SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the Who-trains-the-trainers?-Engineers? dept.
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
The skills gap is widening between people and AI.
Artificial Intelligence is apparently ready to get to work. Over the next three years, as many as 120 million workers from the world's 12 largest economies may need to be retrained because of advances in artificial intelligence and intelligent automation, according to a study released Friday by IBM's Institute for Business Value. However, less than half of CEOs surveyed by IBM said they had the resources needed to close the skills gap brought on by these new technologies.
"Organizations are facing mounting concerns over the widening skills gap and tightened labor markets with the potential to impact their futures as well as worldwide economies," said Amy Wright, a managing partner for IBM Talent & Transformation, in a release. "Yet while executives recognize severity of the problem, half of those surveyed admit that they do not have any skills development strategies in place to address their largest gaps."
[...] IBM says companies should be able to close the skills gap needed for the "era of AI," but that this won't necessarily be easy. The company said global research shows the time it takes to close a skills gap through employee training has grown by more than 10 times in the last four years. That's due in part to new skills requirements rapidly emerging, while other skills become obsolete.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday September 10 2019, @08:39PM (1 child)
Like I said, the core incentives don't change, aimless deregulation is a stupid ideology for extremely stupid people who meticulously misunderstand real-money economics, as actually executed in the real world, and certainly not any sort of realistic understanding of systemic effects beyond the one-variable analysis they tend to fixate on. I don't know how to describe the naivety of tying the extremely inelastic costs of capital expense software projects to the quite elastic curves of day to day operational staff, but it comes from putting an ideological commitment to dumb ideas first, and the supposed analytical underpinnings of that very same ideology as a distant second.
I've yet to see a libertarian economic analysis that looked at how businesses actually operate day to day, or try to estimate what actions would actually produce a profit, the actual mechanics of technological development, or really anything besides just insisting on that they're not idiots while saying the phrase "economics 101".
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 11 2019, @03:45AM
Nothing aimless here. Minimum wage is a very definite target as are other regulation that has similar effect - damages the economy without actually doing anything useful.
And let us keep in mind the half century of offshoring that solidly demonstrates that however much you claim that labor costs (keeping in mind that outsourced labor is not part of your tally so you're not fully counting labor costs), it's enough that they'll go out of their way to reduce it.
Why would an expressly libertarian economic analysis be needed when a normal economic analysis suffices? You admit that labor costs are significant business expenses. And we have a long history of companies dropping expensive labor when they can by shifting to either automation or moving to a cheaper part of the world. So now, we consider a regulation which has the primary effect of making labor more expensive? Law of supply and demand. Increase the cost and there is less demand for the good.
Here's the interesting things I find about minimum wage advocacy. First, it ignores that there's a de facto market-based minimum wage. Instead, somehow companies will pay nothing for labor and labor will somehow accept that. Second, they ignore cost of living except as an excuse for the minimum wage. Much of this regulation increases the cost of living. That includes minimum wage laws themselves. Never do I hear them advocate policies for reducing cost of living. Third, minimum wage laws are one-size-fits-all, another indication that advocates completely ignore cost of living. Fourth, these laws force people to move to higher cost of living areas. A classic example in the US is the exodus of people from Puerto Rico. There's much more than just overly high minimum wage law (for example, cost of living is also affected by overly expensive infrastructure and intracoastal cartels created by regulation) but it's a big part of the problem both in creating a serious unemployment problem that people solve by moving to the US mainland and by pushing away labor intensive businesses.
The libertarian solution would be to reduce the regulatory cost of hiring people, both by eliminating the minimum wage outright and cutting the burdens imposed by poorly thought-out regulation that doesn't consider cost/benefit of the regulation, eliminate the many, many cartel and oligopoly enforcing regulations out there in any country, and cut the revenue streaming through the welfare state.