A brief column by Shelley Palmer has some troubling news (“The 5 Jobs Robots Will Take First“).
I expected the first to go would be things like warehouse worker, truck driver, etc.
Instead, at the top of Palmer’s list are middle management jobs, sales jobs, and–are you ready–“report writers, journalists, authors & announcers.”
Writing is tough. But not report writing. Machines can be taught to read data, pattern match images or video, or analyze almost any kind of research materials and create a very readable (or announceable) writing. Text-to-speech systems are evolving so quickly and sound so realistic, I expect both play-by-play and color commentators to be put out of work relatively soon – to say nothing about the numbered days of sports or financial writers. You know that great American novel you’ve been planning to write? Start now, before the machines take a creative writing class.
I know that a lot of financial reports are written by computers. Basic stories about upcoming public meetings or events can probably be done the same way.
And its certainly true that stories drawn from industry press releases can easily be automated. Or, as is already the case, simply reprinted without rewrites.
Complex news reporting will be more difficult to automate, at least I would hope so.
The state of the news industry is tenuous enough without worrying about the economics of news robots.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The article also states:
During the Obama administration, a report of the president was published (it is no longer available at whitehouse.gov …) that included a very dire prediction: “There is an 83% chance that workers who earn $20 an hour or less could have their jobs replaced by robots in the next five years. Those in the $40 an hour pay range face a 31% chance of having their jobs taken over by the machines.” Clearly, the robots are coming.
For business owners, investment in computers is a depreciable asset, not a payroll expense.
Computers don’t need health insurance, dental insurance, car insurance, cars, shoes, Uber, Netflix, organics, $10 coffee, $20 martinis, college, retirement, a humane boss, “work/life balance”, nightly hotyoga classes, punching bags, Facebook, Twitter, PR, HR, DUI, TDI, Friday Lunch, drunken Christmas parties, sick days, maternity leave, paternity leave, mind-numbing meetings or anal obsession over office culture. Managers don’t need to spend a whole year finding a “good fit” to fill one job without upsetting the entire office football team.
Computers run data then happily spend all weekend getting upgraded. They never criticize the boss. They make stupid errors all the time, but it’s never their fault! Jobs are not meant to provide jobs; jobs are meant to make money.
The real problem here?
You can’t teach an old dog new tricks. Our memory sucks.
And with all those peeople out of work, who will have money to spend on hot yoga, Starbucks and all the things advertised in the news?
People who will have money to spend on ____ fall into two separate yet equally important groups:
a) dogs who can still learn new tricks (new software and systems)
b) rich people (or people who already have all they want/need to retire today)
Good luck saving everybody else!
Trump can easily lose in 2020 but Corporate America is NOT going to vanish and turn into magical Bernieland, no matter who replaces Trump. Love is love but business is business.
How apropos that t mentioned health insurance, dental insurance, blah blah blah.
I hope Kolea reads this response to his/her comment:
“BTW, why is it that advocates for The Train say providing jobs for the building trades during construction is a “plus,” but employing someone to drive the train is a “minus”? Huh?”
http://www.ilind.net/2017/02/08/at-grade-option-offers-a-way-out-of-honolulus-train-wreck/#comments
Why more people employed is a good thing: people who earn money (and not just in construction trades) tend to spend money. Our govt gets the funds it needs to provide services thru taxes collected on the exchange of goods and services. Unemployed people still have an economic impact because our public safety net has larger costs when more people have to use it.
Why a larger govt workforce (and not just in transportation services) is not necessarily a good thing: govt costs go up for salaries AND BENEFITS year over year. Even if the number of govt employees stayed the same, the costs (and therefore the funds govt needs) would probably increase because people want to be paid more.
Capable employees do leave govt employment when there are more opportunities (such as what tends to happen during a robust economy). Govt can compensate employees better so they stay, cut back on services, etc. and my guess is that it is a perpetual balancing act.
We taxpayers pay for the workforce whether it is experienced or not, whether it delivers a quality service or not. Hawaii is still an isolated place where finding talent and expertise can be challenging.
The explanation is simplistic and I’m sure there are economists who could provide more/better enlightenment.
Here is a different take on the “Robots Are Taking Our Jobs” tale.
http://cepr.net/publications/op-eds-columns/the-job-killing-robot-myth
I suspect the reason why Shelly Palmer didn’t mention “warehouse worker, truck driver” in the article is because those are examples of blue collar jobs. If you read the intro carefully, you’ll notice that Palmer mentions a focus on white collar work.
As far as blue collar work is concerned, mechanized technology and robotics have been taking manual labor jobs away going back to the industrial revolution. This will continue on as technology advances. It is what it is. Ho hum, so what else is new?
What Palmer seems to find interesting are the possibilities of robotics entering the white collar realm. Just how far will advancements in AI go, and what kind of jobs will it be capable of doing? Up until now, offices have used machines primarily to perform calculations, process data, compile reports, and other mundane clerical functions that don’t require critical analysis and thinking. But are we on the verge where that is about to change dramatically? The possibilities for the future is what captures Palmer’s imagination, I reckon. It’s something that all of us should think about, as well.