SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the moderation-in-all-things,-including-moderation dept.
An interesting writeup on Harvard Business Publishing blog by Michael Harris, discusses what most of us have already known, but each of us have colleagues (or worse, bosses) who still don't get it:
"In early April a series of reports appeared online in the United States and the United Kingdom lamenting the "lazy French." A new labor law in France had apparently banned organizations from e-mailing their employees after 6 p.m. In fact, it turned out to be more a case of "lazy journalists" than "lazy French": as The Economist explained, the "law" was not a law at all but a labor agreement aimed at improving health among a specific group of professionals, and there wasn't even a hard curfew for digital communication.
Like all myths, however, this one revealed a set of abiding values subscribed to by the folk who perpetuated it. Brits and Americans have long suspected that the French (and others) are goofing off while they the good corporate soldiers continue to toil away. They're proud about it too. A Gallup poll, released in May, found that most U.S. workers see their constant connection with officemates as a positive. In the age of the smartphone, there's no such thing as "downtime," and we profess to be happier and more productive for it.
Are we, though? After reviewing thousands of books, articles and papers on the topic and interviewing dozens of experts in fields from neurobiology and psychology to education and literature, I don't think so. When we accept this new and permanent ambient workload checking business news in bed or responding to coworkers' emails during breakfast we may believe that we are dedicated, tireless workers. But, actually, we're mostly just getting the small, easy things done. Being busy does not equate to being effective."
(Score: 2) by Common Joe on Wednesday August 06 2014, @05:31AM
Sorry I couldn't reply sooner. Your reply deserves a reply. On another note -- I'm not a fan of watching videos (too much time to watch for usually so little benefit), but I did watch the video you supplied.
It makes me question: what was the benefit of buying a machine if it didn't ultimately reduce the workforce? The machine cost money to do the work that a regular person could have done. I suppose It is possible that it reduced human error involved and produced more consistent fries. That is a different kind of machine than the ones I was talking about.
No. I actually believe there are three major areas that our economy is based on: agriculture / food production, manufacturing / construction, and services. Agriculture and food production is dominated by the big boys. It is basically impossible to have small farms run by just a family of 4 or 5 anymore. It's not economically sustainable. Large machines now cover what many people used to. Manufacturing has been hurt as shown in a number of areas. It's not the say that we don't have manufacturing in the U.S. We do, but not to the extent that we used to and the manufacturing we do have is usually for larger items which require larger companies. The innovative spirit seems to be dying since it is harder for smaller companies to start up and survive in the manufacturing industry. (Small manufacturing has a hard time competing with nations that do not have the same legal and moral requirements that the U.S. has, so a lot of this is outsourced. Go look and see how many items in Wal-Mart are actually made in the U.S. Wal-Mart used to pride itself on U.S. made brands.) Finally, services seems to be trudging along, but they are impacted because of the other two. Who does a service person service if food and manufacturing people don't form the basis underneath? Service requires an outside source of income because service must pay money to food and manufacturing for the things they do. And not everyone has the talent to be in service industry as not everyone is a people-person. (I hope this paragraph was clear. I can try to clarify in a further post if it wasn't.)
Hard to say if there are legs or not, but I can say that median income when adjusted for inflation has gone down in the past few decades. Think of it this way: can a family of four comfortably on only a median income brought home by one person? I know there are graphs like this [wikipedia.org], that show it going up, but 1) this graph reflects tends to reflect a two-person income 2) government has changed the definition of inflation a couple of times since 1980 and 3) inflation no longer includes food and oil prices -- something the U.S. economy very much is influenced by. (An honestly, $52K a year is not good enough to raise a family, buy healthy food and good quality computer and internet for everyone in the family, set aside retirement money, and deal with medical emergencies or car-fix emergencies, etc.)
I'm no economic expert. Far from it. A lot of what I say is based on personal observation and that is certainly biased. I also believe a lot of data floating around is also biased. (Lies, damned lies, and statistics.) I do try to use logic and imagination, though. How often would a person have to retrain in their lifetime? Who would pay for it? (Businesses are not in a mood to retrain people who have been downsized these days. They're not usually in a mood to train their own employees that they retain.) How does one know what to be retrained in? How long is retraining vs the ability to use that information? How can a person who has no talent to foresee what will be popular for a number of years get retrained and earn enough money until they should be retrained / job hop again or retire? Some of these questions I ask (and try to find answers for) because of my own personal reasons. It always seems to be a struggle to keep up with the pace of life.
And thanks for a decent reply. Sometimes people get flamed for a response like mine or yours. I'm simply looking for a good dialog to learn from and it appears you are too.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday August 07 2014, @06:00PM
I appreciate that, thank you.
"It makes me question: what was the benefit of buying a machine if it didn't ultimately reduce the workforce?"
It improved efficiency. Not only were the same amount of fries being put into each basket, making inventory more predictable, it meant less getting spilled on the floor to end up as waste. It also meant the workers spending less time doing that task so they can work on others. You could make the argument that there were fewer work hours because it indirectly lead to the closing process being shorter, and you'd be right. However I'd argue that nobody I worked with wanted the closing process to be longer.
"(I hope this paragraph was clear. I can try to clarify in a further post if it wasn't.)"
It's worth pointing out that there's a more prominent problem in that the labor is being shifted around to the various poor regions of the planet. When they get enough work that they can raise their prices, the next poor country gets in line to do the work. My point isn't that we shouldn't blame everything on automation, rather that we're already seeing the effects of it and are dealing with it accordingly. One of the results of this ... call it either efficiency or lower prices is more products are being produced. Not only does that mean more people are buying stuff (i.e. jobs in stores etc...) but it also means that a facility could have fewer employees, yet more locations to get a job at.
" Some of these questions I ask (and try to find answers for) because of my own personal reasons. It always seems to be a struggle to keep up with the pace of life."
I work in a field where this is almost an inevitability. Right now I'm about one-third of the way through my career, and it's heavily tech based. There's a very serious possibility that my job could be automated or 'teched' away. I don't know anything about your situation but if it'll help I'll offer my outlook: I am optimistic. Why? The skillset I have today is not like the skillset I had last year. As things change, I adapt. Sometimes I get held back, my knowledge of yesteryear's software is still indemand. Sometimes I jolt forward, I'm ahead of a lot of people in effectively using the new round of software we have. Sometimes my foot slips off the pedal and I crash into the ground. I discovered recently that I do NOT have the talent I need to move up to the next phase of my career. That's actually a good thing, though, as I know what to study now to start developing that ability. I have a plan for what I will study during my next round of down-time. And ya know what? Just having that plan keeps me optimistic
Back onto the topic of automation. I totally understand that the economy is based on the idea of no free lunch. I also understand that some of the laws of thermodynamics probably apply, at least in a metaphorical sense. It's not that I believe there aren't limits, it's that I don't think that we're seeing the entire picture. Even if we start building humanoid robots, people will still want favors from other people. As long as that happens, supply and demand will kick in, and things will continue to circulate. I hope that makes sense.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈