- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
What should be done about workers who get displaced by technology?
Posted on 7/30/14 at 1:16 pm
Posted on 7/30/14 at 1:16 pm
First, let me say that I absolutely support automation, efficiency, and technological improvements, as long they increase productivity and reduce costs, but even though there is a net benefit for the economy, workers in certain trades are displaced. They'll be forced to go into a new field, which requires training and schooling. Should they be helped in this transition period?
Increasing productivity with lower levels of manpower is a great thing, and inevitable in a capitalist economy, but thus so are skilled men and women who are, economically speaking, useless.
Increasing productivity with lower levels of manpower is a great thing, and inevitable in a capitalist economy, but thus so are skilled men and women who are, economically speaking, useless.
15
Posted on 7/30/14 at 1:17 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Nothing.
Posted on 7/30/14 at 1:17 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
There are technical schools available to them now.
This post was edited on 7/30/14 at 1:19 pm
Posted on 7/30/14 at 1:19 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
The traditional answer is new jobs will arise to replace the obsolete one. It's arguable that there's been a paradigm shift and that will not be true going forward. So your question is a good one, and no one knows the answer.
Optimists will say it will be a new age of abundance, no one will have to work, and everyone will be free to pursue their leisure interests. I hope so, but I'm a bit skeptical. I think there will be a lot of social dislocation as this sorts itself out.
Optimists will say it will be a new age of abundance, no one will have to work, and everyone will be free to pursue their leisure interests. I hope so, but I'm a bit skeptical. I think there will be a lot of social dislocation as this sorts itself out.
Posted on 7/30/14 at 1:20 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
They had better learn a new skill.
yes, people can learn at any age.
yes, people can learn at any age.
Posted on 7/30/14 at 1:20 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Good question. I'm not 100% sure about that.
Posted on 7/30/14 at 1:23 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Should they be helped in this transition period?
I so want to say yes. But you're implying government assistance and by it's very nature that would grow to be another unsustainable beast of burden.
So no. They should not. We will be better for it in the long run.
Posted on 7/30/14 at 1:23 pm to Jim Rockford
quote:What about income?
no one will have to work,
Posted on 7/30/14 at 1:25 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Nothing.
I second this. There are already a myriad of avenues available to people to assist in career change included but not limited to grants and loans for trade/tech schools.
If they don't have the motivation or are too stubborn to move on to something different to be productive, I don't have a lot of sympathy.
Posted on 7/30/14 at 1:26 pm to Jim Rockford
quote:
Optimists will say it will be a new age of abundance, no one will have to work, and everyone will be free to pursue their leisure interests.
There will never be a day that this is achieved. Human greed would have to be overcome first, and I don't consider that a possibility.
Posted on 7/30/14 at 1:36 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
This actually will be a big problem going forward. I'd venture to say that a lot of people on here will have jobs that will be made obsolete sooner than they expect. It's getting to the point that we don't really even need actual humans to do tasks such as writing papers or making spreadsheets. Most trading that occurs in our capital markets is executed by algorithms.
Posted on 7/30/14 at 1:41 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:They are only useless in times of contracting employment.
ncreasing productivity with lower levels of manpower is a great thing, and inevitable in a capitalist economy, but thus so are skilled men and women who are, economically speaking, useless.
Eliminate corporate taxes. Companies will flock to the US. Employment of those individuals along with any necessary retraining will take care of itself. Employed citizens pay taxes.
Posted on 7/30/14 at 1:46 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
What about income?
Again, optimists say goods and services will be so abundant as to be free or nearly free. The old laws of supply and demand will no longer apply. Like I said, I'm skeptical.
What does society do when there are no jobs available for the majority of the population, no matter how willing they are to work, what they're willing to train for or where they're willing to move? Nobody knows.
Posted on 7/30/14 at 2:15 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
There is a long-view and a short-view answer to this.
The long-view is for us to reliably predict the fields that will offer better opportunities for sustained employment, and to work with high schools and colleges to encourage students to go into those fields. This isn't hard to do, but, for some reason, it's not happening now.
The short-term view is to try to match up people in fields that are getting phased out, with fields that need more workers. For example, manufacturing workers have skills that can probably be easily transistioned over to working offshore, or to working in an oil refinery or checmical plant. There will be some need for re-training, but it should not be an insurmountable amount. Of course, this is going to require people to be flexible in where they live, etc.
As far as how to pay for all this re-training, I think that will be shared by public colleges and universities (which ultimately means the taxpayers) as well as the industries which need the workers. For those of you who feel the government should not spend money on this, I'd rather the money be spent on this than on welfare and unemployment. (and as much as some of you want it, getting rid completely of welfare and unemployment is not going to happen, so we better learn to use it more wisely).
The long-view is for us to reliably predict the fields that will offer better opportunities for sustained employment, and to work with high schools and colleges to encourage students to go into those fields. This isn't hard to do, but, for some reason, it's not happening now.
The short-term view is to try to match up people in fields that are getting phased out, with fields that need more workers. For example, manufacturing workers have skills that can probably be easily transistioned over to working offshore, or to working in an oil refinery or checmical plant. There will be some need for re-training, but it should not be an insurmountable amount. Of course, this is going to require people to be flexible in where they live, etc.
As far as how to pay for all this re-training, I think that will be shared by public colleges and universities (which ultimately means the taxpayers) as well as the industries which need the workers. For those of you who feel the government should not spend money on this, I'd rather the money be spent on this than on welfare and unemployment. (and as much as some of you want it, getting rid completely of welfare and unemployment is not going to happen, so we better learn to use it more wisely).
Posted on 7/30/14 at 2:18 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Eliminate corporate taxes
Posted on 7/30/14 at 2:20 pm to Jim Rockford
My family is still getting a stagecoach subsidiary thanks to that a-hole Ford.
Posted on 7/30/14 at 2:54 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
What should be done about workers who get displaced by technology?
We've made it this far, haven't we? Technology has been replacing workers for a long, long time, and even though the pace of advancement is fast, it is still "gradual" on the large scale. I think the workforce will be able to keep up with the rate of change.
Automation increases profits, which increases tax revenue, which can be used to put some displaced workers back to work on things like public works projects. We have a lot of old, failing infrastructure... bridges, roads, water lines. These obviously require some skilled workers, but these projects usually have a good amount of "lightly-trained" workers.
Also, the other side of the coin is that some technology advancements are creating new jobs. The solar panel industry, for example... it doesn't take a whole lot of training to learn how to install a solar panel, and there are a lot of naked roofs in this country.
Government's role, at all levels, is to stop tripping over each other's dicks and start recognizing where money needs to go for construction, training, etc. Every dollar that puts someone to work rather than given to someone sitting around the house is a dollar better spent.
Posted on 7/30/14 at 2:55 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:They should help themselves by staying marketable. Why in the frick is self-reliance and individualism a dying art form?
Should they be helped in this transition period?
Posted on 7/30/14 at 2:57 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:
There is a long-view and a short-view answer to this.
The long-view is for us to reliably predict the fields that will offer better opportunities for sustained employment, and to work with high schools and colleges to encourage students to go into those fields. This isn't hard to do, but, for some reason, it's not happening now.
The short-term view is to try to match up people in fields that are getting phased out, with fields that need more workers. For example, manufacturing workers have skills that can probably be easily transistioned over to working offshore, or to working in an oil refinery or checmical plant. There will be some need for re-training, but it should not be an insurmountable amount. Of course, this is going to require people to be flexible in where they live, etc.
As far as how to pay for all this re-training, I think that will be shared by public colleges and universities (which ultimately means the taxpayers) as well as the industries which need the workers. For those of you who feel the government should not spend money on this, I'd rather the money be spent on this than on welfare and unemployment. (and as much as some of you want it, getting rid completely of welfare and unemployment is not going to happen, so we better learn to use it more wisely).
You guys are missing the OP's point. We're on the cusp of a different world, a paradigm shift.. What do you do when there are no jobs to be retrained for, when Everything can be done better and more efficiently by machines, from assembly-line work to truck driving, to architecture, to engineering, to medicine.
That's a hypothetical question now. It may be very real in the next 15-20 years. There will be a place for a few humans for the forseeable future, but instead of a department with 20 human engineers, you may have a department with two or three, supervising a process that's mostly automated. What happens to the other ones? When a machine can do an engineer's job, WTF is left for humans to train for?
Posted on 7/30/14 at 2:59 pm to Jim Rockford
quote:
When a machine can do an engineer's job, WTF is left for humans to train for?
I don't know...porn? I guess that industry might eventually just replace everyone with sexy robots, though, so who knows.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News