Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Sunday December 21 2014, @07:47PM   Printer-friendly
from the robbie-the-robot-is-winning dept.

Claire Cain Miller writes at the NYT that economists long argued that, just as buggy-makers gave way to car factories, technology used to create as many jobs as it destroyed. But now there is deep uncertainty about whether the pattern will continue, as two trends are interacting. First, artificial intelligence has become vastly more sophisticated in a short time, with machines now able to learn, not just follow programmed instructions, and to respond to human language and movement. At the same time, the American work force has gained skills at a slower rate than in the past — and at a slower rate than in many other countries. Self-driving vehicles are an example of the crosscurrents. Autonomous cars could put truck and taxi drivers out of work — or they could enable drivers to be more productive during the time they used to spend driving, which could earn them more money. But for the happier outcome to happen, the drivers would need the skills to do new types of jobs.

When the University of Chicago asked a panel of leading economists about automation, 76 percent agreed that it had not historically decreased employment. But when asked about the more recent past, they were less sanguine. About 33 percent said technology was a central reason that median wages had been stagnant over the past decade, 20 percent said it was not and 29 percent were unsure. Perhaps the most worrisome development is how poorly the job market is already functioning for many workers. More than 16 percent of men between the ages of 25 and 54 are not working, up from 5 percent in the late 1960s; 30 percent of women in this age group are not working, up from 25 percent in the late 1990s. For those who are working, wage growth has been weak, while corporate profits have surged. “We’re going to enter a world in which there’s more wealth and less need to work,” says Erik Brynjolfsson. “That should be good news. But if we just put it on autopilot, there’s no guarantee this will work out.”

 
This discussion has been archived.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: 1) by Synonymous Homonym on Monday December 22 2014, @10:30AM

    by Synonymous Homonym (4857) on Monday December 22 2014, @10:30AM (#128267) Homepage

    Almost a fair point except it's never been shown to harm anything. The belief that it is wrong is purely envy-driven.

    There is no shame in being rich per se, and there is nothing wrong with being justly rewarded for one's work.

    This is not what the income inequality discussed here is about.
    It is about the majority of people not being able to justly reward you for your work.
    And that does harm the hardest workers most.

    Now show me your envy.

  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday December 22 2014, @12:41PM

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday December 22 2014, @12:41PM (#128297) Homepage Journal

    Still envy, just wearing a pair of Groucho glasses. There is no percentage or ratio that is "just", there is only what you are worth to your employer or customers. Now if there were no choice between employers like there is too often no choice between suppliers (monopolies are bad, m'kay) this might be a legitimate issue. Fact of the matter is though there are such a wide range of jobs with different rates of pay that taking a job for shit pay is entirely on you. Alternatively you can always do like I did and create your own job out of nothing but seeing a need and deciding to get paid, well, for filling it.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.