Poorer men are being driven out of full-time work. Here’s why
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
Hence I can only assume this article is speculation at best.
There was a small skirmish in the U.S. in the mid-1800's regarding this exact formula. Hence the popularity of one Sanders and the resulting election of one Trump.
I wonder if the most efficient way to teach an AI how to do a job will be to maximize its ability to learn from a human in general, and then watch a human do a task before taking it over. We're already doing that now, when the Disneys et al. bring in H1B replacements to learn a job that they are going to take over.
All I can think of are menial machine-handling jobs, that almost any adult could do, such as driving a car or picking items off a shelf in a warehouse.
i have to admit, on closer examination, my theory looks wrong.
if we get to self-driving cars, uber driver might be viewed as a job that appeared just for "a moment" (a long moment, admittedly), but it doesn't take all that long to learn to be an Uber driver, compared to how long you could work as one. so that's not a great example.
if Watson succeeds at replacing MDs one day, we may eventually have fewer of them, but they'll still be around i bet. (in a way, Watson has already "replaced" human chess and go players, but people continue to spend tons of time learning those games and competing professionally).
then i thought about a clerk at a video store. even that job lasted like, what, twenty years or something?
i was trying to imagine what it would be like for most people looking for a role to play in the "quickly automating all around me" economy of the future, a future where software and AI and robots are destroying human jobs faster and faster and faster.
i imagined lots of desperate workers scurrying around, trying to be relevant in a very complicated world where it's hard to become relevant. lots of study/practice. a month later, some new robot takes over that little niche you found.
but that isn't quite how it has been working, as you have pointed out. most job types last longer than "just a moment" it seems.
thanks again.
It's also unclear why this data is only looking at men. Why not discuss both genders (or look at the situation collectively)?
What I agree with is automation is part of the problem. What is also obvious is that female employment rate has changed since 1971 (see ONS website), which went from about 50% to around 70-75%. This looks similar to (but inverse to) male employment which went down from 90% to about 75%. This may be a social change that nobody looks after the kids anymore and both couples work to earn an income. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
However, I'm assuming the UK is similar to Australia where we have sexist hiring policies. For example, the police have mandated minimum quotas of 50% female police officers (regardless of number of applicants or suitability of applicants for the role. Suitability was addressed by significantly lowering physical requirements for the job and substituting it with more weapons for the officers). Naturally, these "equal opportunity" situations are a 1 way street (eg. Male teachers# are around 20% - see www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/how-can-we-get-more-men-to-become-teachers/). Think of Emma Watson's "He for She" campaign, everything he has, she gets. Yes, a 1 way street. Such discriminatory policies would logically impact employment negatively for some people.
What also concerns me greatly is that gendered bullying by the media and governments to actively discriminate against men and boys. Keep an eye out for articles about promoting girls in STEM and an absence of talk about promoting boys in learning language#. Look at posters of kids in education or front pages of magazines - by my reckoning, it's about 80% girls (if not higher#). Sites like code.org have been extreme in their sexist campaigning against boys. I see a train wreck coming in 10-15 years.
# to illustrate part of the issue, see this web site. http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/papers/genderbias.html
You will see quotes like 'girls perform equal to or better than boys on nearly every measure of achievement' and 'standardized testing indicates that girls outperform boys at all levels of reading and writing and in Alberta testing shows that girls, "...significantly outperform boys on reading and writing tests, while almost matching them in math and science."'. Yet, the article goes on to say how the education system is stacked against girls. Having observed significant class time at a few schools, I can guarantee that the gender bias is heavily against boys that would shock any non-sexist person. Even when I picked up sexism by teachers, they ignored it. For example, a group of kids was misbehaving (about 5 boys and 5 girls). A female teacher said "why is it always the boys" quite loudly. I responded "half said them are girls". The other teachers looked away as if to say "I'm staying out of this one". I see exclusion and ignoring of boys consistently. I even saw one classroom where the boys were so despondent at the sexism in the learning materials that they switched off and didn't ask a single question. Afterward, I asked the boys about the class (passively) and they unanimously voiced the extreme sexism of the topic as isolating them. To anyone with eyes open, it's a gender war and it's extreme: it's like nothing we have ever seen (despite false claims to the contrary). Watch Horrible Histories (especially the later specials) if you want to see examples. I can't believe how much sexism they cram in these episodes targeted at young kids.
I know you see a short-term zero-sum situation where gains made by women displace men to some extent, and it's scary. But think of how much better of a world we'll have in principle when there's real equality of opportunity. It will take some time and doing to get there and there will be a temporary period when awkward manual corrections like quotas are made, or posters featuring more girls than boys. We only have to deal with that for as long as we need it.
A man who earned his status through merit has nothing to fear. A man who had opportunity handed to him by default is the one who has something to lose.
If you accept there is a certain one-sidedness, can "awkward manual corrections like quotas" ever result in "real equality of opportunity"? Because equality of outcome is a great way to demotivate people.
I went to university in the UK where more woman than men attend. And while there's a real drive for more women in e.g. STEM (about 80% m/20% f), there isn't anything like that for e.g. psychology (roughly 90% f/10% m). The distribution of lecturers in gender studies is also hilarious. You'd think that's the one field you'd want to keep very even. So this striving for equality does seem inconsistently followed at best. I guess you could argue that you've got to start somewhere, but I find that a bit naive.
> A man who earned his status through merit has nothing to fear.
If the selection is based on merit, then quotas would be unthinkable and this argument would also apply to women, no? So somewhere along the line we're admitting it isn't based on merit.