
The More Fungible Worker - dlss
http://unpleasantfacts.com/the-more-fungible-worker
======
crdoconnor
>The Luddites tried futilely to stop progress that benefited society

Luddites were not anti-technology nor were they anti progress. They destroyed
technology as a tactic to raise the price of the more automated competition.
Their competition made cheaper, crappier equivalents of their artisanal work
made with de-skilled McJob equivalent workers whose wages were pressured to
abhorrent levels (via other means like the enclosure movement/Napoleonic
wars).

Similarly, people who strike are not "futilely trying to stop the existence of
work". It's another tactic.

In a way, the Luddites are pretty similar to the anti-H1B crowd of hacker
news.

>Before these technological advancements, workers enjoyed mini-monopolies.

This is a hacky way of looking at it but the conclusion sort of works. It
makes much more sense to look at relative market power of employees vs.
employers rather than use the all-or-nothing terminology of monopoly vs.
perfect competition.

If Amazon workers attempt to sabotage Amazon's stock picking machinery, I
expect it will result in an increase in wages, much like it did for the
Luddites. They will be _called_ Luddites, but similar to the original
Luddites, they kind of only really have a problem with technology that is used
to control them.

~~~
cbd1984
> Their competition made cheaper, crappier equivalents of their artisanal work
> made with de-skilled McJob equivalent workers whose wages were pressured to
> abhorrent levels

... which enabled working-class people to own fairly large amounts of clothing
for the first time, and even have fashionable clothing, which had once been
the exclusive preserve of the rich.

Don't try to paint this as all rich-vs-poor. The poor got a lot out of
mechanization, even at the time, and reforming _that_ system worked out a lot
better than trying to work with people who were so threatened by change they
would destroy other peoples' method of earning a living.

~~~
crdoconnor
>which enabled working-class people to own fairly large amounts of clothing
for the first time

Actually...

"English peasants didn’t want to give up their rural communal lifestyle, leave
their land and go work for below-subsistence wages in shitty, dangerous
factories being set up by a new, rich class of landowning capitalists. And for
good reason, too. _Using Adam Smith’s own estimates of factory wages being
paid at the time in Scotland, a factory-peasant would have to toil for more
than three days to buy a pair of commercially produced shoes._ Or they could
make their own traditional brogues using their own leather in a matter of
hours, and spend the rest of the time getting wasted on ale. It’s really not
much of a choice, is it?

Faced with a peasantry that didn’t feel like playing the role of slave,
philosophers, economists, politicians, moralists and leading business figures
began advocating for government action. Over time, they enacted a series of
laws and measures designed to push peasants out of the old and into the new by
destroying their traditional means of self-support."

[http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/08/the-rise-of-
bullshit-...](http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/08/the-rise-of-bullshit-
jobs.html)

In today's world, austerity serves the same function as the enclosure laws.
Reduce public sector demand for labor so as to push down wages across the
board.

~~~
Arnor
Did every single English peasant really have access to leather and the skills
to make their own shoes? Did the shoes they managed to procure really cost so
little compared to the manufactured ones? Did they really cost so little
taking quality, durability, and procurement of materials into account?

If the economic decision was really so simple and the desire for a rural
communal lifestyle was really so strong, urbanization never would have
happened.

~~~
crdoconnor
Yup. Except that the rural communal lifestyle was prohibited via the game laws
and the enclosure movement.

Urbanization really wouldn't have happened without this. Indeed, as the
pamphlets demonstrate, this is largely _why_ the enclosure movement was
enacted.

------
Animats
Yes. I refer to the Amazon warehouse operation as "Machines should think.
People should work". All the thinking is done by computers and robots. Watch
one of the Kiva robot videos that shows the human picker reaching where the
laser pointer tells them to reach, waving the item under the scanner, and
putting the object in the bin where the light is on.

Those people will be unemployed as soon as the Amazon Robot Picking Challenge
([http://amazonpickingchallenge.org/](http://amazonpickingchallenge.org/))
succeeds.

This is the future.

~~~
noonespecial
I'm afraid for a future that ends up like this:

Nobody hires people because robots can do it cheaper, so no one has a job, so
no one can buy anything, so no robots do those things that they could do
cheaper.

The technology doesn't even have to _exist_ to cause poor-world. Only be
possible.

Put me firmly in the basic minimum income camp.

~~~
chii
there will be people who have money (for example, those who inherited their
wealth, or those who own capital/businesses). Their needs may vastly differ
from the poor, and because they have money, the market serves them. The
jobless poor will just either live on what little the state/charity can
provide, or just die on the streets. I don't see basic income as feasible
politically nor in practise. Therefore, what you must do now is to ensure that
you are one of those who have money.

~~~
pdkl95
While I generally agree with your analysis/predictions, there is an
alternative outcome to the "dying in the streets" outcome (which IS where we
are heading, unfortunately).

The alternative is the same one that happens every time a large enough
percentage of the population starts going hungry: they simply take what they
need from those that are hoarding it. Sometimes this includes putting those
responsible for the hoarding under the guillotine - possibly for revenge and
and possibly as a warning for future generations.

The future you descirbe is a prerequisite, and it will get ugly a lot sooner
than most people expect. While being one of those with money is probably a
good idea when possible, it is also a good idea to prepare for when those who
do _not_ have money decide to go full Robespierre.

------
KedarMhaswade
The essence of the article is about effectiveness of technology/trade in
reducing the 'gaps' between the capabilities of workers/artisans results in
lowering their average compensation. But I think there's something missing.
Professor Katz famously suggested not to become scientists [1] because getting
your research funded becomes top priority than the assurance that 'all you'll
do is research'. In a way, since we live in a society, workers need to feel
personally responsible for /constantly/ finding the appropriateness (value) of
their skills and elevate them as necessary to make sure they have a steady
income and their craft is still valued by 'customers'. If you stagnate there,
then you will gradually (or rapidly) become replaceable. And as you age, being
indispensable becomes harder. So, perhaps, it makes sense to learn things that
ensure stability of demand for your skills.

1-
[http://physics.wustl.edu/katz/scientist.html](http://physics.wustl.edu/katz/scientist.html)

------
JacobAldridge
When I discuss 'Policies and Procedures' (including but not limited to tech
like the OP's Amazon example) I often refer to "Plug and Play" staff [1]. If,
for any reason, an employee leaves a position then the business is able to
replace them with minimum fuss. The more the role can depend on technology,
the more 'true' this is, but it needn't be seen as tech-specific.

Staff of course have a different view as to their "fungibility". I tend to
overcome this in two ways:

First, "If you can't be replaced then you can't be promoted." That resonates a
lot.

Second, I replace the 'Bus Factor'[2] context with the 'Lottery Factor'. More
directly, "How many of you, if you won $35M in Powerball, would still be
working here next year? So let's plan for at least one of you to win the
lottery."

(They're not bad at maths, they get that it's the same conversation as being
hit by a bus, but the energetic flip leads to faster engagement in the
process.)

[1] Maybe I need a new Cloud metaphor?

[2]
[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_factor](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_factor)

~~~
chii
> First, "If you can't be replaced then you can't be promoted." That resonates
> a lot.

that is a very sneaky way of saying that their wage/salary cannot increase.

~~~
JacobAldridge
How so? Most of my clients give 5%+ payrises each year.

------
hacknat
I don't understand the argument that just because technological progress in
the past has led to higher wages and employment (indeed, it actually hasn't
always) that it's a given that this will always happen.

It seems to me that it is self-evident that most low-skill labor, at the very
least, is in the process of being automated and is therefore going to be
unnecessary. There has been no other time in human history when ALL low-skill
labor was in the process of being automated in such a generalized way.

While it is certainly true that there is and always has been huge economic
pressure on low-skill labor to be destroyed, it is being destroyed at an
unprecedented rate and the economic forces that are destroying it don't seem
to be creating any residual low-skill labor (like the assembly line, etc did).
Making sure that the labor force is educated enough to not need the low-skill
labor is good, and it is undeniable that everybody is getting more educated.
Still, I worry a great many people are going to get left out in the dark.

~~~
copsarebastards
> Making sure that the labor force is educated enough to not need the low-
> skill labor is good, and it is undeniable that everybody is getting more
> educated.

That's very deniable in the US. The rising cost of education and lack of
government funding for education means that many, many people are not getting
more educated.

~~~
hsod
This graph:

[http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/histor...](http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/historical/fig1.jpg)

and others on this page:

[http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/histor...](http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/historical/)

seem to disagree with your intuition

~~~
copsarebastards
more people != everyone

I'm making a bit of a pedantic point, I realize. But I think that just because
more people are getting educated doesn't mean we can ignore the people who are
still consistently excluded from higher education.

------
walterbell
Spreadsheets made it easier/possible for "users" (accountants) to write
financial "programs", reducing the need for custom development of financial
software. If there are more innovations like spreadsheets, there will be less
or different needs for programmers as the labor category exists today.
Fungibility cuts both ways.

~~~
bobbles
The circle of life:

Finance task :

> finance system to address task

> excel spreadsheet to address finance system shortcomings

> finance system to 'formalise' the spreadsheet

> excel spreadsheet to address finance system shortcomings

> finance system to 'formalise' the spreadsheet

etc...

~~~
walterbell
This circle could also apply to enterprises and startups.

------
SatvikBeri
Workers becoming more fungible happens even in creative domains. For example,
I've heard several companies cite how advances in sales software have
dramatically reduced the training time for new sales people as well as
reducing the gap between top performers and everyone else.

------
stretchwithme
People who kept doing things the old inefficient way will see their wages go
down.

If a worker can make ten times the widgets with newer technology, the amount
that can be charged per widget, and thus the amount a worker can be paid to
produce each one, has to drop eventually.

~~~
TeMPOraL
And as the inefficient workers get outcompeted and more skilled competition
shows up, the end result is always the same: new widget costs 1/10 of the
original costs, those who make them earn the same amount of money as they did
before, but now 9/10 of workers are without a job. It has always been like
that and it's responsible for the age of plenty we live in - but the problem
of today is that those 9/10 of workers without a job are increasingly unable
to find another one, as everything gets slowly automated away.

~~~
stretchwithme
9/10 of workers are not out of a job. Unemployment is not 90%.

~~~
TeMPOraL
They didn't use to be, but - looking at the rate of automation - they're about
to.

------
Futurebot
Those that can 'defer to the machine' are going to do better in many jobs
(that will remain) in the future. This is a big part of Cowen's "Average is
Over." Here's a good review of it which goes into that aspect of it:

[http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/searle20150109](http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/searle20150109)

Excerpt:

'The moral Cowen draws from freestyle chess is that the winners of these
games, and he extrapolates, the economic “games” of the future, are those
human beings who are most willing to defer to the decisions of the machine. I
find this conclusion more than a little chilling given we’re talk about real
people here rather than Knight or Pawns, but Cowen seems to think it’s just
common sense.

In its simplest form Cowen’s argument boils down to the prediction that an
increasing amount of human work in the future will come in the form of these
AI-human teams. Some of this, he admits, will amount to no workers at all with
the human part of the “team” reduced to an unpaid customer. I now almost
always scan and bag my own goods at the grocery store, just as I can’t
remember the last time I actually spoke to a bank teller who wasn’t my mom.
Cowen also admits that the rise of AI might mean the world actually gets
“dumber” our interactions with our environment simplified to foster smooth
integration with machines and compressed to meet their limits.

In his vision intelligent machines will revolutionize everything from medicine
to education to business management and negotiation to love. The human beings
who will best thrive in this new environment will be those whose work best
complements that of intelligent machines, and this will be the case all the
way from the factory floor to the classroom. Intelligent machines should
improve human judgement in areas such as medical diagnostics and would even
replace judges in the courtroom if we are ever willing to take the
constitutional plunge. Teachers will go from educators to “coaches” as
intelligent machines allow individualized instruction , but education will
still require a human touch when it comes to motivating students.'

------
politician
A timely article considering the deformation of traditional IT departments
threatened by Docker.

~~~
k__
I remember talking to a few people in high school about me studying CS because
I wanted to become a developer.

They all my IT-friends were like, "Don't do it man. No one needs new software!
Better be an administrator, in the future they will be needed to manage all
the IT stuff that already exists, but there will hardly be anything new on the
marked!"

That was 2003, right before the social and mobile boom.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Docker isn't anything new (perhaps nicer toolset on an old idea), and admins
aren't getting replaced by devs any faster than devs getting replaced by
admins. If anything, the amount of work continues to get abstracted away for
both camps.

Maybe you won't need sysadmins in ~10 years. Maybe. Those of us still doing IT
will just pivot into another niche.

~~~
venomsnake
With more and more abstraction layers the things that could fuck up rise
exponentially and are harder to track. So while you won't need 10 ops to be
able to keep your servers up, you will need 10 trained IT investigators to
find why java 12 inside docker 8.14 connecting to whatever nosql crashes when
there is full moon.

~~~
marcosdumay
Things don't really work that way.

Yes, the possiblities for bugs increase exponentialy. But no, that does not
mean you'll need exponentialy more time tracking them. And that's not even the
most important scaling factor: the point is that good abstractions are simple,
and get reused enough so that they create very few interface bugs, and those
bugs get resolved.

~~~
toomuchtodo
> Things don't really work that way.

Have you worked with Docker in production? Managing tens of thousands of
running containers isn't what I call "plug and play", and orchestration tools
like Mesos don't make it as simple as people would like to believe.

I will admit great strides are being made, but all this handwaving that we're
at some sort of "great push forward" is pretty laughable if you look at the
history of computing.

~~~
marcosdumay
If it's so, it's because Docker isn't a good abstraction. (And we can expect
it to get eventually replaced by something that correctly solves the problem.)

We have plenty of examples of good abstraction already (programming languages,
operational systems, databases...). After we get one, most people stop even
thinking that it's prossible to program without them.

~~~
toomuchtodo
> We have plenty of examples of good abstraction already (programming
> languages, operational systems, databases...). After we get one, most people
> stop even thinking that it's prossible to program without them.

Right. And that's why we're how many versions of Windows, Linux, FreeBSD, and
OSX in? PHP, Python, .Net, VB, Ruby, GoLang, Rust, Objective C, Swift.

And so the dance continues.

