- 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
re: What should be done about workers who get displaced by technology?
Posted on 7/30/14 at 2:15 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
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).
1
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?
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News