SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the ya-tvoy-sluga-ya-tvoy-rabotnik dept.
regift_of_the_gods writes:
"A study that was published last year by two Oxford researchers predicted that 47 percent of US jobs could be computerized within the next 20 years, including both manual labor and high cognition office work. The Oxford report presented three axes to show what types of jobs were relatively safe from being routed by robots and software; those requiring high levels of social intelligence (public relations), creativity (scientist, fashion designer), or perception and manipulation (surgeon) were less likely to be displaced.
This further obsolescence of jobs due to automation may have already begun. The Financial Times describes an emerging wave of products and services from algorithmic-intensive, data-rich tech startups that will threaten increasing numbers of jobs including both knowledge and blue collar workers. The lead example is Kensho, a startup founded by ex-Google and Apple engineers that is building an engine to estimate the impact of real or hypothetical news items on security prices, with questions posed in a natural language. Specialist knowledge workers in many other fields, including law and medicine, could also be at risk. At lower income levels, the dangerous are posed by increasingly agile and autonomous robots, such as those Amazon uses to staff some of its fulfillment warehouses.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by WillAdams on Tuesday March 04 2014, @04:35PM
Why not just reduce what's considered a full-time job?
That's what was done during the great depression to help get more people employed.
(Score: 1) by Geezer on Tuesday March 04 2014, @04:53PM
Actually, it was the run-up to World War II that got the economy going again, the Vinson-Walsh "Two-Ocean Navy" Act being a big part of that.
Re-defining full-time employment without a commensurate adjustment in compensation merely serves to devalue it.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday March 04 2014, @05:02PM
"merely serves to devalue it."
Part of the purpose might be to produce conversations like:
"Your anti-corporate protest sounds like fun and I'd love to attend, but I have a 4 hour working shift right in the middle, after the drumming circle but before the food riot on the schedule, so I'll take a raincheck. And the Packers are playing on Sunday as that's out too."
At least part of the Civilian Conservation Corps unofficial mission was hundreds of thousands of young men in the middle of nowhere building national park features means theres hundreds of thousands of young men not marching and or rioting downtown...
(Score: 1) by Geezer on Tuesday March 04 2014, @05:11PM
I'd venture to say that Selective Service turned out to be a more effective means of distracting (and eventually reducing)the surplus young male population than the CCC.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday March 04 2014, @05:39PM
You are correct but soldiers are so expensive now, and the latest headlines are along the lines of shrinking the .mil to smaller than pre-WWII era (probably about six decades late, but whatever). One minor problem is that's being done by shifting lots of work to contractors. Non .mil people assume contractors means some dude from IBM with a masters degree troubleshooting the targetting computer, but it really means the Army can't feed itself or run its warehouses or ship stuff around without significant civilian assistance during peacetime much less wartime. I had KP duty three time in my career and those were special occasions in the field.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday March 04 2014, @07:44PM
They're not shrinking the military, that's a complete lie from Obama as usual. They're shrinking the number of soldiers. BFD. The budget will still be as big as ever, just instead of going to foot soldiers, VA benefits, etc., it'll go to defense contractors for overpriced POSes like the F-35, $15B aircraft carriers, etc.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Tuesday March 04 2014, @05:08PM
Actually, that was the result of the rise of trade unions and the International Workers of the World (IWW) in particular that happened during the 1920's and 30's. People were arrested and imprisoned on trumped-up charges, or sometimes killed by police or hired goon squads, demonstrating for the 40-hour work week. The actual laws about it (as part of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938) came after striking workers had forced many companies to abide by a 40-hour week.
When people say unions never did anything for them, they have no idea about their history.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by HiThere on Tuesday March 04 2014, @08:58PM
The problem is that NO centralization of power remains trustworthy. Yes, the old unions got us the 40 hour week, health insurance, etc. Modern unions lost support through corruption before there were legal changes making them relatively powerless. (And, yes, it's more complicated than that. Even if they had remained incorrupt, people have short memories. But they didn't.) These days the unions seem more interested in attacking soft targets than in defending their members, which causes them to lose support among the general populace.
OTOH, it's also true that the media are owned by enemies of the unions, so they are eager to spread news of bad actions by the unions, and slow to spread news about any good that they do. If the union leadership were in touch with the rank and file, they'd understand these problems and address them. (Web sites aren't THAT hard to put up and make interesting. Perhaps the staff of SoylentNews could consult with them...if they were interested.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.