Post: #51

^ Good. I hope things like this are implemented as soon as possible. It forces people that would take a summer job asking if someone would like fries and a shake and instead are now forced to do something more constructive.

Kill all the tedious and repeatable tasks.

Post: #52

It sure looks like a lot of jobs are going to be taken over by robots/software in the next 10-20 years. Things like:

Point of Sale: This includes the McDonald's robots above. Once they can automate the production process and license it to other fast food joints? I imagine you'd only need one security worker and some janitor-types to actually work at a restaurant.

More broadly, why do we need cashiers at department stores/yogurt joints/wherever anymore? To protect the register? To "keep an eye" on patrons? Both of those functions can be performed without a person involved. Which leads me to:

Access: Imagine a gas station-type convenience store without an attendant. You go in, grab a gatorade, and leave. Your phone/card is automatically charged for what you took. I assume that "pre-checks" will be the norm--if you don't have some form of credit or enough cash in your account to pay for stuff, you simply wouldn't be allowed in the store. Obviously, it's not quite that easy--what about buddies letting each other in? Or out? A ways to go, for sure, but I can see how this will eventually be the norm rather than the exception.

Manufacturing: Robots could potentially be cheaper/less of a pain-in-the-ass than sweatshop/other manufacturing workers within the next decade. They don't get sick, don't get injured, and definitely don't throw themselves off buildings. They can work 24 hours/day without demanding a single penny in wages.

Transportation: Self-driving cars are clearly the way of the future. They make far fewer mistakes than human drivers, and will be able to more efficiently move both passengers and cargo much more safely. I'm convinced Uber's ultimate "endgame" is to replace its drivers with self-driving cars to minimize on-going costs, even if it's 15 years down the road.

There are plenty of other industries ripe for disruption. Two things stand out:

1) "What is Work?" Sure some guys are going to have to program/maintain machines, but aside from them, as a lot of formerly human-performed jobs go the way of the horse-and-buggy, what are we going to do with our time?

Michio Kaku had an interesting theory that humans will be left to either build/maintain machines, or somehow work in creative fields that robots/programs can't touch for quite a while, like writing novels or making movies.

Unfortunately, I think that kind of thinking is a bit "pie-in-the-sky." Could we be on the edge of a utopia where we all work when we want to, where we want to? Maybe. I doubt the powers-that-be will go down without a fight.

That leads me into:

2) The Old Regime Strikes Back The biggest obstacles to self-driving cars are the teamsters and the insurance companies. Likewise, any sort of organized (or even loosely-organized) labor will resent this automation of jobs that are easily autonomized. The Uber/Lyft flaps in a bunch of cities are just the tip of the iceberg.

The biggest problem is that those in power want to stay in power. While it might benefit everyone to rethink why we work, why we do what we do for a good amount of our waking hours, the men in charge don't stand to gain from any of this. What do they get with larger rates of unemployment? An agitated populace eager to lash out and (GASP) maybe even revolt.

That begs the darker issue: what's the easiest way to reduce massive unemployment before it starts?

...

Why, to decrease the ranks of the workforce, of course. Probably through another massive war.

I'm not going all on everyone here, but it sure does make sense. It's a lot easier to follow the cycle that's been carved out through centuries of human existence than to rethink society in a way that could benefit everyone, short of pure communism or socialism.

Is a basic guaranteed income the future? Maybe. I'd like to think that the collective brainpower on this board could come up with something more elegant. Though with the feminists and SJWs out in full force, who the hell even knows anymore...

Vigo

Post: #53

(03-25-2015 02:15 AM)Vigo_the_Carpathian Wrote:  Transportation: Self-driving cars are clearly the way of the future. They make far fewer mistakes than human drivers, and will be able to more efficiently move both passengers and cargo much more safely. I'm convinced Uber's ultimate "endgame" is to replace its drivers with self-driving cars to minimize on-going costs, even if it's 15 years down the road.

I was listening to an interview, I think it might have been James Altucher interviewing Peter Diamandis. He was saying that Travis Kalanick was worried that Google's self-driving cars would replace Uber, so he has started to invest into self-driving car technology.

Transportation will definitely be a huge disruption if/when self-driving cars replace humans. It currently employs more people than any other sector in North America.

The big problem now is that the world is rapidly changing and very few people are paying attention. Not just your average person but also huge corporations.

Many people are going to pissed once they find out they are obsolete in the near future.

It isn't that there isn't opportunity out there. There is more opportunity now than at any other time in history. The problem is that most people are trained to follow orders and do what they are told. To succeed in this rapidly changing world you have to be able to stay on top of the changes and plot your own course.

Post: #54

(03-25-2015 03:13 AM)Darius Wrote:  

(03-25-2015 02:15 AM)Vigo_the_Carpathian Wrote:  Transportation: Self-driving cars are clearly the way of the future. They make far fewer mistakes than human drivers, and will be able to more efficiently move both passengers and cargo much more safely. I'm convinced Uber's ultimate "endgame" is to replace its drivers with self-driving cars to minimize on-going costs, even if it's 15 years down the road.

I was listening to an interview, I think it might have been James Altucher interviewing Peter Diamandis. He was saying that Travis Kalanick was worried that Google's self-driving cars would replace Uber, so he has started to invest into self-driving car technology.

Transportation will definitely be a huge disruption if/when self-driving cars replace humans. It currently employs more people than any other sector in North America.

The big problem now is that the world is rapidly changing and very few people are paying attention. Not just your average person but also huge corporations.

Many people are going to pissed once they find out they are obsolete in the near future.

It isn't that there isn't opportunity out there. There is more opportunity now than at any other time in history. The problem is that most people are trained to follow orders and do what they are told. To succeed in this rapidly changing world you have to be able to stay on top of the changes and plot your own course.

We could always use more people in the space industry.

Post: #55

Oh god, the same old Luddite Fallacy that never dies.

So I'll repeat it again like a broken record, if mechanization, which has been ongoing for hundreds of years, caused systemic increasing unemployment, none of us would have a job by now.

Mechanization is only a good thing. The further we are from the caves, the better. A larger, higher tech capital base, is only a good thing. Primitive labour jobs being eradicated by automation is only a good thing. Every machinist, cab driver, shop assistant, and seamstress that disappears is a ski instructor, barista, food critic, and jet ski salesman that appears.

Otherwise we better ban planes - all those boat operators and their staff ended up unemployed. Also get rid of computers - think of all the typewriter servicemen, postmen, telegram operators, filing cabinet assembling factory workers they have put out of work. Also the telephone - all those telegraph boys left begging on the street, never to find another job again. Hell, lets go back to subsistence farming - never a lack of work there.

Post: #56

I prefer to take a more optimistic view of the coming Mechanized Age:

When people are free to sit around and do whatever they like they are free to dream and grow bored. And in an age where a machine can do almost all jobs better than any human can, what is there to achieve?

I believe that this will actually inspire people to explore space and finally get us off this rock like nothing else will. That is what the idle rich like Branson and Musk become obsessed with, because I believe they have nothing else left to achieve.

Yes, there will always be people who want to sit around and live out a life of subsistence and fantasy, but those with the itch of ambition will want to finally step into the last frontier.



And despite what the video claims, I don't think machines will ever be capable of making art that taps into the voice of a culture, of a generation or of a people and speaks to the experience of them in that moment.

Sure, they can draw and make pretty colors that pass for corporate modern art, but no one really believes any of that has any soul behind it. Real artists and entertainers do something computers will never be able to do: experience being human, in humanity. They can pass off a facsimile of meaning, just as Cleverbot might almost seem like it's a person talking to you. But you know it is devoid of humanity after enough time with it. Robot art is as meaningful as a feminist queefing spaghettios onto a floor.

Post: #57

Am I the only one who would love to spend his days working out, writing shitty novels, learning new instruments and creating art. work is just that shit I do so that I have a place live, food to eat and something to tell women when they ask me, "so what do you do." Lol

Post: #58

What "costs" does Uber have? It owns no fleet and cabbies have to take on the brunt of their own licensing costs. Uber's costs are minimal, only thing I could see being a expense is the bulk of the insurance they take on for protection.

Post: #59

The problem lies here but there's really no sane way to solve it.

It took 6 million years to get to 2 billion humans and this number will more than triple in roughly 60 to 80 years.

Post: #60

(03-25-2015 10:59 AM)Spike Wrote:  The problem lies here but there's really no sane way to solve it.

It took 6 million years to get to 2 billion humans and this number will more than triple in roughly 60 to 80 years.

It's not really a problem unless everyone expects the same standard of living we have in the west currently and technology stays stagnant.

That being said I think those in charge are favouring a slow soft kill as opposed to a quick genocide of a few billion. They managed to get birth rates under control in most western countries. Now all they have to do is export the solution to the rest of the world/

Post: #61

As things stand today, we'll probably have fewer and fewer jobs. That'll imply a 4-day workweek for a majority of the workforce. A lot of badly educated or miss/un-skilled people will probably struggle quite a bit, especially during downturns.

But, in the long term we'll find more and newer jobs that aren't build upon human strength or (low to midlevel) mental skills, but on human attention and craftsmanship. Robots can't easily replace the feeling you have from a massage, a handmade watch, micro brewery beer, nursing or a career mentor. In a globalized world, it will also pay a lot to be extremely good at a certain thing and become famous for it -- even if only for your particular niche.

On the other hand, this techno-unemployment story is quite new. A few years back nobody was talking about it, usually that's a sign that it's a promising hypothesis, but by no means an unescapable future. Remember all those people warning for hyperinflation in '08, how the dollar would collapse & we should all buy gold? I partly believed them. Look at the world today, there's DE-flation, the inflated dollar is _rising_ in value and gold is going down. It turned out that crazy Paul Krugman was a lot closer to the truth than all the Peter Schiffs combined. It could very well be that automation will make us have to work harder, not less; help us work smarter and make more money; will enable people to become more innovative and create new sectors for growth and thus new jobs.

The future is funny that way.

Post: #62

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times"

Charles Dickens wrote that in 1859.

I believe it was still true in 1959. And, I think it will still be accurate in 2059 and 2159.

Some will live as kings, others will live as slaves. This is the way it's always been, this is the way it will continue to be.

Technology brings both good and bad.

Modern medical advances have extended our lives, but, we are fatter and more depressed than ever.

The "Law of Unintended Consequences"

Unexpected problems will arise..

Will we have enough water?

Will we have enough oil?

Natural disasters will always be a threat to mankind -- Earthquakes, volcanoes, meteors, disease, etc. Will we have the technology to stop these things? Will the powers that be even try to stop these things? Will they encourage them?

Technology will also be applied warfare and weaponry. Nuclear war is a threat.

Here in the western part of The United States, we are running out of water.. Will we have enough?

Humans dominate the world, but, I fear that nature will have the last laugh.

Enjoy your life. Soon, you will be dead.

Post: #63

(03-25-2015 08:17 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  Oh god, the same old Luddite Fallacy that never dies.

So I'll repeat it again like a broken record, if mechanization, which has been ongoing for hundreds of years, caused systemic increasing unemployment, none of us would have a job by now.

Mechanization is only a good thing. The further we are from the caves, the better. A larger, higher tech capital base, is only a good thing. Primitive labour jobs being eradicated by automation is only a good thing. Every machinist, cab driver, shop assistant, and seamstress that disappears is a ski instructor, barista, food critic, and jet ski salesman that appears.

Otherwise we better ban planes - all those boat operators and their staff ended up unemployed. Also get rid of computers - think of all the typewriter servicemen, postmen, telegram operators, filing cabinet assembling factory workers they have put out of work. Also the telephone - all those telegraph boys left begging on the street, never to find another job again. Hell, lets go back to subsistence farming - never a lack of work there.

There is no fallacy. Is the creation of automatons that can perform all work functions that humans can perform, but faster and for free, against the laws of physics? No, it is not. Barring disruptions, technology will eventually get to that point where anything that needs to be done, will be done by automatons. Voila, the "fallacy" will then have come to pass. I'm not sure how one can make a logical argument against such an eventuality.

Anyway, the "fallacy" is already being felt to some extent. A much greater proportion of the American population now subsists on marginal, low paid service work than just a few decades ago. Depriving the <100 IQ subset of the population of simple manual work that paid well did not magically increase their IQ and turn them into rocket scientists or stand up comics. They're still kind of dull witted, except now they work for minimum wage or suck from the government teat.

I'll make a bold wager and predict that moving further up the value chain and making everyone with IQs of 100<x<130 obsolete will be no more effective at boosting their capabilities than it was for the <100 IQ group. The truth is, automation has made the world more efficient and increased the total quantity of wealth. But there is no economic or physical law that says the increase in wealth created by a rise in productivity will be spread equally among the population. There is no paradox in having technology make the world richer while leaving the vast majority of the population worse off than before.

(Addendum: I am not saying technology has made people worse off than before, at this point. I am saying that such an outcome is certainly possible in the future and that it is incorrect to refer to such a possibility as a "fallacy")

Post: #64

(03-25-2015 08:17 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  Oh god, the same old Luddite Fallacy that never dies.

So I'll repeat it again like a broken record, if mechanization, which has been ongoing for hundreds of years, caused systemic increasing unemployment, none of us would have a job by now.

Mechanization is only a good thing. The further we are from the caves, the better. A larger, higher tech capital base, is only a good thing. Primitive labour jobs being eradicated by automation is only a good thing. Every machinist, cab driver, shop assistant, and seamstress that disappears is a ski instructor, barista, food critic, and jet ski salesman that appears.

Otherwise we better ban planes - all those boat operators and their staff ended up unemployed. Also get rid of computers - think of all the typewriter servicemen, postmen, telegram operators, filing cabinet assembling factory workers they have put out of work. Also the telephone - all those telegraph boys left begging on the street, never to find another job again. Hell, lets go back to subsistence farming - never a lack of work there.

Finally some sanity and economic literacy in this thread.

Another way of putting it is this: The economy does not exist to create jobs, it exists to create goods and services.

That statement should seem self-evident, but so much of today's political rhetoric flies in its face. You constantly hear statements like "there aren't enough jobs," which is complete fucking nonsense. It's like complaining that there aren't enough chores to do around your house; if it were actually true, you'd be fucking ecstatic. But just like you have plenty of shit to do around the house, there's a ton of jobs that need to be done in the world. As long as there are goods and services that people desire, there are jobs. So then why are people unemployed?

The only reason long-term unemployment exists is that the population's collective skills are out of line with its collective desires. For example- I think we can all agree that society has plenty of journalists. No one feels that his life would be enriched if only there were more media outlets providing commentary on the news. Yet colleges are churning out journalism majors like gangbusters. Many of those journalists are going to end up unemployed, because society doesn't need more journalists. Another example- I think we can also agree that society never needed Gender Studies scholars in the first place, yet there exist people who train to be just that, many of whom end up unemployed. If these people had instead acquired the skills of a programmer, electrician, accountant, auto mechanic, plumber, etc., they would have a job. Ergo, "lack of jobs" is not a problem.

Now back to the original issue; let's pretend that technology advanced to the point where all mindless jobs were automated, and non-intelligent people were unable to contribute anything to society. In this universe, many essential goods and services would be virtually free. We've already seen this happen with manufactured goods; when production is automated, price plummets. Thus, if automation completely took over, the government could provide a tiny stipend to those who couldn't find work, and everyone would be far better off.

Remember: Lack of jobs, just like lack of chores to do around the house, is a GOOD THING!

Post: #65

(03-25-2015 06:36 PM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

(03-25-2015 08:17 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  Oh god, the same old Luddite Fallacy that never dies.

So I'll repeat it again like a broken record, if mechanization, which has been ongoing for hundreds of years, caused systemic increasing unemployment, none of us would have a job by now.

Mechanization is only a good thing. The further we are from the caves, the better. A larger, higher tech capital base, is only a good thing. Primitive labour jobs being eradicated by automation is only a good thing. Every machinist, cab driver, shop assistant, and seamstress that disappears is a ski instructor, barista, food critic, and jet ski salesman that appears.

Otherwise we better ban planes - all those boat operators and their staff ended up unemployed. Also get rid of computers - think of all the typewriter servicemen, postmen, telegram operators, filing cabinet assembling factory workers they have put out of work. Also the telephone - all those telegraph boys left begging on the street, never to find another job again. Hell, lets go back to subsistence farming - never a lack of work there.

There is no fallacy. Is the creation of automatons that can perform all work functions that humans can perform, but faster and for free, against the laws of physics? No, it is not. Barring disruptions, technology will eventually get to that point where anything that needs to be done, will be done by automatons. Voila, the "fallacy" will then have come to pass. I'm not sure how one can make a logical argument against such an eventuality.

Anyway, the "fallacy" is already being felt to some extent. A much greater proportion of the American population now subsists on marginal, low paid service work than just a few decades ago. Depriving the <100 IQ subset of the population of simple manual work that paid well did not magically increase their IQ and turn them into rocket scientists or stand up comics. They're still kind of dull witted, except now they work for minimum wage or suck from the government teat.

[b]I'll make a bold wager and predict that moving further up the value chain and making everyone with IQs of 100<x<130 obsolete will be no more effective at boosting their capabilities than it was for the <100 IQ group.[\b] The truth is, automation has made the world more efficient and increased the total quantity of wealth. But there is no economic or physical law that says the increase in wealth created by a rise in productivity will be spread equally among the population. There is no paradox in having technology make the world richer while leaving the vast majority of the population worse off than before.

(Addendum: I am not saying technology has made people worse off than before, at this point. I am saying that such an outcome is certainly possible in the future and that it is incorrect to refer to such a possibility as a "fallacy")

That right there. The fact of the matter is that a lot of white collar jobs are complete bullshit work. I have so many friends who are idiots (probably have IQs above 100, but not that much more) and I'm blown away they get paid. Like the fact that someone would actually pay them to do work. Once you realize it's because automation hasn't taken over their jobs yet, it all makes sense.

It will be interesting to see which people come out on top. My money is on engineers and research scientists, but then again I'm biased. Who knows, maybe one day PhD programs will be filled with self-learning robots rather than self-learning graduate students.

Post: #66

(03-25-2015 06:36 PM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  There is no fallacy. Is the creation of automatons that can perform all work functions that humans can perform, but faster and for free, against the laws of physics? No, it is not. Barring disruptions, technology will eventually get to that point where anything that needs to be done, will be done by automatons. Voila, the "fallacy" will then have come to pass. I'm not sure how one can make a logical argument against such an eventuality.

Anyway, the "fallacy" is already being felt to some extent. A much greater proportion of the American population now subsists on marginal, low paid service work than just a few decades ago. Depriving the <100 IQ subset of the population of simple manual work that paid well did not magically increase their IQ and turn them into rocket scientists or stand up comics. They're still kind of dull witted, except now they work for minimum wage or suck from the government teat.

I'll make a bold wager and predict that moving further up the value chain and making everyone with IQs of 100<x<130 obsolete will be no more effective at boosting their capabilities than it was for the <100 IQ group. The truth is, automation has made the world more efficient and increased the total quantity of wealth. But there is no economic or physical law that says the increase in wealth created by a rise in productivity will be spread equally among the population. There is no paradox in having technology make the world richer while leaving the vast majority of the population worse off than before.

(Addendum: I am not saying technology has made people worse off than before, at this point. I am saying that such an outcome is certainly possible in the future and that it is incorrect to refer to such a possibility as a "fallacy")

OK I'll bite. Before the industrial age, the reality for most people (children included) was to get up at the crack of dawn, and work 16 hours on a farm to have enough food to survive. The GDP per capita in Japan in 1820, 50 years before the industrial revolution started there and thus was mainly an agrarian economy, was $669 (ifl. adj.). It is currently, as a country that has for example, FANUC 'lights-out' factories where robots are producing other robots 24/7 with no supervision, a GPD per capita of $38,600, and has an unemployment rate of 3.6%.

It certainly is a total fallacy.

So too is the idea that industrialization leaves the bottom worse off and only the top better off. Before the industrial era, the average peasant could expect to live a harsh and short life. No running water, electricity, effective medicine, or entertainment, enough food to live on, and long distance communication consisted of an expensive hand-written letter delivered by horse. Even the King wasn't doing that much better. The average lower-class guy lives better now than the King did then. Entertainment on demand and with variety, instant international communication, running water and electricity, effective medicine, food of any variety and in any quantity that he wants, and cheap public transportation.

Ascribing the recent lack of progress for the lower-class to a single cause (automation), is completely frivolous given the other factors involved and the way they have been changing (welfare, taxes, immigration, monetary system, regulation).

And the idea that this trend suddenly reverses at some 'turn around point' in the future is just a variety of "OK it hasn't happened yet, but it will, trust me!", and has a mountain of empirical evidence stacked against it.

Machines always exist as an extension of men's hands. They are merely a more advanced form of how we actuate in the direction of our desires. There is, and will always be, humans in between 'human desires' and 'machines' to guide, lead and manage, it is simply how the world works. The day I see a robot CEO, a mainstream robot band, or a robot politician, I'll accept I'm wrong.

(03-25-2015 11:29 AM)Maciano Wrote:  On the other hand, this techno-unemployment story is quite new. A few years back nobody was talking about it

Oh really? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite

Post: #67

It's a complex dance between economy and society. I'd argue that the progress made in recent years SHOULD favor the latter over the former. So we SHOULD all be able to hang out, write novels, fuck around on the golf course, etc.

3 problems with that:

1) As I mentioned above, the powers-that-be hate that type of thing. Control over the populace is their "thing," and they aren't creative enough to find the next big angle to exploit. As a result, they'll fight tooth and nail to keep the status quo.

2)

Quote:As long as there are goods and services that people desire, there are jobs.

I understand where you're coming from economically, but what if the robots make all of the goods and perform all of the services? THIS is the fundamental issue that I'm getting at. While it's true that progress (to this point) means that more jobs are created, I'm just saying why not let the robots do the work, and let's focus on what a post-40 hour work week "job" might entail. Hell, we might not even need "jobs" going forward--it's a great thought experiment to think of the "jobless world," if nothing else.

3) The worst part of this isn't the "scary robots," like in the SNL robot attack skit, but rather in the software applications that automate mundane tasks. I'm not saying that's necessarily "bad"--not at all. Would love nothing more than to live in a world where robots did all of the shit work so that us humans could relax on a beach and game hot chicks all day.

I will say this, though--there will be a pretty big cultural shift over the next couple of decades. Hell, the Europeans already don't have the same slavish devotion to work that Americans do 9 times out of 10. "Work" is going to change from a concept that objectively "defines a man's life" in terms of a dedication to his company and boss to something that "defines a man's life" through his artistic output, whether it be in writing a novel, closing a deal, or making a fucking awesome movie.

The sooner we shift from a "process-driven" value of a man's life to more of an "outcome-driven" value, the better off we'll be.

Vigo

Post: #68

I think a large percentage of people should be kept busy with menial work simply to keep them out of trouble.

Look what happened to women when we gave them a robot to wash the clothes and one do the dishes...

Post: #69

(03-25-2015 08:16 PM)DrewP Wrote:  Remember: Lack of jobs, just like lack of chores to do around the house, is a GOOD THING!

Heh - that is only up to a point. That point has been reached a decade or 2 ago.

With rising technology sooner or later a lessened need for work is prevalent. Actually I would make the argument that we all could have 25 hour weeks by now. The problem is of course that top-down they do not want this to happen.

You will see a huge unemployed underclass that gets minimum sustenance payments to survive.

Could there be enough work for everyone? Yes - easily, but the elite decided on a different action plan - depopulation, large unemployment, dying off of the useless eaters.

Of course we could have bountiful economies powered by interest free money and credit, by suppressed alternative almost free energy technologies - we could explore the stars and even let go of money in the future. But hey - then the same sheisters would not be ruling and we cannot have that.

Post: #70

^^Nope, your interest free theories are still false, you just stopped listening and responsing to counter-arguments in the thread on that topic. Free energy now? You've decided that you're committed to your many conspiracy theories, and no one is going to shake you from them.

Post: #71

(03-26-2015 03:22 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  ^^Nope, your interest free theories are still false, you just stopped listening and responsing to counter-arguments in the thread on that topic. Free energy now? You've decided that you're committed to your many conspiracy theories, and no one is going to shake you from them.

Counter-arguments? Yes - it is indeed better to pay interest to super-rich for something which every government can do interest-free for itself. And this is not new in history.

One technology is Nitinol - there are many others.





But hey - it's good to call everyone a conspiracy theorist and then let it be.

I am sure the world is exactly as our current academia, media and politics tells us it is.
Also on a different note - I don't need to address arguments that Huffpo, WaPo and the NewYorkBetaTimes makes. I can argue until the end of time with them - if you use exactly their arguments, what else is there to argue about?

Post: #72

Vigo is on to something.
I note that every place where the minimum wage has been boosted there has been backlashes by restaurants. Some shut down, but most have automated the ordering process. At an upscale hamburger joint near me, you make your order through a tablet. No need for a human server to take it. Cuts down on the need for a big wait staff. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.
And don't think having a STEM degree will protect you. I went into the industrial chemistry field in 1980 thinking it would always be there. The result? I bounced across the country chasing one goddamn lab job to the next in places which no longer exist. The damn field was consolidated, outsourced, and crunched. I saw brilliant chemists get the door with no chance of ever landing another job because they were no longer useful to the corporation. I know one phd chemist who lives near me in a small cracker jack box house because he was put out to pasture.
And it was always funny how the people above the firing line made out sweet. Plenty of them moved closer to the top of the food chain when the company merged or was sold. The bastard who was general manager of one place I left is now a division manager. Of course the lab there has dwindled to almost nothing and this was after two mergers. As for Mr. Big? He dumped his wife of 20 years and is fucking one of the secretaries.

Post: #73

^ColSpanker,

What exactly caused the decline in your profession? There is outsourcing and automation in every industry where it's possible these days, but why did it impact industrial chemistry so much? Do robots mix chemicals that humans used to mix in labs?