Amazon Go

Your periodic reminder that 'retail salesperson' is the most common job in America (~4.5 million).

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/04/the-10-m...

I always thought some type of driver was more common...

It's just a starter job, people shouldn't rely on them as a career, it's their fault, bootstraps, etc. etc.

Supplemental reminder that tech exists largely to eliminate jobs. Whoops, that was a typo- I meant to write "increase productivity".

> people shouldn't rely on them as a career

Nobody thinks of that as a career, but 4.5 million people seem to rely on it for income nonetheless.

those two things are directly related. People need to stop being blind about the fact that yes, there will be mass unemployment soon.

For the large percentage of Americans who don't have a degree or maybe not even a high school diploma, there is no such thing as a 'starter job'- there's just 'a job'. Heck, for a growing proportion of the population the degree doesn't even help.

We in the tech industry would be wise to remember that we live in an incredibly privileged bubble where careers are real things, where it's easy to find new opportunities.

Actually, there are starter jobs for folks without degrees or even a high school diploma. People gain experience and there are plenty of companies that don't hire via a HR checklist. Plenty of people work their way up from cashier to management.

The big danger is external factors that remove those first rungs of work that allow people to climb up.

"If you are Amazon, you have to acknowledge that you are slowly corroding the retail sector, which employs many (~4.5 million) people in this country."

http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/silicon-valley-ha...

During college, I worked for about 6 or 7 months in a local supermarket. Seventeen years later, some of my former coworkers are still there.

How do people think it matters who's fault it is?

You can call them lazy or stupid but they still exist and a lot of them won't get a new job (again, doesn't matter if they can't or just don't want to find one).

This isn't a solution. It doesn't matter who's "fault" it is. If 4.5M people lose their jobs very quickly, we're going to have a big freaking problem on our hands.

Retail, fast food, stock pickers, truck drivers, etc.. etc.. Sure you could say "don't make menial jobs your career" all you want, but this is still going to be a huge freaking issue sooner than later.

This is from just last week: https://www.ft.com/content/dec677c0-b7e6-11e6-ba85-95d1533d9...

"This won't eliminate retail clerks, it will just make their lives easier so they can focus on other tasks"

In 1800's - "If you are a farm equipment manufacturer, you have to acknowledge that you are slowly corroding the farming sector, which employs most people in the country."

Even if they "acknowledge" it, so what? It's not their job to create extra jobs to replace the ones that they've automated out of existence. It's never been the jobs of the companies creating disruptive technology, like farm equipment or cars or computers, to do this.

It wasn't Ford's job to find new jobs for everyone who had a horse-related career; same deal here.

and income inequality has skyrocketed since then.

Oookaaayyy… but then you don't get to complain when those people vote Trump into office.

don't attempt sarcasm on this site. people take things literally.

I agree with you that income inequality is a big problem, and it is a major cause of social discord, but to be fair, quality of life increased significantly across all percentiles since then.

e.g. which society is better to live in:

    (low inequality, less wealth)
    10th percentile average wealth: 100
    99th percentile average wealth: 1000
 
    (high inequality, more wealth)
    10th percentile average wealth: 1000
    99th percentile average wealth: 1000000

Of course this is an oversimplification, but you get the idea: income inequality is not the only important factor.

Sure I do.

1. Automation wasn't a major political issue behind Trump's success.

2. I can still think someone is wrong even if they hold the majority opinion (although in this case it was a minority opinion since Trump lost the popular vote).

3. I do think something should be done to help people who lose their jobs due to automation. I just think that's the government's domain, not that of private companies.

There are 3.5 million truckers in America. I welcome self-driving trucks, however.

You have to consider purchasing power, not how much moneys you have in your wallet.

If the majority of people get 10x the money they used to, they're not getting 10x the purchasing power, because everyone needs a higher salary.

This is also an oversimplification. You can read more about the phenomenon here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease

Agreed. I intentionally didn't use units of my wealth numbers to indicate some "absolute" measure or wealth.

10x more food, land, or whatever.

And this is the definition of a Straw Man argument to the implication "we need to care about the people affected by innovation".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

We should go bravely into the future, and solve problems as they arise. Maybe this is the catalyst for basic income?

Exactly. All-in-the-game economics can get flipped around really quick I think. 1. Let's automate everything right now, we have the technology. 2. Millions of workers displaced. 3. Social upheaval?

I think the mistaken comparison people make, is that when farmers and such lost jobs in the industrial revolution, new opportunities that didn't require total re-education were popping up as fast as old ones disappeared...this is not the case today. The shrinking range of opportunities are to be found in increasingly exclusive, high-skill white collar positions. People are being left behind, and the fuck-you-I-got-my-STEM degree crowd, their attitude isn't making anything better.

You welcome them how soon? If all those workers were displaced tomorrow, is that good?

Because automation is an instantaneous occurrence that we have to talk about if an industry vanishes overnight?

Living in New York and nearly being run down by "professional" drivers daily... tomorrow sounds good. Taxis too, please.

Oooh, will that stop the incessant and generally illegal HONKHONKHONKHOOOOONK too? Yes please!

Actually income inequality was highest in agricultural times (higher than today), and hit its bottom in 60s or 70s for the US/UK, well after industrialization. Life expectancy and health inequality is near all-time lows right now. Information/education inequality is also at all-time lows, with more people in college than ever, and near universal access to the internet. Entertainment inequality is at all time lows.

Just wanted to note that we're really not doing too badly with advancing technology. And if you measure actual poverty as compared to relative poverty, which makes more sense to me, we are doing even better. Have a nice day.

NYC is a very long way away from self driving cars. The truck drivers that will be replaced are those that drive cross country via highways.

> Just wanted to note that we're really not doing too badly with advancing technology

Tell that to all the people who are doing badly? Jesus, it's like people look at some statistics that say the world is ok, and then continue in their totally ignorant life. The world is literally full of people who say it's not good enough.

How are you measuring that? If we're talking about the US, then housing, healthcare, and education are the three largest areas I've seen us regress in -- areas where inequality is at all-time highs.

Technology is advancing, and we're seeing lots of benefits from that -- I think everyone would agree. But advances in technology don't inherently translate into better quality of life. A $500 4K TV screen is amazing, but doesn't make up for the fact that a basic 2-bed apartment now costs $25,000/year. A $650 iPhone super-computer-in-your-pocket is fantastic, but doesn't make up for the fact that a 4-year degree now routinely runs $60,000 or higher.

Extending debt to cover up societies inequality doesn't actually solve inequality, it just hides from view how big of a problem the inequality has become.