
Signals of an unsustainable future coming from Davos - nomoba
http://failedevolution.blogspot.com/2016/01/signals-of-unsustainable-future-coming.html
======
ktRolster
If you read the actual report (instead of that guy's blog), the information is
rather positive:

    
    
      >Overall, there is a modestly positive outlook for 
      >employment across most industries, with jobs growth 
      >expected in several sectors. However, it is also clear 
      >that this need for more talent in certain job categories 
      >is accompanied by high skills instability across all job 
      >categories. Combined together, net job growth and skills 
      >instability result in most businesses currently facing
      > major recruitment challenges and talent shortages, a 
      > pattern already evident in the results and set to get 
      > worse over the next five years
    

Mike Rowe has a great foundation to help people who are trying to find those
job:
[http://profoundlydisconnected.com/usatodaywhatdoesagoodjoblo...](http://profoundlydisconnected.com/usatodaywhatdoesagoodjoblooklike/)

~~~
p4wnc6
As someone who has been on the job market for a long time recently, I am not
encouraged by this.

What I've observed is that in response to chronic talent shortages, larger
organizations prefer to downsize, cut corners, scale-back offerings, and
produce output of lower quality. Meanwhile, smaller organizations do not have
the budgets necessary, so they try to portray working for them as a lifestyle
choice. They offer foosball, on-site beer or coffee, and meaningless amounts
of largely worthless equity.

What both types absolutely will not do is to compete via wages, benefits, or
healthful employment accommodations (for example, private working spaces
instead of undifferentiated desks in an open-plan office).

The "challenge" of recruitment is not how to attract qualified (let alone 'the
best') candidates ... rather it is how to reframe the business such that high
quality is not required for executives to maintain their lifestyles.

It's a massive _flight from quality._ It's very frightening.

~~~
ktRolster

      > As someone who has been on the job market for a long time recently, 
    

That's too bad. Have you done anything to increase your skills?

~~~
p4wnc6
Yes, many things. Interviewers are often ecstatic about my skills and
experiences, but ultimately say they would prefer to hire people less-skilled
who are cheaper and (especially) more willing to sublimate away basic human
needs (such as for privacy or vacation) while still working for lower wage.

~~~
vinceguidry
Might I suggest giving Ruby a shot? Companies that use Ruby generally look for
more experienced devs.

~~~
p4wnc6
I would love to learn Ruby -- it is a beautiful language. But I am unaware of
the scientific and data-science world for Ruby. I am not seeking front-end
work, and Ruby has a (perhaps undeserved?) reputation of mainly providing jobs
of that variety.

~~~
vinceguidry
I interviewed on Friday for a company called Emcien that does data science
work.

[http://emcien.com/](http://emcien.com/)

If you're willing to move to Atlanta, they're an option. Send me an email if
interested, look in my profile. Heck, even if you're not, they're still worth
talking to.

------
crimsonalucard
Wealth inequality is already a problem today. I would argue that since it's an
issue already, AI, technology and automation has largely nothing to do with
wealth inequality as it exists today.

The problem of wealth inequality was predicted to occur within capitalism long
ago by a man named Karl Marx. So compelling were his predictions that entire
societies have been constructed (and overthrown) in attempt to create a system
that is more fair. Russia and China are the two biggest failed experiments in
trying to solve this problem. Karl Marx may have been wrong about communism,
but he is most famous for being right about wealth inequality and capitalism.

What Karl Marx said about inequality is this: It happens because of the
private ownership of the means of production. As long as the lifeblood of the
economy, its vital resources, factories and technology are owned by a tiny
group of individuals, as long as production is governed by the law of capital
accumulation and not the needs of society as a whole, poverty, injustice and
capitalist crisis will remain and ultimately grow. Workers produce everything;
the ruling class produces nothing, yet the ruling class own everything.

Take for example your typical Tech corporation: Apple. Apple makes $1,865,306
of revenue per employee. The top senior software engineer gets paid around
$222,550, which is a number that is far higher than the average salary of an
apple employee.

What is evident is this: The people who do almost all of the work in apple
(engineers) are only getting paid less than a fifth of the revenue they
generate. Where does the rest of this revenue go?

It is used to increase the incomes of a few people who do much less or no
work. C-level executives pad their salaries with a huge portion of this money.
Tim Cook alone got 10.2 million in 2015 and that's not including stock
options. While tim cook is a very capable individual, his salary indicates
that his work output is equivalent to the work output of 50 engineers. Can a
single human produce output equivalent to 50 engineers? I would argue no.

The rest of the money is either distributed as dividends or reinvested back
into the company in the form of infrastructure improvements or just money in
the bank. Who directly benefits from this? The Shareholders or in karl marx's
words: The people who own the means of production. These are the people
attending davos. They are the real problem, it has nothing to do with AI.

~~~
reitanqild
The problem with US used to be some people were richer the others while in
Soviet Russia almost everyone were equally poor, wasn't it?

~~~
crimsonalucard
No. Soviet Russia use to be a wealthy country. They got into space before the
united states. Either way please read my comment. I never said communism was
the solution. Capitalism is only a better system than communism, but it is
still a system rife with problems.

In capitalism you get 1% of the population who own 50% of the worlds wealth
which you characterized as:

"The problem with US used to be some people were richer the others"

I think the problem is bigger than that.

------
ktRolster
The blog relies on some negative quotes about AI from the paper. The
hypothesis is that AI will make most workers obsolete.

The paper is not a definitive declaration of what will happen, rather it is a
survey of CxOs and HR managers. These people have expertise but their
expertise is not predicting the outcome of AI.

~~~
toyg
To be fair though, these are the people who "tell" the market what a product
should or should not be. If they say they expect AI to replace workers faster
and faster, it means that's what they _want_ AI to do, that's where the market
is going -- and where the market goes, technology will likely follow one way
or the other.

~~~
ktRolster
It's what we all want. AI to do our job so we can play.

That's exactly what a "robot butler/maid" is for.
[http://p-fst1.pixstatic.com/54652b06697ab07b10007e4a/_w.540_...](http://p-fst1.pixstatic.com/54652b06697ab07b10007e4a/_w.540_s.fit_/rosie-
robot-jetsons.jpg)

------
tomcam
To quote Glenn Reynolds, "I'll believe there's a crisis with the people who
say there's a crisis act like there's a crisis." These are the people who
lecture about sustainability but fly 1500 private jets into Davos in the age
of Skype.

~~~
reitanqild
This is about what I think as well. I don't walk around telling everyone that
AGW is a hoax but in technical forums I sometimes ask only to be met with
downvotes and quotes about 2500 scientists can't be wrong.

That said I do a lot of the right things for the "wrong" reasons: I recycle
because I don't like wasting perfectly good resources, I take the train
because that means I can code on my way to work (and I don't enjoy driving
when tired) etc.

------
ZoeZoeBee
">Overall, our respondents seem to take a negative view regarding the upcoming
employment impact of artificial intelligence, although not on a scale that
would lead to widespread societal upheaval—at least up until the year 2020."

Four Years is just one election cycle, so buckle-up and enjoy the ride, make
sure you're ahead of the tide.

------
vmorgulis
“In the middle of the pyramid, a restructured class will serve and secure the
domination of the top."

~~~
walterbell
What happens if this high-skilled labor pool chooses new goals?

~~~
vmorgulis
They can get the power and replace the current elite like during the French
Revolution.

I think the history will continue to repeat itself until someone explain it
with something like science (non-cultural).

I see the structure of the society like an electromagnetic field or like
gravity. Something people don't know the existence.

~~~
LiweiZ
I guess you could take a look at complexity theory.

~~~
vmorgulis
Very interesting. Thank you.

~~~
LiweiZ
I came across that field when I tried to find out answers. I found this is the
best way to have a better understand for lots of things so far. It shows a
better model for many "dynamic structured" things.

~~~
vmorgulis
I agree with the "non-linear" aspects of the theory.

Agents infuence the system and are themselves changed by the result. We can
see that in politics.

Mankind deseperatly needs this kind of tool to survive. Philosophy or
principles are not shared enough to avoid conflicts and wars. Something
neutral could help.

Thank you again :-)

------
p4wnc6
Oldie but a goodie "Economics of Nanotech and AI" (Robin Hanson, Foresight
2010) [0].

[0] [https://vimeo.com/9508131](https://vimeo.com/9508131)

------
wrong_variable
As anyone who works in technology will tell you - "its turtles all the way
down".

As long as the internet is held together by duct-tapes - I do not think there
is going to be a shortage of jobs.

I always find it amusing when tech people think they can make someone else
unemployed with a script.

Oh gosh - this package manager is awesome - said no one ever.

The real reason for job losses is with income inequality caused by
dysfunctional govts.

------
arrty88
the difference between the US and Russia is that in the US, anyone has the
opportunity to change their own economic situation if they want to.

~~~
chipgap98
I think there are millions of people in the US who "want" to change their
situation. I don't think the US you are describing actually exists

~~~
arrty88
If you have 5 kids, you probably can't easily change things:
[http://www.allenbwest.com/2016/02/hilarious-judge-judy-
conte...](http://www.allenbwest.com/2016/02/hilarious-judge-judy-contestant-
inadvertently-explains-exactly-whats-wrong-with-liberalism/)

But anyone with half a brain can start going to local libraries to get
interested in subjects, attend community college, apply for new jobs, learn a
trade, etc etc

~~~
vmorgulis
A lot of people are interested by nothing.

