> Maybe it's called that because your job skills will change so frequently, and your job security is so low that your collar is always "new."

Well, we need "employment security", not "job security". I mean, I like my job, but the important part is that I can be gainfully employed and support my family, not that I can keep this job until I decide to retire.

The article is fluffy, but I am generally for things that help reframe peoples' expectations about how careers work. We need employees that expect premium salaries from dead-end jobs. And we need employers who are honest with employees when jobs will be eventually phased out. I suspect shipping companies aren't pitching "we'll retrain you for the future!" when filling trucker jobs. Software shops seem to be better than most, but they're hung up on "cool technology" as if the aesthetics are more important than staying away from dead-end, high-risk tech stacks.

I think that's exactly it. People need to be adaptable and it's not about teaching any one particular skillset, but moreso how to become a lifelong learner. The era of doing a couple of repeated tasks over and over again is gone, it is a new day where people do not need to perform menial jobs and can be freed for more creative/mindful pursuits. In the short-term this is going to have negative effects of people being displaced, discouraged and lacking purpose. As with a lot of complex problems I think this may be a generational shift in thinking.

Nothing in the "lifelong learner" paradigm you note precludes employers from investing in facilitating their employees' learning.

One of the negative effects you left out is that companies are investing in training less and less and paying (adjusted for inflation) less and less. It isn't all on individuals to adapt to this new paradigm. It isn't sustainable unless the wealth-holders contribute.

It may be a shift in tactics, but definitely not in thinking. It's unsurprising that the corporate sector tends to favor policies that will provide a large population of fungible workers.

"Man, I can't wait for all those useless old day people to die so we can have our utopia."

PM me, I have a modest proposal you might be interested in.

There have been a multitude of generational shifts over the years. If you think that thinking it is happening (again) and that being hopeful that people move on is a bad thing, I'm sure you think of the shift away from subsistence farming was just as awful.

I think the thing that is awful is the inhuman speed at which those shifts are taking place, and the callousness by those pronouncing the change to the fates of those left behind, because they are sure they won't be. If we are about to put a whole bunch of people out of work for the rest of their lives, we better be damn sure we have a safety net for them. Hope is the greatest of all the evils that escaped from Pandora's box, because it soothes a guilty conscience but does not effect action.

+1

Our schools simply do not teach critical thinking. Very few educational systems do worldwide, in fact. Students mostly just learn through repetition and rote memorization, and formulaic creative processes (standard five paragraph essay, multiple choice history tests, spelling bees, etc).

In addition, the state of our educational system right now (not just in the US, but worldwide) comes from an industrial tradition, not one in tune with the modern economy.

- Students are 'batch processed' in grades based on age regardless of ability

- Schools are designed to keep the kids somewhere while the parents work on a set schedule, with all school functions, programs, and systems assuming all parents have the same schedule, jobs, income, and parenting needs

- Students are taught the same things at the same rate--attempts to teach kids at their own level (tracking, advanced classes, special ed, etc) are often derided as 'unequal' or elitist. And yet we don't expect all adults to have the same skills or learn at the same rate or have the same talents, so why should we expect such of our kids?

- When it comes to higher education, liberal arts does a good job of teaching some degree of critical thinking but do worse at teaching hard skills. Vocational schools have the opposite problem. Either way, students aren't really equipped going into college to know what skills they will or won't need because their training up until then has been so misaligned with whatever path they may end up taking.

- Most importantly, students are stripped of their individuality in ways subtle and not-so-subtle. School uniforms, school dieting rules and food restrictions, sports culture, speech codes, pageantry around prom and various 'school spirit' initiatives and interschool rivalries, standardized testing, GPAs and school rankings, college admissions standards...

It's no surprise that kids who come out of this system become adults who follow all the processes and rules based on the rulebook rather than common sense (ahem, United), or fail to account for unexpected turns of events (2008 financial crisis), or fail to question authority figures (Bernie Madoff). And it's also not surprising that our graduates lack the sort of long-term strategic thinking and self analysis required to be successful in a changing economy with constantly changing rules.

We clearly need some sort of rebuilding of our education system to account for a modern economy where 1) Humans are not machines, 2) Adaptability and learning ability matter more than rote memorization, 3) Creativity is encouraged, and 4) Diversity in background, abilities, talent, and experience are strengths, not weaknesses.

Of all the educational axis, this is the one that I find most problematic and most promising. There is a movement afoot to teach computational thinking across all majors. This movement gets painted with "programming" rather than "how to problem solve" which is really the point.

https://scholar.harvard.edu/kbrennan/publications/new-framew...

Here are some other books about thinking and problem solving that I've enjoyed over the years.

How to Solve it

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/669.html

Problem Solving, Decision Making, and Professional Judgement: A Guide for Lawyers and Policymakers

http://www.biblio.com/9780195366327

While the second may seem directed towards attorneys, I assure you, this book is outstanding for anyone who has to help with complex decision making.

> Maybe I missed it but there was no discussion of what skills go into a "new collar job."

She's talking about vocational jobs that don't require four year degrees.