Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
posted by janrinok on Sunday August 03 2014, @04:49AM   Printer-friendly
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."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday August 03 2014, @11:25PM

    by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Sunday August 03 2014, @11:25PM (#77014)
    "I didn't look up any videos about pencil making, but I'm going to assume you're saying it's fairly involved to get machines to do anything."

    Welp, you should have [youtube.com] since you missed a fair chunk of my point. Just because you can automate one thing doesn't mean you can automate another. Seriously, have a peek at that video, the machinery they use has little in common with what it'd take to assemble a Big Mac. In other words, until we have humanoid robots, there is not going to be some sudden revolution in automation that's going to put people out of work. Instead what happens is they move around to other tasks. And you know what? This is not a new thing! When I worked in fast food we got a machine that automatically loaded up baskets with fries to put in the fryer. What was employment life like before and after that machine arrived? Not that much different except we had another machine to load up and clean from time to time. They didn't buy it then fire somebody. At a retail job I ended up at later they went through a process of computerizing a chunk of the inventory. Again, a change in our work procedures, no change in staffing. This sort of stuff is common place and HAS been since the dawn of using machinery to produce goods. At the end of the day we're not seeing a correlation between the rise of automation and the rise of unemployment. As it turns out as workers we're just a little too versatile. That machine that can make burgers, it cannot clean itself, it cannot unload the supplies from the truck, and it cannot make decisions about how much to make

    "Question for you: You say there the jobs will "always" be there that require humans to program and make these food-making machines, right?"

    I do see why you'd make that assumption but, no, I did not nor am I making that point. My point is that we need to start mass producing Commander Datas or maybe Johnny Fives before we can seriously start worrying about the workforce. Even the ... um... dimmer bulbs have a huge edge over automation. I don't think the main point of your question is likely to be a real issue for decades if not centuries. However, I will take a serious stab at trying to answer at least the spirit of the question, but I'm going to be a jerk and answer it with another question: Do you really think our economy is strictly based on production of physical goods? I ask because the services people provide change all the time. In light of the way the internet is developing, we're seeing new markets created. There are people doing things that are earning them money that was not possible twenty years ago. It's not a lot right now, but who is to say it won't turn in to something down the road? Not only do we need our cheeseburgers, but we also need a variety of entertainment. And I'm not talking strictly about somebody being a goofball on Youtube. Just today I went to a flea market and bought a painting of a dog that actually sort of resembles Grumpy Cat. Why? I just liked it, it made me laugh. That's what I mean by entertainment. No, I don't need this painting. But it was fun.

    We keep finding new and ingenious ways of spending money. If that didn't happen, the economic doomsday scenario would already have serious legs by now.
    --
    🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Common Joe on Wednesday August 06 2014, @05:31AM

    by Common Joe (33) <{common.joe.0101} {at} {gmail.com}> on Wednesday August 06 2014, @05:31AM (#77905) Journal

    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.

    Not that much different except we had another machine to load up and clean from time to time. They didn't buy it then fire somebody.

    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.

    Do you really think our economy is strictly based on production of physical goods? I ask because the services people provide change all the time.

    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.)

    We keep finding new and ingenious ways of spending money. If that didn't happen, the economic doomsday scenario would already have serious legs by now.

    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

      by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 07 2014, @06:00PM (#78542)
      "...but I did watch the video you supplied."

      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 🏳️‍🌈