This is the thing that needs changing most of all. Judging and valuing human life and existence only on how useful they are.
4 Likes
Too be fair, 80% of regular people are a waste of oxygen that serve no purpose.
“Human Resources” is the most corporate mask-off term i think i’ve ever heard. Equating human beings to a resource that is to be extracted of their value, consumed and discarded when no longer useful.
let me guess, you’re one of the good ones
1 Like
And that’s why you’ll find most places call it people and culture and not HR anymore.
And yes I’m one of the good ones, obviously. I can merge in traffic without causing an accident and block an entire footpath when walking on it incredibly slowly.
I don’t want to be THAT guy, but from a Government and economics point of view, it’s something that has to be addressed. Japan has a situation where births are steadily declining, the population is aging and they just don’t know how to deal with the increasing healthcare costs. The young have always supported the old once they finish working, but when you don’t have enough youth working and paying taxes, then the elderly can’t be supported.
Are we really thinking AI is going to wipe out 50% (or even 10%?) of the youth population that work in the next 5-10 years?
I don’t.
We’ve known about climate change basically all my life. We’ve done very, very little about it and allowed it to be a partisan political issue.
Just because it’s not going to impact massively in the next 5-10 years doesn’t mean it shouldn’t start being addressed.
One of the flaws in capitalism is it’s need for immediacy, and lack of foresight and planning.
1 Like
See we have science to tell us the environment is fucked.
So far all we have is an inkling by someone on this forum that jobs will be lost.
Give me the science, and I’ll listen.
Jobs arent really lost though. They simply change. But it’s generally the older genarations that lose out with kess chance for upskilling or even shifting positions
Which is something entirely in their control, right? Hypothetically, in this hypothetical situation, they could adapt.
Why? They had it right the first time, just because the name changed doesn’t mean the attitude of the company towards employees changed.
1 Like
There’s a few trillion animals that wanna chat to you about this pov.
Absolutely that’s a part of it all too.
1 Like
I worked somewhere were the division HR rep (sorry “business partner”) reported to the division director. Completely eliminating any pretense of them having a two way responsibility and being separate from the regular reporting structures.
I presume that’s pretty standard these days?
You need a warehouse like double the size to make them work. That cost alone means it’s cheaper to employ people.
Nah we have a few factories running off those. 12 months ago it was fixing the coding so they dont get stuck waiting politely for each other to go through a door. Now they do milkruns and kanban for us.
ROI for us was about 3-7 years depending on factory configuration and amount/type of movements. Eg ours dont do high reach, but can be better than humans at certain operations with tightly controlled time windows
So if humans were better at their jobs, they would be safe?
There’s close to 10 where I work atm. There’s all sorts of upsides to them from a business point of view.
There’s all sorts of downside to them from an employing people POV.
The tech exists to make a large part of the areas I work in automated. Right now. As costs come down and opportunities open up this will mean more jobs down by AGVs and less people operating forklifts. As the road tech increases, truck drivers will be replaced by AGVs. A robot doesn’t need a log book and down time.
There will be a slight increase in jobs for engineers, but that won’t match the amount of people losing the jobs of doing the work now.
Now, this is going to happen. I’m not saying that we should stop it. It makes sense. It’s coming. It’s not going to be stopped.
What I’m saying is we need to start evaluating now. Like right fucking now. Even better if we start yesterday, how we evaluate our society. How we evaluate the sense of worth of the individual in our society. At the moment that worth is based on the work you perform. This means if we keep going the way we are a lot of people are going to become marginalised. They will be pushed to the margins and maligned for not performing work in a society that does not have work for them to perform.
Just because you live in a world that doesn’t employ people from the left side of the bell curve( for lack of a better term) doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
We need to look at the taxation system. We need to look at the welfare system.
Just saying new jobs, that we don’t about yet, will be created to replace the jobs that will be replaced is like not doing anything about climate change because science will fix it.
4 Likes