• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

50% of occupations today will no longer exist in 2025: Report

I really have difficulty seeing how capitalism and ever advancing technology will be able to co-exist in the future in such a way that most people will be able to provide well for themselves. AI could advance to the point one day where even professional jobs are being replaced.

They already are being replaced.
For instance, there are surgeries that are done with computers and robotics.
 
Hope they're not doing the accounting one.

That's one of the fields on the chopping block.

No matter how much number crunching computers can do for us, at the end of it you still need a human to understand the results and make/advise a business decision. Classical accountancy where you write invoices and balance books might not be around much longer but knowledge of accounting will still going to be a key career skill for many people, for a long time.
 
It's going to be strange riding my scoot down the slab when all of the semi trucks are driverless.
 
For those who are interested, the executive summary of the report can be found at: http://www.cbre.com/o/international/AssetLibrary/Genesis Report_Exec Summary_1029.pdf

The article footnoted in the report in question can be found at: Report Suggests Nearly Half of U.S. Jobs Are Vulnerable to Computerization | MIT Technology Review

In part, that article states, "The authors note that the rate of computerization depends on several other factors, including regulation of new technology and access to cheap labor."

I suspect that the 45% estimate may be on the aggressive side of things. If one recalls, numerous rosy predictions have been made concerning the transformational impact of technology with reality falling far short of those predictions.

First, job categories are not static. Even as some disappear, others will also emerge. That there will be a continuing trend toward knowledge-intensive fields is probably the most likely outcome. Niche positions that have little to do with those attributes will also persist, as they cannot be automated.

Second, artificial intelligence may have its largest impact in complementing human effort e.g., decision making. For example, in the realm of economics, the complexity of human behavior has limited the utility of medium- and long-range quantitative models.

Third, one cannot expect policy makers to be indifferent to developments that would threaten to decimate the demand for labor. Developing countries require labor utilization, among other things, to try to maintain social stability. Developed countries need it to maintain or increase living standards.

Having said this, I suspect that there will be occupations that become less relevant while areas that are knowledge-intensive grow in importance. I also suspect that at least some part of the rising income inequality in the U.S. may be a reflection of the structural shift being driven by technological change rather than a matter of public policy.
 
Its those kinds of things that will go away though. Computers will do them.

Its going to be the creative and the extremely technically skilled who continue to prosper. And that's nowhere near everybody. Lots of people weren't born with the "chops".

Even the need for highly skilled workers is declining. There has been many a drafting department replaced by installing CAD programs onto the engineers computers.

I remember talking to this guy who owned a large law firm in my town, about 15 years ago. He said that he had fired all the secretaries in the business and required that the lawyers do their own typing. I bet by now he has even let his paralegals go because most of the research they did can be done by anyone over the internet now, and in a small fraction of the time that it used to take.

No job is immune to time and labor saving innovation.
 
I'm retired now but in a hard scrabble environment you will never replace a man on a horse to ride the fence line and babysit the scattered cattle. Unfortunately most Americans don't want this kind of work anymore so it will be illegals doing it for the most part.

What makes you think that meet has to come from roaming cattle? I expect that before the end of this century, it will be grown in a lab.
 
No matter how much number crunching computers can do for us, at the end of it you still need a human to understand the results and make/advise a business decision. Classical accountancy where you write invoices and balance books might not be around much longer but knowledge of accounting will still going to be a key career skill for many people, for a long time.

some in the accounting profession will remain as coaches to those who need to be able to learn what the numbers mean, but those bookkeepers whose activities will be performed digitally, what of them and their ability to earn incomes
ditto for bank tellers
and cashiers
receptionists and secretaries
pharmacists
truck drivers, cab drivers, and couriers
librarians
loan officers
real estate appraisers and brokers
retail clerks
teachers
widget makers
warehouse workers
macdonald's/fast-food order takers
car salesmen
and many, many more

while some of them will find alternative work, and some of that group will wind up in better positions, a great many will not have the aptitude to fulfill higher order job requirements

joblessness will be exponentially greater than what we are now experiencing, as those in middle class jobs performed by those with average IQs are without work in the not-too-distant future
for society, will that mean that their and their family's quality of life should be limited only because their ability to earn a living is impaired because of tech advances that have made them economic casualties

we have done a terrible job figuring out how to deal with underemployment today
the matter is not going to get better over time
 
I work in a field where we are often seen as 'replacing' people (machine learning, data/process automation). I can assure people that while it can seem like we kick people out of jobs, we create more opportunity for employment than remove it. It's down to the finance/HR people to decide whether they want to fill that opportunity with new hires.

As far as training goes, there are now hundreds of online resources where you can learn new skills that are being taken by young and old alike. From Harvard Computer Science courses to Financial Accounting at Wharton Business School. All for free. Even 60 year old postal clerks can do that (and make no mistake, some already are).

So far, at least, the Massive Open Online Course (MOOCs) have not revolutionized higher education and training. Of course, with experience and learning-based changes, the technologies and approaches could improve, allowing for a larger impact.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/02/education/edlife/demystifying-the-mooc.html
 
They already are being replaced.
For instance, there are surgeries that are done with computers and robotics.

True, but isn't there a human surgeon still operating them or is my info out of date?
 
This prediction is a frightening one for those of us at the age where we are not old enough to not work, but too old to retrain and start over.

As a recent graduate and current computer technician. I'd say I picked the best career. However, the organization that I work for is not keeping up as fast as I'd like it too. So it works both ways sometimes.
 
I really have difficulty seeing how capitalism and ever advancing technology will be able to co-exist in the future in such a way that most people will be able to provide well for themselves. AI could advance to the point one day where even professional jobs are being replaced.

That is indeed the scary reality about our future. One day, not so far in the future, there simply will not be enough 40/hr per week jobs for every family to have one.

But that doesn't mean all is lost, we will just have to work a lot fewer hours, and enter the labor market at an older age, and retire earlier. the issue will be coming up with an income distribution system that will allow what we now consider "part time work" to pay an high wage full time income.

Unfortunately, this is probably going to come down to government policy discouraging long working hours and incouraging much higher wages. There are several ways that this can be done, but those on the far right are going to fight tooth and nail against the good of the masses. They seem to prefer either mass poverty or a huge welfare state to sensible policy that works in an economy where scarcity isn't an issue.
 
anyone actually believe that expansion of computing abilities is not going to eliminate the need for humans to do many of the activities that they are now earning income to perform?
it should be a given, whether it is a 50% job loss or not, whether it happens in 15 years or not

a portion of society will have good jobs operating the devices that perform so much work
but what about the rest of society, those without the aptitude to fulfill those high level positions
will the chasm between the elite and the poor grow even wider, and the ranks of the poor even more extensive
or will the majority at the polling booth insist that the wealth created by these machines be distributed for the benefit of society at large

that machines will displace employment should be given
how we respond to it seems a very open question

Fortunately, there are answers, and ways to fix these issues without becoming either a welfare state or an empoverished nation and without communism or massive socialism.

Unfortunately, those who can only see the world for the way it was yesterday, are going to fight against the policies that we will need for tomorrows world. It will be an epic political battle, that will probably eventually be won to our best benefit, but only after much unneccesary suffering is caused by political ideologues who don't understand how the world around is is changing.
 
What does too old to retrain mean? I was teaching my 11 year old German Shepherd things until the day he died.

That's a German Shepard.

Have you ever tried teaching a Mexican Chihuahua to be a guard dog ?
 
I'm glad I have a skill that can't be replaced by computers. Unless they learn to pick up a paint brush, camera or use PS and take into consideration what a client wants - I'm safe.

There are quite a few companies that have "design online" features on their websites which allows customers to create their own artwork.

No job, including those that require artistic skills, are immune from technology.
 
That's a German Shepard.

Have you ever tried teaching a Mexican Chihuahua to be a guard dog ?

Never had the satisfaction of owning a little dog. And props for recognizing the awesomeness of German Shepherds!
 
No matter how much number crunching computers can do for us, at the end of it you still need a human to understand the results and make/advise a business decision. Classical accountancy where you write invoices and balance books might not be around much longer but knowledge of accounting will still going to be a key career skill for many people, for a long time.

I agree. But what we are going to see is a 100 person accounting department being gradually reduced to 1 person. that's 99 families that will no longer have an earned income.
 
...
while some of them will find alternative work, and some of that group will wind up in better positions, a great many will not have the aptitude to fulfill higher order job requirements...

Even with those who have such aptitude, there won't be enough jobs to go around, unless we significantly reduce working hours.
 
There are quite a few companies that have "design online" features on their websites which allows customers to create their own artwork.

No job, including those that require artistic skills, are immune from technology.

Trust me, mine is. I'm not getting fired/laid off/put on the soup line anytime soon unless a client can figure out how to incorporate 4-5 different mediums at the same time. 9/10 times, they'll pay up mostly because their demands can't be met by anything other than a professional in the field I work in. I'm somewhere between an artisan and businessman. I sell my work and get to travel as a bonus. There's nothing not to like TBH except the fact that I'm tired of doing it.
 
True, but isn't there a human surgeon still operating them or is my info out of date?

A lot of the advances in technology eliminate the need for proceedures, or at least make the proceedures quicker and less invasive. So we end up with less doctors and nurses being able to treat more patients.
 
Fortunately, there are answers, and ways to fix these issues without becoming either a welfare state or an empoverished nation and without communism or massive socialism.

Unfortunately, those who can only see the world for the way it was yesterday, are going to fight against the policies that we will need for tomorrows world. It will be an epic political battle, that will probably eventually be won to our best benefit, but only after much unneccesary suffering is caused by political ideologues who don't understand how the world around is is changing.

i can't agree enough with you on this point

but i wonder how long it will take for all those unemployed voters to wise up and vote for the candidates who are not going to initiate policies which are opposed to the unemployable's situation

for instance, the poorest and least educated in my state recently voted for and elected a senate candidate whose history as a local representative consisted of giving the rich tax breaks at the expense of short changing teachers and denying medicare to millions of citizens. they voted against their own interests - in droves. why should we expect that to change? while i am hopeful, recent history tells me my optimism is unrealistic
 
i can't agree enough with you on this point

but i wonder how long it will take for all those unemployed voters to wise up and vote for the candidates who are not going to initiate policies which are opposed to the unemployable's situation

for instance, the poorest and least educated in my state recently voted for and elected a senate candidate whose history as a local representative consisted of giving the rich tax breaks at the expense of short changing teachers and denying medicare to millions of citizens. they voted against their own interests - in droves. why should we expect that to change? while i am hopeful, recent history tells me my optimism is unrealistic

Once it get's to the point where even the rich are hurting, then we will change our policies. Businesses have to have customers, eventually, as more and more of us become unemployed and unemployable, businesses will start to fail in mass. Sooner or later, we will figure things out out, and replace our motto of "what's good for the rich is good for the masses" with "what is good for the masses is good for the rich". How long this is going to take, who the heck knows.

I suspect it's going to depend on the results of the next few election cycles. If both houses of congress plus the POTUS is turned over to the far right (I'm not talking about republicans as much as I am the Tea Party and Libertarians), and if they actually act on their rhetoric, then I suspect that the results will force us to realize the changes that we need to make fairly rapidly.

If we elect liberals, then we will just keep blaming liberal policies, and not technology driven fundamental changes in our economy that are dragging us down.
 
It's going to be strange riding my scoot down the slab when all of the semi trucks are driverless.

Not only will they eventually become driverless, there will be far fewer trucks.

The trend these days is for products to be smaller, lighter, have less packaging, and to be multifunctional. Products can even be "virtual" and occupy no physical space, and can be transmitted electronically for free.

A bet a tractor trailer can hall a million smartphones. Those tiny smartphones are replacing watches, calculators, computers, notepads, envelopes, stamps, typewriters, computer printers, fax machines, credit cards, ID cards, filing cabinets, cameras, pedometers, heart rate monitors, "life alerts", stand alone GPS systems, maps, pens, home phones, televisions, games, and zillions of other products.

One truck will soon be able to carry the load of a hundred trucks.
 
some in the accounting profession will remain as coaches to those who need to be able to learn what the numbers mean, but those bookkeepers whose activities will be performed digitally, what of them and their ability to earn incomes
ditto for bank tellers
and cashiers
receptionists and secretaries
pharmacists
truck drivers, cab drivers, and couriers
librarians
loan officers
real estate appraisers and brokers
retail clerks
teachers
widget makers
warehouse workers
macdonald's/fast-food order takers
car salesmen
and many, many more

while some of them will find alternative work, and some of that group will wind up in better positions, a great many will not have the aptitude to fulfill higher order job requirements

joblessness will be exponentially greater than what we are now experiencing, as those in middle class jobs performed by those with average IQs are without work in the not-too-distant future
for society, will that mean that their and their family's quality of life should be limited only because their ability to earn a living is impaired because of tech advances that have made them economic casualties

we have done a terrible job figuring out how to deal with underemployment today
the matter is not going to get better over time

This argument has been around for years, and in my opinion is short sighted. People thought secretaries would all be out of a job once computers were invented. 40 years later, and even though everyone has a mini calendar in their pocket, secretaries are still around. The job may have evolved but it still exists. Not only will old jobs evolve, but new jobs will pop up to take their place.

I agree. But what we are going to see is a 100 person accounting department being gradually reduced to 1 person. that's 99 families that will no longer have an earned income.

Not only will they eventually become driverless, there will be far fewer trucks.

The trend these days is for products to be smaller, lighter, have less packaging, and to be multifunctional. Products can even be "virtual" and occupy no physical space, and can be transmitted electronically for free.

A bet a tractor trailer can hall a million smartphones. Those tiny smartphones are replacing watches, calculators, computers, notepads, envelopes, stamps, typewriters, computer printers, fax machines, credit cards, ID cards, filing cabinets, cameras, pedometers, heart rate monitors, "life alerts", stand alone GPS systems, maps, pens, home phones, televisions, games, and zillions of other products.

One truck will soon be able to carry the load of a hundred trucks.

Well one truck can carry the load of a hundred horses. That's 99 horse and carriage workers/families out of a job. Are we worse off for that change? No, because the fact that we now have trucks enables 100 new businesses to thrive.

The move to technology means businesses are more efficient. Efficiency does not necessarily mean there are less jobs in the market. I don't know the exact jobs people will be doing in 15 years time, if I did I'd be a billionaire. However there's no doubt in my mind that new jobs will come in to take the slack, it's always happened and will continue to. My own job didn't exist until about 8 years ago.

Here's a question for you, do you think the net impact of Microsoft Excel has been positive or negative on the economy? Even though it undoubtedly reduces the number of people you need in your accounting dept (no longer need all that time to file/calculate paper docs) it has enabled businesses to focus elsewhere and create new and better products, and also allowed entire new verticals to rise?

Finally I would like to ask, and this might be a topic of a different thread, but for you, is 'utopia' at 0% unemployment (so everyone works) or at 100% unemployment, where people are 'free' from work to do what they want to (because machines take up the slack)?

So far, at least, the Massive Open Online Course (MOOCs) have not revolutionized higher education and training. Of course, with experience and learning-based changes, the technologies and approaches could improve, allowing for a larger impact.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/02/education/edlife/demystifying-the-mooc.html

They have not revolutionized higher education and training on any scale worth talking about, mainly due to high drop out rates and waning interest. What I can tell you is that if I hadn't done a MOOC I wouldn't have aced my job interview and got the job I have now. The point I wanted to make was that if you want to learn a new skill, the material is out there for you to succeed.
 
Last edited:
What I can tell you is that if I hadn't done a MOOC I wouldn't have aced my job interview and got the job I have now. The point I wanted to make was that if you want to learn a new skill, the material is out there for you to succeed.

I don't disagree that those who are highly motivated for self- or independent study can benefit greatly from MOOCs and other information that is available. Put another way, their impact is more of a niche impact than a broad transformational one at this point in time. Without doubt, they offer value, but the audience that is positioned to leverage that value is still very small.

If MOOCs are to become a much larger part of higher education (which is confronted by major problems of its own ranging from cost/loan issues to attainment issues), continuing professional education, and/or other forms of training, there will need to be changes. A scenario where they complement courses on campuses or in corporate training rooms rather than replace them is perhaps as plausible as the early arguments that they represented a disruptive innovation for higher education.
 
First off, I wasn't meaning to come across as an asshole, my apologies. Secondly, it is on a person to be a strong candidate for employment, having the necessary skills from the right era helps out a lot. "Work today but plan for tomorrow's job."

Like I said before, if you've been a postal worker for the past 40 years or so, you wouldn't think it at all necessary to know how to do things like coding and whatnot. Hell, most people who use computers and the internet have no idea how to code or how the internet actually works.
 
Back
Top Bottom