That turned out to be somewhat true, especially if you get really specific. I have worked on drone and SSD hardware, two things that didn't exist when I was in high school. In general though, that stuff is not that crazy and new, core math, electrical engineering, and software skills are still the same.
I suppose jobs like "self driving car backup driver" and "Bitcoin miner" are a little more out there :-)
Maybe there is no "pathway to the middle class". Because the middle class is disappearing.
So...seems like a great trend to me. Right?
The clearest trend is the growth of the upper middle class and the "1%". And increasing concentration of wealth at the top. Also increasing unemployment, which is excluded from the nominal definition, because people have given up looking for work.
Safety / security needs (personal, financial, health). Tons of money and jobs here too. Much of America is floating in this zone and needs these services or better versions. Much of the world barely has them. The current health care system (in America) is atrocious and vastly overpriced, smart folks like Buffet are rightly pushing into that space.
Social needs (family, friendship, intimacy, esteem). Vast amounts of money / jobs, and tons of room for innovation. People need real versions of these, not virtual software things. Ways to actually meet new friends - in the physical world. To find intimacy in natural ways. To feel like they actually have a family instead of being increasingly isolated. (I say this as I type alone on a computer at a coffeeshop...)
I won't even cover actualization and transcendence. I suspect such a small percent of the world could even describe what that it means to fully realize themselves that if you can make a job out of it, you're set.
Short version - hand wringing is silly. What do people actually need? There are future jobs and money.
If people can't afford basic physical needs, then that's going to create jobs only if these people somehow get extra resources for that. The current job trends won't do that, they're likely going to make it worse for those people that can't afford basic needs - either it's going to be solved by some major politic-economic intervention redistributing resources (UBI being one of multiple possibilities) or it's not going to happen and those needs will stay unmet.
A truly entrepreneurial economy optimised to allow those with limited social and economic capital the opportunity to start and run successful businesses would look very different. It might even make articles like this one unnecessary.
Amber envisions a comfortable future that includes a family, a modern-yet-rustic house and a good job, maybe as a business owner
Hmmmm. Not sure that much can be done, or should be done, to help lazy unmotivated people with unrealistic expectations.
It's easy to sit there and say you'd like to have more money.
And I guess that's what I like about it.
Just sitting there, rocking back and forth, wanting that money.
It's a story so common as to be a trope in media for the school dropout to end up going on to great things once they find an avenue for their enthusiasm, and the article hints that Amber may be finding something like that in her culinary work.
How, then, is this meaningfully different from typically well-recieved stories about teenagers who don't get on with school but are enthusiastic engineers or programmers? The specific path is different, but the story is the same. Why should one be interpreted as "potentially the next Bill Gates" and the other as "lazy unmotivated"?
I hate merge conflicts and code reviews but I do them.
The ability to delay gratification is a core element of success. Period.
I've never seen a school start earlier than 8:15am.
That's less than 4 hours before noon....
Most americans are awake by 6:30am. If you sleep past 7:30am you are in the last 1 out of 6.
Are we just assuming students don't have commute times here? That isn't true for a _lot_ of people.
Of course high school students have incomplete and partly unrealistic wishes and expectations. There's so much to learn still -- it really requires some time to fully grasp how society functions.
Furthermore, it's deeply unfair to label someone as lazy if they don't fit the normal school mold. People learn differently, and thrive in different jobs and skills. If you read the article in full, you'll notice she now has an after-school job which she loves. That sounds like a great start to me.
> To feel like they actually have a family instead of being increasingly isolated.
There is no app for that, and I don't know if there should be.
It sounds like you're arguing that in fixing these social problems more jobs will be created - I originally thought you wanted to "disrupt" these fields using tech.
Medicine - People always need care
Education - People always need to learn
Government - There's always government
Law Enforcement - Crime isn't likely to disappear in the foreseeable future
While the amount of jobs may vary, there are lots of areas of society that are not going to just disappear.
This is the important snippet. One engineer today can do the work of many engineers of yesteryear. One doctor today can be more productive than several were twenty years prior, and with MI techniques improving continuously that isn't looking to slow down at all. Educators have more tools available to them today than they ever have, and while I don't know if they've become more productive because of it it certainly seems to be helping squeeze budgets ever-tighter.
For government workers, there's many sub-groups who feel the same squeeze. Administrative work can be made vastly more efficient through software. Legal work can be sped up tremensouly by automating much of the grunt work.
Police armed with better tools, better information gathering, and better technology can serve more people with fewer officers, though again in this case it mostly seems to be serving to let budgets drop continuously.
It'll be a while until any of these areas are _automated_, but that doesn't mean that we need as many people working in them today as we would have ten years ago to achieve the same goals.
One reason is technology - not all education tasks can be replaced, but some have been already. Combine that with increased competition for jobs generally, and I don’t see education careers being future-proof.
The demographics of baby boomers vs subsequent generations seem to confirm this one as an employment growth area for the US.
PS. Any legal firm without a strategy here can hire me (at lawyer rates) to tell them how to get with the program. ;)
Why did no one pass a law against "robot accountants"?
You make that sound like a bad thing.
God knows humans fuck a lot of things up. And a lot of legal professions are mostly busywork, which I assume AI can help with. But allowing machines to literally rule us is a long, long way from a good idea, and that's essentially what will happen if you let AI take over e.g. trial lawyering.
Some careers will be automated away, except for the ones that can’t be or those that aren’t allowed to by cabals.
No, what will instead happen is that a lawyer will be given tools that will allow them to be 100% more efficient on their own, thereby reducing the available jobs by 50%.
Even something as simple as improved search tools makes researching much quicker, which is an important part of their job.
Note: I believe there won't be a need for human judges because robots tend to follow deterministic patterns much easily than non-deterministic, and thus you would probably not need humans to do much judging, displacing humans and turning to robots.
I'm reminded of the one Trek episode where Kirk is on trial, because the computer is never wrong. It was of course, because it had garbage input. But really, you gotta love UX where the VENT ATMO button is right next to the SKIP TRACK button.
"Hey! I just had a great idea! Rent control!"
The factory model of education is similar to Tesla's automated Model 3 assembly line. A pat on the head, push 'em out the door, and Prozac for the unhappy.