Tyler Cowen adapts his forthcoming book, Average Is Over, into a NYT essay: Self-driving vehicles threaten to send truck drivers to the unemployment office. … There are even computers that can grade essay exams with reasonable accuracy. … Who will prosper and who won’t in this new kind of machine economy?
Yes it's true: older people are grossly underrepresented at political rallies (except when it's about something mundane that directly hurts them financially). Older people also never go beyond peaceful (physically), sanctioned demonstrations.
Young people are not only naturally more adventurous and open to new things, they also lack the vested interests of older people (a house, an expensive car, a retirement fund, kids) so they have much less to loose in the event of major societal change.
The conventional wisdom is that old people aren't politically radical, but is that really true? I see a lot of gray heads at political protests in my New England college town, and photos of the Occupy performances include a lot of aged hippies among the young hippie-reenactors.
People tend to lock into one style of politics in early adulthood, so young radicals become old radicals, especially since "radical" politics hasn't really changed at all in half a century.
A technology creates heaven-on-earth and religion fades awaythe old and powerful become more inclined to irrational behavior,including violence; They have little left to lose, and not much timeto regret it.
Businesses are merging into loose conglomerates, but that doesn't mean the average employee "feels" a bigger organization. In the end it comes down to how you define an "organization" because in a sense everyone except hermits have always been part of the organization that is society. Conglomerates are more linked than overall society, but just barely and not nearly as linked as what we traditionally think of as an organization (a farm or a factory).
And don't we now live in a post-industrial era? My impression is that, compared to 30-50 years ago, fewer Westerners work in huge, vertically-and horizontally-integrated super-organisations. Instead production takes place across contractually-linked networks, where the organizations are small - in part so that performance can be measured more easily.But I admit I don't have data on this. Does anyone have relevant statistics?
"...but as we work in larger and more coordinated organizations..."
Question 1: Why should we expect such a trend? Question 2: Do you consider that to be a good trend? (Note: I'm talking only about near-future times, i.e., prior to any huge AI/singularity or similar transition in the basic nature of human society itself.) Personally, I greatly prefer to work in/for a small organization!
Google is successfully testing self-driving cars. A robotic burger flipper was publicly demonstrated last year. The first robotic floor sweeper was unveiled more than ten years ago, and millions of units have been sold.
"today's fashionable word is automation", as if the choice between constantly-improving machines versus static biology cycled back and forth like hemlines. Perhaps horses and oxen will be making a comeback soon too?
I'm not yet ready to welcome our new robotic overlords. Driving a semi is far more complex than sweeping floors or flipping burgers, and we see no robotic threat to those simple physical tasks. But as an adept programmer my future is assured anyway.
Tyler has the pundit style of trying to make everything seem as if it turns on today’s fashionable worries.
Good thing it's Labor Day Weekend, so the "lunch group" won't be meeting for a couple of days. Excellent rebuttal!
Automation must be a fad topic, since Eliezer Yudkowsky has recently written about it. ("The Robots, AI, and Unemployment Anti-FAQ" http://tinyurl.com/n796syu )
My own effort to explain the effects of automation (on employment and social status) is at "The dismal employment picture: A demographic, social-status-theory explanation" — http://tinyurl.com/lg3daub )
Yes it's true: older people are grossly underrepresented at political rallies (except when it's about something mundane that directly hurts them financially). Older people also never go beyond peaceful (physically), sanctioned demonstrations.
Young people are not only naturally more adventurous and open to new things, they also lack the vested interests of older people (a house, an expensive car, a retirement fund, kids) so they have much less to loose in the event of major societal change.
The conventional wisdom is that old people aren't politically radical, but is that really true? I see a lot of gray heads at political protests in my New England college town, and photos of the Occupy performances include a lot of aged hippies among the young hippie-reenactors.
People tend to lock into one style of politics in early adulthood, so young radicals become old radicals, especially since "radical" politics hasn't really changed at all in half a century.
A technology creates heaven-on-earth and religion fades awaythe old and powerful become more inclined to irrational behavior,including violence; They have little left to lose, and not much timeto regret it.
maybe he is projecting
Businesses are merging into loose conglomerates, but that doesn't mean the average employee "feels" a bigger organization. In the end it comes down to how you define an "organization" because in a sense everyone except hermits have always been part of the organization that is society. Conglomerates are more linked than overall society, but just barely and not nearly as linked as what we traditionally think of as an organization (a farm or a factory).
http://cdn.elsevier.com/ass...
And don't we now live in a post-industrial era? My impression is that, compared to 30-50 years ago, fewer Westerners work in huge, vertically-and horizontally-integrated super-organisations. Instead production takes place across contractually-linked networks, where the organizations are small - in part so that performance can be measured more easily.But I admit I don't have data on this. Does anyone have relevant statistics?
No argument with that. But should that be "is" or "was?" Isn't there a limit where greater size becomes a disadvantage?
Bigger orgs is one of the main causes of our increasing wealth. It is near the essence of the industry era.
"...but as we work in larger and more coordinated organizations..."
Question 1: Why should we expect such a trend? Question 2: Do you consider that to be a good trend? (Note: I'm talking only about near-future times, i.e., prior to any huge AI/singularity or similar transition in the basic nature of human society itself.) Personally, I greatly prefer to work in/for a small organization!
Google is successfully testing self-driving cars. A robotic burger flipper was publicly demonstrated last year. The first robotic floor sweeper was unveiled more than ten years ago, and millions of units have been sold.
"today's fashionable word is automation", as if the choice between constantly-improving machines versus static biology cycled back and forth like hemlines. Perhaps horses and oxen will be making a comeback soon too?
I'm not yet ready to welcome our new robotic overlords. Driving a semi is far more complex than sweeping floors or flipping burgers, and we see no robotic threat to those simple physical tasks. But as an adept programmer my future is assured anyway.
Tyler has the pundit style of trying to make everything seem as if it turns on today’s fashionable worries.
Good thing it's Labor Day Weekend, so the "lunch group" won't be meeting for a couple of days. Excellent rebuttal!
Automation must be a fad topic, since Eliezer Yudkowsky has recently written about it. ("The Robots, AI, and Unemployment Anti-FAQ" http://tinyurl.com/n796syu )
My own effort to explain the effects of automation (on employment and social status) is at "The dismal employment picture: A demographic, social-status-theory explanation" — http://tinyurl.com/lg3daub )
Both Tyler and Robin would abhor my proposal.