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

j-mac said:

Wow, that's harsh Scott...What makes you think people on the right don't think? I mean, are we really to the point that if someone doesn't automatically agree with us, that we have licence to just chalk them off to stupid?

Click to expand...

It does sound harsh, but it was mostly in jest.

But in reality, those on both extremes tend to be ideologs, who accept the extremist ideology with no thought ever given towards moderation. also, even Rush calls his followers "dittoheads", because all they do is repeat whatever he says.

rocket88 said:

Thanks Obama

Click to expand...

With the cause "artificial intelligence" you can hardly lay the blame at Obama's feet. First, he has never exhibited intelligence per ce, artificial or real.

He can, though, be condemned for not acting and once again we see the populist forcing hot button issues instead of providing leadership. Back in the so-called "recovery" he was taped commenting that the recovery wasn't coming that quickly and the problem was that more people used ATM machines instead of going to the bank.....which shows he at least had an inkling of the problem six years ago.

But his response? Nothing, a direct fight with congress over everything, some posturing about amnesty, but not one word about shifting focus and adding opportunities for re-training. Kind of odd, considering Canad was into that ten years ago.

That's the difference between populist/socialism and true liberalism....

upsideguy said:

you got it.... Obama is solely responsible for every economic megatrend.... from innovations of technology to outsourcing to foreign countries. Its nice to have a simple blame point for all of life's ills....

Click to expand...

Your sarcasm detector sucks

Fearandloathing said:

With the cause "artificial intelligence" you can hardly lay the blame at Obama's feet. First, he has never exhibited intelligence per ce, artificial or real.

He can, though, be condemned for not acting and once again we see the populist forcing hot button issues instead of providing leadership. Back in the so-called "recovery" he was taped commenting that the recovery wasn't coming that quickly and the problem was that more people used ATM machines instead of going to the bank.....which shows he at least had an inkling of the problem six years ago.

But his response? Nothing, a direct fight with congress over everything, some posturing about amnesty, but not one word about shifting focus and adding opportunities for re-training. Kind of odd, considering Canad was into that ten years ago.

That's the difference between populist/socialism and true liberalism....

Click to expand...

agreed that one of my biggest disappointments with Obama was his failure to resurrect the new deal approach by establishing a job corps. no one who wanted a job should have been unable to find one. not a good job, because we want the employees to be looking for something better, preferably in the private sector. but Obama squandered that opportunity just as he did the ability to extend single-payer to all by eliminating an age requirement for medicare

justabubba said:

agreed that one of my biggest disappointments with Obama was his failure to resurrect the new deal approach by establishing a job corps. no one who wanted a job should have been unable to find one. not a good job, because we want the employees to be looking for something better, preferably in the private sector. but Obama squandered that opportunity just as he did the ability to extend single-payer to all by eliminating an age requirement for medicare

Click to expand...

What you have identified is the difference between true Liberalism and what Obama practices...

A job corps approach was exactly what was needed, not make work as what happened. Here, where the effects were much less, the government expanded training focusing "mature workers" retraining them, usually adding technology to their life skills. It is a longer term approach but in the end has solid foundation, the people you helped are not looking for work again in a year.

Obama made a show of his programs, which spent more on the salaries of community organizers etc., and long, ridiculously long unemployment benefits which paid people not to work. After 99 weeks, how many of them are even qualified to work in this rapidly changing job market.

No, by retraining to an established demand, you recoup the investment in income taxes in short order. Obama's $ may as well have been burned.

Deuce said:

In 2025, yeah, probably most of that. But shelves and trucks? It's not too long before machines can do that on their own.

Click to expand...

True... but somebody has to run the machines and those jobs are around now meaning that job is not a new job, just a reduction of some jobs.

imagep said:

there will always be a need for human labor, but just not enough to supply everyone with a 40 hour per week job.

All of those jobs that you just mentioned, except for possibly doctors, are being replaced with technology.

Click to expand...

But people still run the machines... that job exists today. Customer service will not be replaced by machines... waiters, pool cleaners, gardeners, they guy that drives the truck that paints the lines in the road, elevator doormen, um wait...

Bodhisattva said:

But people still run the machines... that job exists today. Customer service will not be replaced by machines... waiters, pool cleaners, gardeners, they guy that drives the truck that paints the lines in the road, elevator doormen, um wait...

Click to expand...

Yup, but one guy operating a machine can often do the work that used to take ten people or more.

A few months ago I ran into one of my competitors, he leaned over to me and whispered: "is this industry going to be around long enough to carry us to retirement?" All I knew to say was "I doubt it". Technology is replacing my industry a little each day. 25 years ago when I first started my business, I had 30+ competitors in my county, today there's less than a dozen.

Bodhisattva said:

But people still run the machines... that job exists today. Customer service will not be replaced by machines... waiters, pool cleaners, gardeners, they guy that drives the truck that paints the lines in the road, elevator doormen, um wait...

Click to expand...

The entire purpose of investing in technology is to reduce operating costs. Employees are the most expensive aspect of a business. Replacing them with a machine reduces operating costs. There would be no point in investing in technology if the end goal was NOT fewer employees.

KevinKohler said:

The entire purpose of investing in technology is to reduce operating costs. Employees are the most expensive aspect of a business. Replacing them with a machine reduces operating costs. There would be no point in investing in technology if the end goal was NOT fewer employees.

Click to expand...

It'll backfire. When too many people are replaced with too many machines, those lower operating costs will mean nothing as people won't have jobs to earn money to buy whatever they're selling.

What I can't ****ing believe is that we are so indoctrinated to the ideas and principles of capitalism, that we see this coming tide of technology and the subsequent loss of jobs as a purely negative thing!

Jesus titty christ, guys! We are heading into an era were we need to work less to produce more! Congratulations to all of us who made it? This is the future that has been written about for over a century. No longer does a man need to toil for 40+ hours per week to get "the job done". Why are you all looking at this as being such bad news?


Because you're all indoctrinated by capitalist greed. You all know, that despite reduced operating costs, the cost of living is going to remain the same, if not increase. You all know that. Why? Because none of you are dumb, and you recognize the simple fact that humans are by nature greedy bastards.

In the end, the ONLY reason why we should fear less work is because it would equal less pay with a constant cost of living. Which is indeed something to fear. Less employed people while maintaining current or increased levels of productivity, WITHOUT a break in site in terms of either pay increases, or dramatically reduced costs of living, will destroy our entire way of life. Period.

HenryChinaski said:

It'll backfire. When too many people are replaced with too many machines, those lower operating costs will mean nothing as people won't have jobs to earn money to buy whatever they're selling.

Click to expand...

It'll only backfire if the majority of employers don't understand that simple fact.

And the truth is, due to globalism, we're in for a rough ride. Employers will need US customers less and less and other countries like China and India step in to the role of primary consumer.

Here's a question for everybody.

Do you believe that the captains of industry, the owners, the 1%, whatever you want to call them, in this country, would let us slide into a near permanent depression if it meant adding a little more to their bottom line?

KevinKohler said:

What I can't ****ing believe is that we are so indoctrinated to the ideas and principles of capitalism, that we see this coming tide of technology and the subsequent loss of jobs as a purely negative thing!

Jesus titty christ, guys! We are heading into an era were we need to work less to produce more! Congratulations to all of us who made it? This is the future that has been written about for over a century. No longer does a man need to toil for 40+ hours per week to get "the job done". Why are you all looking at this as being such bad news?


Because you're all indoctrinated by capitalist greed. You all know, that despite reduced operating costs, the cost of living is going to remain the same, if not increase. You all know that. Why? Because none of you are dumb, and you recognize the simple fact that humans are by nature greedy bastards.

In the end, the ONLY reason why we should fear less work is because it would equal less pay with a constant cost of living. Which is indeed something to fear. Less employed people while maintaining current or increased levels of productivity, WITHOUT a break in site in terms of either pay increases, or dramatically reduced costs of living, will destroy our entire way of life. Period.

Click to expand...

i have never worked a 40 hour work week

and most of my employees dont either

20 years ago, my average was 70 hour + weeks

now, i put in 45-55 hours per week depending on what is going on....time of year....how busy the stores are

most of my salesforce works 50-55 hours per week

not including the owner, total wages averaged just over 90k per employee

we expect more....we pay more....

as far as what will happen to jobs in the future

more and more will be automated.....and some industries will go by the wayside

just as buggy whip makers were put out of business with the advent of the automobile

new technology will create new industries, and new jobs....

they will require an educated workforce that can think on their feet....and that can adjust with the times

those that can do that will thrive.....those that cant will find it a hard place to make a living

... simple arithmetic suggests that technological innovation can only come so close to killing labor because the moment the balance tips too far in innovation's direction the pattern of economic behavior -- stock markets, equity firms, banks, etc -- stimulating it will collapse. Therefore, the companies creating the innovation will be unable to continue operations. In straight up capitalism, it is impossible to create a system like that.

Theoretically, a government run socialist superstructure imposed on capitalism could amass the tools and resources to create such a system (the same way the U.S. government created the Internet), but it relies on a pretty big supposition: that it is possible to create a central machine intelligence that is capable of answering all human needs for all time (including creating, managing, and directing fleets of spacecraft to harvest resources from other planets and bring them back to Earth -- you'll need to be able to create three or four generations, one for harvesting from satellites within Sol, one from neighboring Solar Systems, one from the galaxy, one from the universe). To this it will need to incorporate and/or create local intelligences that are capable of resolving engineering demands specific to each new situation, including fighting wars against hostile aliens and resolving the ultimate end of the universe.

A cursory glance shows this to be a paradox, because humans without economy will be unable to satisfy any of the physical or creative ambitions intrinsic to our nature. The only way the central machine intelligence can answer this human need is by creating an economy that humans engages our species' energies and emotional investment, thus returning us to trading currency for goods and services.

Without special programming, even attempting to create such a machine would simply result in it attempting to eradicate humanity, since it would logically compute that the simplest way to answer human needs is by ending them once and for all. It would make a show of serving us for a few tired generations before springing its trap. Much easier than creating four generations of spacecraft, fighting a bunch of aliens, etc, etc.

HenryChinaski said:

It'll backfire. When too many people are replaced with too many machines, those lower operating costs will mean nothing as people won't have jobs to earn money to buy whatever they're selling.

Click to expand...

I agree, and that's the issue here.

Individual companies try to maximize their profits, and could care less about the profits of other companies, and they don't try to maximize our macro-economy because no one company is large enough to do that. So they work as individuals to achieve their goal of maximizing profits, but that doesn't involve the teamwork it takes to maximize an entire economy.

What's good for the individual (or individual company) isn't always what's best for the team.

gdgyva said:

i have never worked a 40 hour work week

and most of my employees dont either

20 years ago, my average was 70 hour + weeks

now, i put in 45-55 hours per week depending on what is going on....time of year....how busy the stores are

most of my salesforce works 50-55 hours per week

not including the owner, total wages averaged just over 90k per employee

we expect more....we pay more....

as far as what will happen to jobs in the future

more and more will be automated.....and some industries will go by the wayside

just as buggy whip makers were put out of business with the advent of the automobile

new technology will create new industries, and new jobs....

they will require an educated workforce that can think on their feet....and that can adjust with the times

those that can do that will thrive.....those that cant will find it a hard place to make a living

Click to expand...

and this is today's dilemma
which will be magnified many times in the near future

the new jobs - for the most part - will require an educated work force
presently, about one in three kids do not graduate from high school

and some of those who did receive a HS diploma are not educated or very educatable relative to the needs of a higher technologically skilled work force. many on the margins are not your STEM students, positioned to learn tomorrow's skills

those that are bright and have the desire to learn and accomplish will have a very bright future. my son cannot find enough capable software programmers to fulfill a $160,000 entry level position
every student in china studies programming
how many do in the USA? (in 2012, only 1.4% of the AP students took the computer science exam. that stat is alarming)
this is presented as a singular example that our public policy in this regard is one carried over from the past and policy not focused towards the future

now, with computers being able to perform many of the low skill jobs, what becomes of those one-in-three Americans who cannot qualify for a high school diploma? how do they feed/clothe/house themselves and their families without having access to employment sufficient to provide a living wage

we are seeing the front end of this wave now, with the displacement of under-skilled workers for better skilled workers as a consequence of the great recession
there will be a tsunami to follow

KevinKohler said:

Here's a question for everybody.

Do you believe that the captains of industry, the owners, the 1%, whatever you want to call them, in this country, would let us slide into a near permanent depression if it meant adding a little more to their bottom line?

Click to expand...

Absolutely. No one company is large enough to significantly effect our economy, so they do they best that they can for themselves.

Declan said:

If you are lazy when it comes to your education and planning, then you will be picking apples. Yes I have done farm work. Quite a bit of farm work and if the choice was to do it or be unemployed or living off other people, I would still choose farm work.

Click to expand...

Ok. We have something in common then; we've both done farm work and thought "there's got to be an easier way to make a living."

Yup, there are. Got to bear in mind, not everyone has the intellectual, academic, social and financial props to make it through college... and these days so many who do come out with a huge debt load, and the risk of spending your best educational years learning a field that turns as obsolete as buggy-whip-repairman in 5-15 years is quite real.

If we're going to say that getting a higher education is vital to success, and then contemptuously consign to their fate those who don't get one.... maybe we ought to make it a bit more financially and academically accessible to those who begin from hardscrabble poverty.

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

Click to expand...

i think that's a pessimistic assessment, but we are certainly entering a post labor economy. but for sake of discussion, let's assume that the real number is something close to that. this leaves us with two choices.

1. train people to do the jobs that need to be done, and then pay them to do those jobs. if the private sector doesn't need them, then hire them via the public sector. advantages : we're paying people to work, and we keep our job > money > access to resources distribution model. also, we will get things done that have been previously neglected, as they were not profitable or were not high priorities. disadvantage : we'll need to raise taxes.

2. status quo. pay entitlements to the unemployable, and maintain the high paywall between the individual and training / education. advantages : we don't have to get in a national fistfight about socialism. disadvantages : we still have to raise taxes, and the stuff that needs to be done is still neglected.

i'd certainly prefer option one. i'm keenly aware that there is a bootstrap contingent which would support an option 3 : ignore the realities of the current and future labor market, kick people off of entitlements while giving them no alternative options, and tell them to sink or swim. musical chairs, basically : compete for a shrinking number of jobs even if you can't pay to play. and if you fail, tough ****. **** you. however, no matter how appealing this fantasy might be for some political leans, it's never going to happen in a first world country. the reality of the situation is that it's going to be 1 or 2. it basically boils down to pay people to work or pay them not to. i prefer the former.

Goshin said:

Ok. We have something in common then; we've both done farm work and thought "there's got to be an easier way to make a living."

Yup, there are. Got to bear in mind, not everyone has the intellectual, academic, social and financial props to make it through college... and these days so many who do come out with a huge debt load, and the risk of spending your best educational years learning a field that turns as obsolete as buggy-whip-repairman in 5-15 years is quite real.

If we're going to say that getting a higher education is vital to success, and then contemptuously consign to their fate those who don't get one.... maybe we ought to make it a bit more financially and academically accessible to those who begin from hardscrabble poverty.

Click to expand...

Not exactly. I still do some farmwork LOL.

I do think that people should be able to public college for free if they meet minimum standards for admission and the elect a degree program that has been designated to be likely needed in the future. I do not think we should be giving aid to private university students at all out of the public treasury. I would also support people going to technical/vocational programs for free as long as there are limits--like one program per however many years--and the programs had some basic business courses associated with them so the people could start their own businesses if need be.

Fearandloathing said:

With the cause "artificial intelligence" you can hardly lay the blame at Obama's feet. First, he has never exhibited intelligence per ce, artificial or real.

He can, though, be condemned for not acting and once again we see the populist forcing hot button issues instead of providing leadership. Back in the so-called "recovery" he was taped commenting that the recovery wasn't coming that quickly and the problem was that more people used ATM machines instead of going to the bank.....which shows he at least had an inkling of the problem six years ago.

But his response? Nothing, a direct fight with congress over everything, some posturing about amnesty, but not one word about shifting focus and adding opportunities for re-training. Kind of odd, considering Canad was into that ten years ago.

That's the difference between populist/socialism and true liberalism....

Click to expand...

What response do you want? Do you want the government step in and enforce a lack of automation so that more bank tellers are required to run a bank?

No focus on retraining? Democrats put forward bills like that all the time. Seven bills aimed at retraining veterans specifically, all shot down by the GOP. Because SPENDING IS BAD

Helix said:

i think that's a pessimistic assessment, but we are certainly entering a post labor economy. but for sake of discussion, let's assume that the real number is something close to that. this leaves us with two choices.

1. train people to do the jobs that need to be done, and then pay them to do those jobs. if the private sector doesn't need them, then hire them via the public sector. advantages : we're paying people to work, and we keep our job > money > access to resources distribution model. also, we will get things done that have been previously neglected, as they were not profitable or were not high priorities. disadvantage : we'll need to raise taxes.

2. status quo. pay entitlements to the unemployable, and maintain the high paywall between the individual and training / education. advantages : we don't have to get in a national fistfight about socialism. disadvantages : we still have to raise taxes, and the stuff that needs to be done is still neglected.

i'd certainly prefer option one. i'm keenly aware that there is a bootstrap contingent which would support an option 3 : ignore the realities of the current and future labor market, kick people off of entitlements while giving them no alternative options, and tell them to sink or swim. musical chairs, basically : compete for a shrinking number of jobs even if you can't pay to play. and if you fail, tough ****. **** you. however, no matter how appealing this fantasy might be for some political leans, it's never going to happen in a first world country. the reality of the situation is that it's going to be 1 or 2. it basically boils down to pay people to work or pay them not to. i prefer the former.

Click to expand...

Number 3, if implemented, is essentially a 21st century "let them eat cake" argument.... which would lead to a replay of Viva la Revolution and a Rein of Terror as starving but well-armed Proles storm the walled compounds of the Better Off Half.... yeah, methinks we can do better...

Declan said:

Not exactly. I still do some farmwork LOL.

I do think that people should be able to public college for free if they meet minimum standards for admission and the elect a degree program that has been designated to be likely needed in the future. I do not think we should be giving aid to private university students at all out of the public treasury. I would also support people going to technical/vocational programs for free as long as there are limits--like one program per however many years--and the programs had some basic business courses associated with them so the people could start their own businesses if need be.

Click to expand...

We're in the same ballpark here, I reckon. I am generally reluctant to increase the size, scope or powers of government if it can be avoided, but something is going to have to be done, and "investing in education" is an established gov't function (even if debatable in some venues).

If the choice is going to be between having half the workforce be unemployable, or putting some tax dollars into making education/ job-retraining more accessible to the down-and-out, I'm going with the latter.


Now you bring up state colleges and tech, vs subsidizing private universities.... and here's some interesting problems:

Gov't subsidies of universities appear to translate into much higher tuition rates, rather than large increases in attendance. Oops. Greedy buggers....

There aren't currently enough "slots" in the state U machine to educate everyone, and especially give extra time/help to those from academically disadvantaged situations...

Are there enough JOBS for all the graduates, if almost EVERYONE starts getting a degree of some kind?


Not saying I know the answers, just that all this stuff gets complicated when you start trying to fix it....

gdgyva said:

i have never worked a 40 hour work week

and most of my employees dont either

20 years ago, my average was 70 hour + weeks

now, i put in 45-55 hours per week depending on what is going on....time of year....how busy the stores are

most of my salesforce works 50-55 hours per week

not including the owner, total wages averaged just over 90k per employee

we expect more....we pay more....

as far as what will happen to jobs in the future

more and more will be automated.....and some industries will go by the wayside

just as buggy whip makers were put out of business with the advent of the automobile

new technology will create new industries, and new jobs....

they will require an educated workforce that can think on their feet....and that can adjust with the times

those that can do that will thrive.....those that cant will find it a hard place to make a living

Click to expand...

They will require a REDUCED work force, no matter the education. That is the entire purpose of investing in technology, yes?


Pretty piss poor investment if it didn't deliver on it's promise of reduced labor costs...just saying.