested, or what knowledge the candidates should demonstrate, is a subjective judgment, rather than something mechanical. The computers would have vast memories with all the correct answers, but they could not judge what test items should be on the test for adequately rating the candidates, to judge their competency.

Perhaps the administering and scoring the tests would be mechanical, so the computers would do that part. However, there still has to be human checking procedures to ensure that the tests are administered and scored in a totally neutral way with no chance for any cheating. This might require a number of ordinary workers who would do much checking and monitoring of the procedures. If computers did this part, there is the danger that a fraudulent programmer or technician might be able to subvert the procedure, to falsify the results. So numerous redundancy checks would be necessary, to do verifications at a low technical level. There has to be public confidence that there could be no cheating by parties having exclusive access to information or components.


Performing this function, of creating these tests or choosing what is to be tested, will be a much greater contribution to society than current factory jobs, or jobs in steel mills, which will more and more be replaced by machines.

What are some other jobs of the future which humans could perform and could not be done by machines?
 

bigfield

the baby-eater
Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
4,531
Location
Straya
Basic Beliefs
yeah nah
This is only one very specialized job, out of millions of other possible future jobs. I'll call this "Political Candidate Test-Creating," for lack of a better term.

Neat. Got any others?


Here's some I thought of:

Hoverbike mechanic

Hoverbike salesperson

Hoverbike stunt performer
 

rousseau

Contributor
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
12,156
I've read arguments, and tend to believe that machines have so far grabbed a lot of the.. low-hanging fruit. They're doing the stuff that's not very difficult for machines to do. So the hype of AI taking over the entire economy is somewhat overblown, and is mostly driven by journalists who want ad views and know nothing about the technology they're talking about.

That being said I think this graphic sums it up well:

2013AutorPrice2.png


The people who are going to be most successful in the future are those who have to think, and do non-routine jobs. Machines are good at simple routines.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
More and more situations seem to be being offered to completely erase any sort of inconvenience.
Drive-thru fast-food delivers, now.
You can hire Uber, NOT to get a ride to the supermarket, but to go pick up your groceries.
And the driving around here really makes sense when I realize that they just CANNOT be inconvenienced by waiting for a light, slowing for an obstruction, stopping for a pedestrian. Or blazing through an intersection after the light because 'if that guy three cars ahead hadn't been making a left turn, I'd have made THIS light.'

I expect future job opportunities to blossom around anything that further reduces inconvenience. Some way to get someone to stand in line for you while you're on the way to the DMV so you show up just as your number is called? Some way to get an elevator usher to press the call button while you're parking the car. Some app that pays for the soda as you walk up to the machine because that five second wait after pushing the button is SO 2010...
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
35,738
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
We are seeing an increasing number of jobs that involve doing what people used to do at home.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,514
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
We seem to be selling humans short. Arts and service, especially elder service, are ripe fruit now that birthrates are down and age is up. I just love testing new skills for alexa on people like me who have diminishing memory, mobility, and sense capabilities. When I retired I could still make list sets that beat expert systems in most any field. I expect I can still.

What has increased in intelligent processing is language use and understanding in machines. Even in 2002 language processing systems had error rates too high for normal commerce in low level language transactions. Now, they are getting pretty good mostly due to processing and memory increases rather than new language algorithms. So there's a lot of space still open for human transactional work.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,352
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
Seriously, remember George Jetson? His job at Spacely Sprockets was to sit at his desk and push a button.

We are already seeing robotic machines making robotic machines.

Over the last 30 years the skill required in electrical engineering has slowly diminished. It many cases degraded to the what would be a technician in the past.

Jobs and employment as we know it today will fall by the wayside.

From a show on China it has gone almost paperless in commerce. All transactions are though wireless devices. No cash in major cities. At a fast food place to pay you read a code on a menu with your device.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,352
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
There are robotic machines that put up drywall.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,514
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
Over the last 30 years the skill required in electrical engineering has slowly diminished. It many cases degraded to the what would be a technician in the past.

Probably a symptom of trades where books serve as reference for acceptable solutions.

Science on the other hand has gone to teaming for large and important problems parcelling out bits of uncertainty among many expecting an agreed upon results that work thereby keeping human controlled use of computing.

Unless someone has means to access every problem this approach should be good for as longs as humans exist.

Although if and when problems are resolvable by size and automation I see the possibility that even this avenue will begin to decrease human involvement.

MY view is we need another means for getting humans to feel they are participating in society for their and it's betterment than through work and commerce. Maybe handing out credits for humans in a society or endeavor in proportion to computer betterment of life by some formula related to association of particular human to computer which produces betterment. Symbiotic relations seem important for humans as do feelings of worth.
 
Last edited:

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
Joined
May 9, 2014
Messages
2,172
Location
Santa Mira
Basic Beliefs
Utilitarian
Genuine "job creation"

definition of "job": A need not yet met, which would benefit people if someone would do it.


Here is a "job" which we need someone to do, and which most educated people can do, and which anyone can start doing immediately, and which modern technology makes possible for anyone wanting to do it.

Audiobook reader.

There are billions of books which have not yet been recorded and made available to society.

Anyone can meet this need (i.e., a small part of it) by doing the recording, of whatever book or text they think should be recorded, and posting it on YouTube, or wherever -- any place which allows audio recordings to be posted.

Obviously this doesn't answer how they'd be compensated for their trouble. It would have to be voluntary, at least at first. But a real "job" is anything to do which benefits society, regardless of the compensation.

A real "job" is not the payment to the one doing the job, but the work or contribution or effort done to provide the benefit to society.

Perhaps there is a way to compensate readers, but even if there is not, and it would be voluntary, the point is that there is a huge need, for the audio readings to be made available to society, and the means to do it is very easy, universally accessible, with little need for investment by anyone choosing to undertake to offer their contribution.

Those who have talent and work hard to produce a good recording would have a chance to get compensated, by someone, publishers, who would want recordings done. All readers have to do is start to work on their recording, without needing any degree or credential or college classes as a prerequisite. Just an interest, some ability, and a desire to contribute to society ("change the world" -- "make a difference" etc.).
 

bigfield

the baby-eater
Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
4,531
Location
Straya
Basic Beliefs
yeah nah
Audiobook reader.

There are billions of books which have not yet been recorded and made available to society.

Anyone can meet this need (i.e., a small part of it) by doing the recording, of whatever book or text they think should be recorded, and posting it on YouTube, or wherever -- any place which allows audio recordings to be posted.

Obviously this doesn't answer how they'd be compensated for their trouble. It would have to be voluntary, at least at first. But a real "job" is anything to do which benefits society, regardless of the compensation.

A real "job" is not the payment to the one doing the job, but the work or contribution or effort done to provide the benefit to society.

Perhaps there is a way to compensate readers, but even if there is not, and it would be voluntary, the point is that there is a huge need, for the audio readings to be made available to society, and the means to do it is very easy, universally accessible, with little need for investment by anyone choosing to undertake to offer their contribution.

Those who have talent and work hard to produce a good recording would have a chance to get compensated, by someone, publishers, who would want recordings done. All readers have to do is start to work on their recording, without needing any degree or credential or college classes as a prerequisite. Just an interest, some ability, and a desire to contribute to society ("change the world" -- "make a difference" etc.).

How many have you recorded so far? How much did you spend on recording equipment?
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,352
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
Over the last 30 years the skill required in electrical engineering has slowly diminished. It many cases degraded to the what would be a technician in the past.

Probably a symptom of trades where books serve as reference for acceptable solutions.

Science on the other hand has gone to teaming for large and important problems parcelling out bits of uncertainty among many expecting an agreed upon results that work thereby keeping human controlled use of computing.

Unless someone has means to access every problem this approach should be good for as longs as humans exist.

Although if and when problems are resolvable by size and automation I see the possibility that even this avenue will begin to decrease human involvement.

MY view is we need another means for getting humans to feel they are participating in society for their and it's betterment than through work and commerce. Maybe handing out credits for humans in a society or endeavor in proportion to computer betterment of life by some formula related to association of particular human to computer which produces betterment. Symbiotic relations seem important for humans as do feelings of worth.

CAD software and embedder AI. Synthesis tools in digital systems take general definitions and derive an optimal solution. Drasticaly reduces the amount of skill and experience.

Test engineering used to require skill and experience. Test systems with simplified test script tools have generaly redued test engineering to a technician level.

Mechanical and electrical simulation tools have reduced skill requirement's for design.

And so on.
 

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
Joined
May 9, 2014
Messages
2,172
Location
Santa Mira
Basic Beliefs
Utilitarian
Live Voice Call-Taker/Responder


It may be that many callers seeking assistance can get it with an automated system with no live voice on the other end.

But too often the computerized system is unable to handle an individual case.

Maybe it's appropriate for the caller to go through the automatic system for a time, to make sure, before giving up. A 2nd or 3rd try might be necessary. But at some point there has to be a live voice alternative which can take the complaint or the call for help.

What is needed is a new recruitment of call-takers -- a large number of them -- to deal with all the callers who can't get through the programmed steps putting obstacles in their way.

There needs to be a large new crop of call-takers who can handle callers who are fighting their way through the automated calling system.

Whether it's commercial or government, there seems to be a pattern among those running the system to screen out those who don't know the tricks on how to get through the obstacles. Knowing these tricks is becoming like a skill requirement without which one is excluded from participating in the system.

Sometimes these tricks are like arbitrary glitches, or flukes, not having any logic to them, but just reflecting some system feature adopted somewhere by accident. And the system creators keep adding one onto another, into a system of unnecessary redundancies, like forcing callers to adopt more and more passwords, or joining more and more ID categories, rather than using a simple method of communicating the needed information.

Sometimes just plain sentences, explaining what's needed, communicates it better than the machine language of the digits and clicks and codes and menus.

Eventually the automated system itself becomes so massive that troubleshooting it becomes the problem rather than addressing the need of the help-seeker. At a certain point it's less costly to just hire additional live-voice human responders using ordinary human language to communicate rather than the digital inputs again and again, which fail beyond a certain extended process period as the required steps keep increasing and each new one increases the risk of error and communication breakdown.

Since the human-voice-language communication can also break down, the new call-taker live voice responders need to be trained in recognizing the 2 different kinds of miscommunication, and being prepared to identify them as they occur, and fixing this in individual cases. So in some cases they would direct the caller back into the appropriate automated process.

Perhaps the training of the new responders would be more extensive than a simple one-day quickee course. And OJT could be a major part of the training for this kind of work, so that entry into this field could be easy for someone of little or no higher education, and the new operator could advance to higher levels of performance.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
12,963
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
Basic Beliefs
˙uoıʇdǝɔǝp ɟlǝs ɟo ɯɹoɟ ɐ sı ɥʇıɐℲ
Given a choice, how many callers would opt for an automated voice service over speaking to an operator?
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
6,947
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
Given a choice, how many callers would opt for an automated voice service over speaking to an operator?

I don't think the telephone robo-representative will be accepted until it is an AI with much more flexibility. The the current voice recognition software can only follow a set trouble-shooting tree whether or not it applies to the reason someone called.

I've found a way to fairly quickly get linked to a human agent. For each question, answer "kumquats". Generally within three exchanges I am linked to a human (or a damned good AI).
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2009
Messages
1,345
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
Basic Beliefs
Vedanta. Many worlds physics, Environmentalism, Socialism.
Is our high population and high-tech lifestyle sustainable?
The current pandemic could be just a minor symptom of a looming environmental collapse; a sixth extinction.

I see a bright future for flint knapping.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
35,738
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Given a choice, how many callers would opt for an automated voice service over speaking to an operator?

I don't think the telephone robo-representative will be accepted until it is an AI with much more flexibility. The the current voice recognition software can only follow a set trouble-shooting tree whether or not it applies to the reason someone called.

I've found a way to fairly quickly get linked to a human agent. For each question, answer "kumquats". Generally within three exchanges I am linked to a human (or a damned good AI).

Yeah, if I'm calling I almost certainly need something more than the robot can handle. At best the robot can get me into the right queue.
 

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
Joined
May 9, 2014
Messages
2,172
Location
Santa Mira
Basic Beliefs
Utilitarian
Replace professional judges/lawyers with ordinary citizens, for appeal cases.

Review Panel / Appeal Board member

There are literally millions of appeal cases, of accused criminals, immigrants, and others, many in detention, whose cases are delayed because the courts are clogged with not enough judges/lawyers available to handle them all.

Appeals have to wait months or years to be heard.

Many cases could be heard by ordinary people rather than professional judges paid 200-300 thousand $$$ per year.

Cases of accused criminals could mostly be resolved by ordinary persons who could review the details, watch the videos, hear witnesses, etc., and decide if the guy should stay in detention.

Or immigrant cases could be heard, especially where something criminal is charged.

All those in detention should have the right to choose a non-professional review panel to resolve their case. And millions of ordinary citizens could be recruited to serve on the review panels.
 

bigfield

the baby-eater
Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
4,531
Location
Straya
Basic Beliefs
yeah nah
Review Panel / Appeal Board member

There are literally millions of appeal cases, of accused criminals, immigrants, and others, many in detention, whose cases are delayed because the courts are clogged with not enough judges/lawyers available to handle them all.

Appeals have to wait months or years to be heard.

Many cases could be heard by ordinary people rather than professional judges paid 200-300 thousand $$$ per year.

Cases of accused criminals could mostly be resolved by ordinary persons who could review the details, watch the videos, hear witnesses, etc., and decide if the guy should stay in detention.

Or immigrant cases could be heard, especially where something criminal is charged.

All those in detention should have the right to choose a non-professional review panel to resolve their case. And millions of ordinary citizens could be recruited to serve on the review panels.

I wouldn't trust most ordinary citizens to give a fair review of a local cafe, let alone a fair review of an appeal.

This is anti-intellectualism at work.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
6,947
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
I wouldn't trust most ordinary citizens to give a fair review of a local cafe, let alone a fair review of an appeal.

This is anti-intellectualism at work.
Hey, it couldn't be any worse than getting a lay opinion on the air worthiness of a passenger airplane or getting a lay opinion of a medical diagnosis.
 

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
Joined
May 9, 2014
Messages
2,172
Location
Santa Mira
Basic Beliefs
Utilitarian
Put people to use where they're needed, rather than create "jobs" we don't need them for.

I wouldn't trust most ordinary citizens to give a fair review of a local cafe, let alone a . . .

This isn't about asking them to push the "like" button, or posting their "review" of a movie or business etc. These appeal panel members would function like a jury, where they deliberate after hearing all the facts of the case.

. . let alone a fair review of an appeal.

This is anti-intellectualism at work.
Hey, it couldn't be any worse than getting a lay opinion on the air worthiness of a passenger airplane or getting a lay opinion of a medical diagnosis.

If ordinary people are not qualified to decide anything, then they should not be used to decide guilt-innocence in criminal trials.

There are millions of cases waiting for appeal which are less complicated to resolve than criminal cases.

Those waiting for their appeal, e.g., convicts appealing their case, should have the option to choose a non-professional panel of ordinary citizens. Many would make that choice, rather than having to wait 2 or 3 years.

There have been many TV documentaries, PBS etc., telling of the thousands of cases waiting for appeal.

There is a greater need for appeal jurors than there is for steel workers. All the steel production happens anyway, in China or wherever, so the need is met. But the need to resolve the millions of appeal cases is going unmet.

Of course, your logic might be that those steel workers (or laid-off steel-workers) are ignorant worthless scum, and all we can do with them is put them into steel mills (or factories) to keep them out of mischief, because they're not good for anything practical. So maybe you do have a point.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
6,947
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
Of course, your logic might be that those steel workers (or laid-off steel-workers) are ignorant worthless scum, and all we can do with them is put them into steel mills (or factories) to keep them out of mischief, because they're not good for anything practical. So maybe you do have a point.
Now that is asinine 'reasoning'. I wouldn't trust an aircraft engineer, medical doctor, judge, or lawyer to operate a steel foundry. Engineers, doctors, steel workers, etc. understand their fields but are much less qualified than those trained and experienced in different fields.

Judges are trained and experienced in law so are qualified to 'try the trial' that is under appeal. Engineers, doctors, steel workers, etc. are not trained and qualified in law.

But then you are apparently ignorant of what an appeal entails. It is not a retrial. It is an 'examination of the trial' to insure that all procedures were legal, above board, and that the sentence is within guidlines.
 
Last edited:

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,075
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
skepticalbip said:
Hey, it couldn't be any worse than getting a lay opinion on the air worthiness of a passenger airplane or getting a lay opinion of a medical diagnosis.
If ordinary people are not qualified to decide anything, then they should not be used to decide guilt-innocence in criminal trials.
Doesn't follow. Ordinary people aren't qualified to decide guilt-innocence in criminal trials. They should be used anyway, because of the Untouchables principle. "If you're afraid of getting a rotten apple, don't go to the barrel. Get it off the tree."
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
35,738
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Review Panel / Appeal Board member

There are literally millions of appeal cases, of accused criminals, immigrants, and others, many in detention, whose cases are delayed because the courts are clogged with not enough judges/lawyers available to handle them all.

Appeals have to wait months or years to be heard.

Many cases could be heard by ordinary people rather than professional judges paid 200-300 thousand $$$ per year.

Cases of accused criminals could mostly be resolved by ordinary persons who could review the details, watch the videos, hear witnesses, etc., and decide if the guy should stay in detention.

Or immigrant cases could be heard, especially where something criminal is charged.

All those in detention should have the right to choose a non-professional review panel to resolve their case. And millions of ordinary citizens could be recruited to serve on the review panels.

Horrible idea. A judge should understand the law!

The basic problem is we don't don't fund enough judge positions--it's not just the judge, but the whole courtroom and supporting infrastructure.
 

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
Joined
May 9, 2014
Messages
2,172
Location
Santa Mira
Basic Beliefs
Utilitarian
Review Panel / Appeal Board member

There are literally millions of appeal cases, of accused criminals, immigrants, and others, many in detention, whose cases are delayed because the courts are clogged with not enough judges/lawyers available to handle them all.

Appeals have to wait months or years to be heard.

Many cases could be heard by ordinary people rather than professional judges paid 200-300 thousand $$$ per year.

Cases of accused criminals could mostly be resolved by ordinary persons who could review the details, watch the videos, hear witnesses, etc., and decide if the guy should stay in detention.

Or immigrant cases could be heard, especially where something criminal is charged.

All those in detention should have the right to choose a non-professional review panel to resolve their case. And millions of ordinary citizens could be recruited to serve on the review panels.

Horrible idea. A judge should understand the law!

And what does it require to "understand the law"? 4 years of college, then 4 more years of law school? Half a million $$$$$ of higher-education costs?


The basic problem is we don't don't fund enough judge positions--it's not just the judge, but the whole courtroom and supporting infrastructure.

"enough judge positions"?

We would need another 100,000 of them to meet the need. Probably half a million. Plus new courtroom facilities and infrastructure = billions $$$$ more. We can't afford it.

In the Roman Empire they had criminal cases decided by the Senate. So millions of cases never got heard, because there weren't enough Senators to judge all the cases.

Sometimes it's better to eliminate the elitists who are given the power, and instead let average folks make the decisions, because most of it is not rocket science.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
35,738
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
And what does it require to "understand the law"? 4 years of college, then 4 more years of law school? Half a million $$$$$ of higher-education costs?


The basic problem is we don't don't fund enough judge positions--it's not just the judge, but the whole courtroom and supporting infrastructure.

"enough judge positions"?

We would need another 100,000 of them to meet the need. Probably half a million. Plus new courtroom facilities and infrastructure = billions $$$$ more. We can't afford it.

In the Roman Empire they had criminal cases decided by the Senate. So millions of cases never got heard, because there weren't enough Senators to judge all the cases.

Sometimes it's better to eliminate the elitists who are given the power, and instead let average folks make the decisions, because most of it is not rocket science.

If you have just the average person decide things it would be worse than what we have now.
 

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
Joined
May 9, 2014
Messages
2,172
Location
Santa Mira
Basic Beliefs
Utilitarian
And what does it require to "understand the law"? 4 years of college, then 4 more years of law school? Half a million $$$$$ of higher-education costs?


The basic problem is we don't don't fund enough judge positions--it's not just the judge, but the whole courtroom and supporting infrastructure.

"enough judge positions"?

We would need another 100,000 of them to meet the need. Probably half a million. Plus new courtroom facilities and infrastructure = billions $$$$ more. We can't afford it.

In the Roman Empire they had criminal cases decided by the Senate. So millions of cases never got heard, because there weren't enough Senators to judge all the cases.

Sometimes it's better to eliminate the elitists who are given the power, and instead let average folks make the decisions, because most of it is not rocket science.

If you have just the average person decide things it would be worse than what we have now.

So you disagree with the jury system. You'd have the City Council, or State Legislature, hear all the cases and decide guilt/innocence, because having the average people (juries) decide it is worse than we'd get from the elected demagogue-elitist speech-makers. Why do you think speech-maker elitists would perform the function better?
 

bigfield

the baby-eater
Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
4,531
Location
Straya
Basic Beliefs
yeah nah
If you have just the average person decide things it would be worse than what we have now.

So you disagree with the jury system. You'd have the City Council, or State Legislature, hear all the cases and decide guilt/innocence, because having the average people (juries) decide it is worse than we'd get from the elected demagogue-elitist speech-makers. Why do you think speech-maker elitists would perform the function better?

A jury usually consists of a dozen people, not one. One person can make rash or wildly irrational judgements; twelve people from different backgrounds are far less likely to form a rash or irrational consensus. The jury system is costly and inefficient, which is why jury trials are limited to cases where the defendant is facing significant prison time.

Judges should not be popularly elected, nor should they be appointed by legislators. Both are failures of the US legal system and aren't the norm in other parts of the world. In other countries, judges are appointed by an independent committee of experts, and they are selected for their expertise.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
35,738
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
If you have just the average person decide things it would be worse than what we have now.

So you disagree with the jury system. You'd have the City Council, or State Legislature, hear all the cases and decide guilt/innocence, because having the average people (juries) decide it is worse than we'd get from the elected demagogue-elitist speech-makers. Why do you think speech-maker elitists would perform the function better?

A jury usually consists of a dozen people, not one. One person can make rash or wildly irrational judgements; twelve people from different backgrounds are far less likely to form a rash or irrational consensus. The jury system is costly and inefficient, which is why jury trials are limited to cases where the defendant is facing significant prison time.

Judges should not be popularly elected, nor should they be appointed by legislators. Both are failures of the US legal system and aren't the norm in other parts of the world. In other countries, judges are appointed by an independent committee of experts, and they are selected for their expertise.

And why I would like to see the current system replaced with professional juries. "Juror" would be a profession, it would require a degree that covered a lot of fields but not that deeply.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,150
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
any
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
A jury usually consists of a dozen people, not one. One person can make rash or wildly irrational judgements; twelve people from different backgrounds are far less likely to form a rash or irrational consensus. The jury system is costly and inefficient, which is why jury trials are limited to cases where the defendant is facing significant prison time.

Judges should not be popularly elected, nor should they be appointed by legislators. Both are failures of the US legal system and aren't the norm in other parts of the world. In other countries, judges are appointed by an independent committee of experts, and they are selected for their expertise.

And why I would like to see the current system replaced with professional juries. "Juror" would be a profession, it would require a degree that covered a lot of fields but not that deeply.

That would open the door to further significant economic, religious, and racial disparities in juries. I would love to be such a professional juror (I'm one of those odd ducks that actually enjoys getting called in) but it would hurt the very notion of trial before one's peers if the majority of jurors were educated and the majority of the accused were not. I could imagine this working okay if we had free and accessible education, but that isn't how things stand in the U.S. The current jury pool is unbalanced as it is, simply because of how it is garnered.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
6,947
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
If you have just the average person decide things it would be worse than what we have now.

So you disagree with the jury system. You'd have the City Council, or State Legislature, hear all the cases and decide guilt/innocence, because having the average people (juries) decide it is worse than we'd get from the elected demagogue-elitist speech-makers. Why do you think speech-maker elitists would perform the function better?
You seem to still be conflating jury trials and appeals. Or is it that you have dropped your idea of how appeals should be handled and moved on to how trials should be handled?
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
And what does it require to "understand the law"? 4 years of college, then 4 more years of law school? Half a million $$$$$ of higher-education costs?


The basic problem is we don't don't fund enough judge positions--it's not just the judge, but the whole courtroom and supporting infrastructure.

"enough judge positions"?

We would need another 100,000 of them to meet the need. Probably half a million. Plus new courtroom facilities and infrastructure = billions $$$$ more. We can't afford it.

In the Roman Empire they had criminal cases decided by the Senate. So millions of cases never got heard, because there weren't enough Senators to judge all the cases.

Sometimes it's better to eliminate the elitists who are given the power, and instead let average folks make the decisions, because most of it is not rocket science.

If you have just the average person decide things it would be worse than what we have now.
Think about the McDonald's coffee case. Most legal experts agree it was a good decision, a fair award, good law.
Corporate America campaigned to convince the average Joe it was bad law, juries gone crazy, litigation out of control. Which is where most of them still seem to be.
Let's have legal experts fo law. Joe average doing an appeal would be taking a compound fracture to the essential oils saleslady for treatment.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
35,738
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
A jury usually consists of a dozen people, not one. One person can make rash or wildly irrational judgements; twelve people from different backgrounds are far less likely to form a rash or irrational consensus. The jury system is costly and inefficient, which is why jury trials are limited to cases where the defendant is facing significant prison time.

Judges should not be popularly elected, nor should they be appointed by legislators. Both are failures of the US legal system and aren't the norm in other parts of the world. In other countries, judges are appointed by an independent committee of experts, and they are selected for their expertise.

And why I would like to see the current system replaced with professional juries. "Juror" would be a profession, it would require a degree that covered a lot of fields but not that deeply.

That would open the door to further significant economic, religious, and racial disparities in juries. I would love to be such a professional juror (I'm one of those odd ducks that actually enjoys getting called in) but it would hurt the very notion of trial before one's peers if the majority of jurors were educated and the majority of the accused were not. I could imagine this working okay if we had free and accessible education, but that isn't how things stand in the U.S. The current jury pool is unbalanced as it is, simply because of how it is garnered.

How would that be worse than the current situation where we have a strong bias towards juries of the less competent?
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,150
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
any
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
That would open the door to further significant economic, religious, and racial disparities in juries. I would love to be such a professional juror (I'm one of those odd ducks that actually enjoys getting called in) but it would hurt the very notion of trial before one's peers if the majority of jurors were educated and the majority of the accused were not. I could imagine this working okay if we had free and accessible education, but that isn't how things stand in the U.S. The current jury pool is unbalanced as it is, simply because of how it is garnered.

How would that be worse than the current situation where we have a strong bias towards juries of the less competent?

Evidence?
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
That would open the door to further significant economic, religious, and racial disparities in juries. I would love to be such a professional juror (I'm one of those odd ducks that actually enjoys getting called in) but it would hurt the very notion of trial before one's peers if the majority of jurors were educated and the majority of the accused were not. I could imagine this working okay if we had free and accessible education, but that isn't how things stand in the U.S. The current jury pool is unbalanced as it is, simply because of how it is garnered.

How would that be worse than the current situation where we have a strong bias towards juries of the less competent?

Evidence?
Anecdotal. The joke about avoiding a trial because your life us in the hands of 12 people that couldn't get out of jury duty.

Fact is, most judges have the latitude to set aside a jury decision, if they were complete idiots and fell for the lawyer's bullshit. The fact that this is rarely done seems to indicate that somehow, these knuckledraggers muddle thru well enough for govt. purposes.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,150
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
any
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
I don't see why a lawyer would want an unusually dumb jury. Sure, they might be more likely to fall for your nonsense, but they are also more likely to fall for your opponent's nonsense. In any case, many legal arguments would be rather difficult for complete idiots to follow, so you'd want a group who at least seems marginally aware of how thoughts are supposed to flow together.

"What's that he said? The guy's mind was in a frame? Is he saying he was framed? I thought he was on the other guy's side. Whatever, I'm hungry, when's lunch break?"

That sounds more like a lawyer's nightmare than their inherent bias.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
35,738
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
That would open the door to further significant economic, religious, and racial disparities in juries. I would love to be such a professional juror (I'm one of those odd ducks that actually enjoys getting called in) but it would hurt the very notion of trial before one's peers if the majority of jurors were educated and the majority of the accused were not. I could imagine this working okay if we had free and accessible education, but that isn't how things stand in the U.S. The current jury pool is unbalanced as it is, simply because of how it is garnered.

How would that be worse than the current situation where we have a strong bias towards juries of the less competent?

Evidence?

The highly competent tend to be in situations where jury duty is a substantial burden. Especially for big trials you tend to end up with those who aren't working or have other important obligations.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,150
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
any
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Evidence?

The highly competent tend to be in situations where jury duty is a substantial burden. Especially for big trials you tend to end up with those who aren't working or have other important obligations.
That doesn't generally excuse them from duty. Turning jury duty into a low-paying permanent job would not change that situation in any case.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
35,738
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The highly competent tend to be in situations where jury duty is a substantial burden.
That depends on the company, not their competence. My company supports jury duty at any position.

Large companies can. Smaller companies might very well have only one person in the role. Or they are in a position where substitution isn't easy--my father was a college professor. Again and again they would call him during the school year, he would point out that there weren't spare teachers laying around to substitute, he would be happy to serve during the summer. They always excused him and never followed up on his offer of serving in summer.
 

atrib

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
1,885
Location
Columbia, SC
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Many cases could be heard by ordinary people rather than professional judges paid 200-300 thousand $$$ per year.

Cases of accused criminals could mostly be resolved by ordinary persons who could review the details, watch the videos, hear witnesses, etc., and decide if the guy should stay in detention.

Most ordinary people know very little about the law. So, terrible idea.
 

atrib

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
1,885
Location
Columbia, SC
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
And what does it require to "understand the law"? 4 years of college, then 4 more years of law school?

At a bare minimum, yes. Plus requirements for getting licensed (admitted to the Bar) which would include training and passing a test.
 

atrib

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
1,885
Location
Columbia, SC
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
If you have just the average person decide things it would be worse than what we have now.

So you disagree with the jury system. You'd have the City Council, or State Legislature, hear all the cases and decide guilt/innocence, because having the average people (juries) decide it is worse than we'd get from the elected demagogue-elitist speech-makers. Why do you think speech-maker elitists would perform the function better?

Juries don't make laws. They are instructed in the law by a Judge. The jury's duty is to examine the evidence presented and render a verdict based on the instructions provided by the Judge.

The decision rendered by the jury can also be set aside by the trial Judge, or by other Judges during the appeal process.
 
Top Bottom