is this a "that's capitalism" moment or should we support these actions of corporations doing anything to get a buck?
Capitalism is all about supply and demand, so I hear. If a corporation makes a choice that fucks over the employees, it only hurts the company if those employees can quit and find other jobs. Since the job market is flooded with supply of the unemployed, and believe me Verizon doesn't need technical specialists, these companies can pretty much do what they want for awhile because their demand for the employees they are fucking must be pretty small compared to the supply; otherwise they wouldn't be fucking them, right? That's exactly how supply and demand works, right?
I'm actually of the opinion that Unions are going to go on the rise big time real soon. With jobs that are difficult to ship over seas like service work like the Verizon line layers.
I'm actually of the opinion that Unions are going to go on the rise big time real soon. With jobs that are difficult to ship over seas like service work like the Verizon line layers.
I agree. Rich people still live in the US, and they still need people to do work here that is impossible to outsource. Those people who have a specialized skill will be difficult to replace, and their collective bargaining power will be greatly increased. Just look at what is happening in sports. Lockouts!
I'm actually of the opinion that Unions are going to go on the rise big time real soon. With jobs that are difficult to ship over seas like service work like the Verizon line layers.
I am of the opposite opinion. Unions will not be able to survive because of foreign market pressures. Also, intense post-industrial jobs specialization is the way of the future for America. That sort of dumps the need for organized labor unions that represent non-skilled workers.
That sort of dumps the need for organized labor unions that represent non-skilled workers.
Yes, I'm specifically talking about the skilled labor unions. Unskilled labor is fucked the world over. Not only can it be outsourced from the US, it can be replaced by computers and robots. In a few decades there may be no such thing as unskilled labor.
That sort of dumps the need for organized labor unions that represent non-skilled workers.
Yes, I'm specifically talking about the skilled labor unions. Unskilled labor is fucked the world over. Not only can it be outsourced from the US, it can be replaced by computers and robots. In a few decades there may be no such thing as unskilled labor.
Exactly. While we may get to the point where we no longer need people (either due to overseas outsourcing or replacement with robots) who can pull a level on a machine for 8 hours a day, we will always need mechanics, plumbers, carpenters, electricians, and so on. You can't outsource your plumbing job to India or China when the broken toilet is in Manhattan.
Exactly. While we may get to the point where we no longer need people (either due to overseas outsourcing or replacement with robots) who can pull a level on a machine for 8 hours a day, we will always need mechanics, plumbers, carpenters, electricians, and so on. You can't outsource your plumbing job to India or China when the broken toilet is in Manhattan.
This is true, but give it even more time and some of those jobs will disappear as well. You will probably still need a plumber to install new plumbing. And it's impossible to make plumbing that will never break. But as technology advances very far, you might have plumbing systems that hardly ever break down. There will still be plumbers, but we will actually need many fewer plumbers. Also, what does it mean for mechanics for cars to be completely electric? What does it mean for them if every car is a self-driving robot car and there are far fewer accidents?
Exactly. While we may get to the point where we no longer need people (either due to overseas outsourcing or replacement with robots) who can pull a level on a machine for 8 hours a day, we will always need mechanics, plumbers, carpenters, electricians, and so on. You can't outsource your plumbing job to India or China when the broken toilet is in Manhattan.
This is true, but give it even more time and some of those jobs will disappear as well. You will probably still need a plumber to install new plumbing. And it's impossible to make plumbing that will never break. But as technology advances very far, you might have plumbing systems that hardly ever break down. There will still be plumbers, but we will actually need many fewer plumbers. Also, what does it mean for mechanics for cars to be completely electric? What does it mean for them if every car is a self-driving robot car and there are far fewer accidents?
Electric cars will still need someone to service them. They will still have gears, motors, and whatnot that will wear out and require replacement. The skill sets may differ somewhat from those that work on gasoline-powered cars, but the over concept of a "mechanic" will be necessary. Auto body is a different class of work than mechanic, IMHO, so while they both work on cars the skill sets are different, but I do concede that we'll probably need fewer of them if we have fewer accidents -- although there may still be a market for auto body workers who do customizations, restore classic cars, etc.
The other thing to keep in mind is that while it may be technically feasible to build plumbing systems that hardly ever break down, the question is will it ever be economically feasible? If it costs ten times as much to make a completely unbreakable plumbing system than it does to make one that requires maintenance every few years or so and the cost of said maintenance over the lifetime of the plumbing is less than the cost of the unbreakable plumbing, most people would probably go with the less expensive option.
I also picked plumbers, mechanics, and so on as modern day examples of skilled labor that cannot be outsourced. In the future, even if their jobs are no longer necessary due to changes in technology, odds are there will be new technologies that will require different sorts of skilled labor. Today's plumber might be tomorrow's electroplasma conduit technician, much like how we have auto mechanics instead of horse buggy repairmen these days.
In the future, even if their jobs are no longer necessary due to changes in technology, odds are there will be new technologies that will require different sorts of skilled labor. Today's plumber might be tomorrow's electroplasma conduit technician, much like how we have auto mechanics instead of horse buggy repairmen these days.
This is true. If one job goes away, it is probably replaced by another newer job. That pattern has held for centuries of technological advancement, but now it is failing because of lack of education.
Consider an elevator repairman. Even today elevator repair is largely mechanical. But many modern elevators are computer controlled. You have to be a programmer as well as an elevator mechanic to repair a modern elevator. We can do a pretty good job of concentrating technical knowledge into a few companies that produce a lot of very advanced equipment. We just can't deploy the expertise as widely as we can deploy the machinery. You end up with a ton of buildings that have elevators which the average repairman can't fix.
If you have a Google car, and something goes wrong with the cameras on the roof, you think a mechanic can fix that? Even now while so many people are unemployed, companies are desperately trying to hire developers because there are too few of them. If we can't even produce enough developers now, how many electroplasma conduit technicians will we be able to produce later when we need them?
There will be plenty of jobs for technologically advanced people, and not so many for everyone else.
With skilled labor, demand for services does all the work a union would do. Demand keeps prices and compensation for skill high. And because learning the skill is a significant barrier to entry, there's always enough work for the limited number of people who have the skill (i.e. low competition to provide services). So the need for unions is effectively negated. Skill labor unions are untenable and tend not to last.
With skilled labor, demand for services does all the work a union would do. Demand keeps prices and compensation for skill high. And because learning the skill is a significant barrier to entry, there's always enough work for the limited number of people who have the skill (i.e. low competition to provide services). So the need for unions is effectively negated. Skill labor unions are untenable and tend not to last.
This is only true if there is competition amongst employers. Baseball is a skilled labor. But there is only one employer with a monopoly, MLB. That gives that employer unreasonable power over even skilled laborers such that a union is necessary.
Imagine if I ran the only construction company in town. Even though the laborers have skill, their choice is to work for me or not work at all. Thus, a union is a good idea.
The problem with the lack of education is independent of the problem of finding work for skilled laborers, but it is a problem. The fact is that you don't need a college degree to be an elevator repairman -- even for a modern computer-operated elevator. An appropriate degree from a vocational/technical school should be sufficient -- the computerized elevator repairman isn't going to be writing the elevator control code from scratch, but should be technically savvy enough to understand its error codes, apply software patches, change settings, maybe make small modifications to the odd control subroutine, etc. Unfortunately, not enough people are getting vocational degrees it seems. It also doesn't help that vocational/technical education doesn't seem to get the respect it deserves. When I call a plumber to my house, even though on paper I have a better education than he does, I still give him all my respect since he possesses skills and knowledge that I do not. Or, as you've said on your podcast, "being a plumber doesn't suck."
There is a hierarchy to the construction and maintenance of any technology. At the highest level you have scientists who figure out the various theories and whatnot about how the universe works but who don't often directly contribute to any new technology. They require at least a college degree and probably a graduate degree as well. The next step down are the engineers who design the hardware and/or software around said knowledge of how the universe works. They may not need quite as much education as the scientists, but at the very least they still need an undergraduate college degree. The next level are the technicians who build and maintain the technology. They require a vocational/technical degree with enough knowledge on the technology to maintain it, but not necessary to build it from scratch from fundamental scientific principles like the engineer.
Due to the lack of education, we are already starting to face a shortage in all these categories, but particularly in engineers and technicians who do most of the work of creating, implementing, and maintaining new technologies and that will be a severe problem in the future if we don't do something about it. Not everyone has to go to college (or is even cut out for college), but those who don't go should at least get vocational training on necessary technologies.
An appropriate degree from a vocational/technical school should be sufficient -- the computerized elevator repairman isn't going to be writing the elevator control code from scratch, but should be technically savvy enough to understand its error codes, apply software patches, change settings, maybe make small modifications to the odd control subroutine, etc.
While this job does not require an expensive college education, it is still significantly more complex than it was just a few years ago. It will also get even more complex as time goes on. Jetsons elevators. It will happen. Eventually you will need someone with very advanced knowledge to fix your washing machine because it's a computer and a mechanical machine, you need double knowledge, or twice as many repairmen.
An appropriate degree from a vocational/technical school should be sufficient -- the computerized elevator repairman isn't going to be writing the elevator control code from scratch, but should be technically savvy enough to understand its error codes, apply software patches, change settings, maybe make small modifications to the odd control subroutine, etc.
While this job does not require an expensive college education, it is still significantly more complex than it was just a few years ago. It will also get even more complex as time goes on. Jetsons elevators. It will happen. Eventually you will need someone with very advanced knowledge to fix your washing machine because it's a computer and a mechanical machine, you need double knowledge, or twice as many repairmen.
Oh yeah, I agree completely. Once upon a time you could become a car repairman without any sort of technical education. Nowadays, cars are so computerized that if you want to repair a modern car you either need a proper technical degree or, if you're an old time mechanic, take the time to take appropriate classes to fill in your missing knowledge. I mean, shade-tree mechanics used to be a dime a dozen but they are pretty rare these days for these very reasons -- between the knowledge and equipment required to do anything but basic maintenance on a modern car only people who are serious about becoming a mechanic as a career (or who have a lot of disposable income and time on their hands) can really get into it. This will only become more and more common as things get more complicated in the future. I still say a full-blown college degree in "Jetsons washing machine repair" won't be necessary, but you'll probably need at least a 2 year degree from a technical college to become a proper washing machine repairman.
This will only become more and more common as things get more complicated in the future. I still say a full-blown college degree in "Jetsons washing machine repair" won't be necessary, but you'll probably need at least a 2 year degree from a technical college to become a proper washing machine repairman.
And there will be a shortage of such people. Because the people who do have technical skills will bubble up to the highest paid positions, all the low-paying technical positions will remain empty until our entire society advances its technological education.
This will only become more and more common as things get more complicated in the future. I still say a full-blown college degree in "Jetsons washing machine repair" won't be necessary, but you'll probably need at least a 2 year degree from a technical college to become a proper washing machine repairman.
And there will be a shortage of such people. Because the people who do have technical skills will bubble up to the highest paid positions, all the low-paying technical positions will remain empty until our entire society advances its technological education.
This is unfortunately a definite possibility. That said, those that I've run into that did receive proper technical educations of the sort we're discussing here -- not college educations but enough technical education to be able to perform repairs and maintenance, have all been very competent. More people should look into getting this sort of education instead of just skirting by on a generic (non vocational/technical) high school diploma (or worse, dropping out entirely) and hoping to get a job as a landscape laborer or something.
I'm confused why one person needs all the knowledge for repair and whatnot.
In the case of elevator repair, for example, it would be just like in IT. One IT guy doesn't do everything.
First the computer nerds check all the shit they can check via software diagnostics; it's determined to be a hardware problem. Depending upon the level of the problem, it might be that the hardware guys are called in to fix the AC unit, or replace the electrical conduit, blah blah blah.
I don't see this as a "elevator repair man learns to program" thing. I see this as "IT guy determines elevator software is fine, calls elevator repair man to fix the hardware."
I'm confused why one person needs all the knowledge for repair and whatnot.
In the case of elevator repair, for example, it would be just like in IT. One IT guy doesn't do everything.
First the computer nerds check all the shit they can check via software diagnostics; it's determined to be a hardware problem. Depending upon the level of the problem, it might be that the hardware guys are called in to fix the AC unit, or replace the electrical conduit, blah blah blah.
I don't see this as a "elevator repair man learns to program" thing. I see this as "IT guy determines elevator software is fine, calls elevator repair man to fix the hardware."
That's inefficient, expensive, and the two things are integrated.
That's inefficient, expensive, and the two things are integrated.
Welcome to corporate industry.
EDIT: I should note that I am, actually, on your side of the argument. Reality as it exists now, is not. Our current labor markets prefer specialization to generalization. You know one skill, and if it ain't enough to get the job done, then more people are brought in until all necessary skills required are present. The "how many XXX does it take to screw in a light bulb" joke will become moot, because you will always need more than just XXX to do it. I prefer generalization; everyone should understand a bit of everything, and a lot about a few things. Oh well, world.
Comments
The invisible hand will fix it!
The other thing to keep in mind is that while it may be technically feasible to build plumbing systems that hardly ever break down, the question is will it ever be economically feasible? If it costs ten times as much to make a completely unbreakable plumbing system than it does to make one that requires maintenance every few years or so and the cost of said maintenance over the lifetime of the plumbing is less than the cost of the unbreakable plumbing, most people would probably go with the less expensive option.
I also picked plumbers, mechanics, and so on as modern day examples of skilled labor that cannot be outsourced. In the future, even if their jobs are no longer necessary due to changes in technology, odds are there will be new technologies that will require different sorts of skilled labor. Today's plumber might be tomorrow's electroplasma conduit technician, much like how we have auto mechanics instead of horse buggy repairmen these days.
Consider an elevator repairman. Even today elevator repair is largely mechanical. But many modern elevators are computer controlled. You have to be a programmer as well as an elevator mechanic to repair a modern elevator. We can do a pretty good job of concentrating technical knowledge into a few companies that produce a lot of very advanced equipment. We just can't deploy the expertise as widely as we can deploy the machinery. You end up with a ton of buildings that have elevators which the average repairman can't fix.
If you have a Google car, and something goes wrong with the cameras on the roof, you think a mechanic can fix that? Even now while so many people are unemployed, companies are desperately trying to hire developers because there are too few of them. If we can't even produce enough developers now, how many electroplasma conduit technicians will we be able to produce later when we need them?
There will be plenty of jobs for technologically advanced people, and not so many for everyone else.
Imagine if I ran the only construction company in town. Even though the laborers have skill, their choice is to work for me or not work at all. Thus, a union is a good idea.
There is a hierarchy to the construction and maintenance of any technology. At the highest level you have scientists who figure out the various theories and whatnot about how the universe works but who don't often directly contribute to any new technology. They require at least a college degree and probably a graduate degree as well. The next step down are the engineers who design the hardware and/or software around said knowledge of how the universe works. They may not need quite as much education as the scientists, but at the very least they still need an undergraduate college degree. The next level are the technicians who build and maintain the technology. They require a vocational/technical degree with enough knowledge on the technology to maintain it, but not necessary to build it from scratch from fundamental scientific principles like the engineer.
Due to the lack of education, we are already starting to face a shortage in all these categories, but particularly in engineers and technicians who do most of the work of creating, implementing, and maintaining new technologies and that will be a severe problem in the future if we don't do something about it. Not everyone has to go to college (or is even cut out for college), but those who don't go should at least get vocational training on necessary technologies.
In the case of elevator repair, for example, it would be just like in IT. One IT guy doesn't do everything.
First the computer nerds check all the shit they can check via software diagnostics; it's determined to be a hardware problem. Depending upon the level of the problem, it might be that the hardware guys are called in to fix the AC unit, or replace the electrical conduit, blah blah blah.
I don't see this as a "elevator repair man learns to program" thing. I see this as "IT guy determines elevator software is fine, calls elevator repair man to fix the hardware."
EDIT:
I should note that I am, actually, on your side of the argument. Reality as it exists now, is not. Our current labor markets prefer specialization to generalization. You know one skill, and if it ain't enough to get the job done, then more people are brought in until all necessary skills required are present. The "how many XXX does it take to screw in a light bulb" joke will become moot, because you will always need more than just XXX to do it. I prefer generalization; everyone should understand a bit of everything, and a lot about a few things. Oh well, world.