Not the autoworkers of our generation

Re:Not the autoworkers of our generation by imsky on Monday September 02, 2013 @09:05PM (#6318135)

No, this part: "A common misconception about automation is the idea that it will primarily impact >low paying< jobs that require few skills or training. To illustrate that this is not necessarily the case, consider two very different occupations: a radiologist and a housekeeper."

A hotelier's job, the well-compensated version of a housekeeper's job, is also difficult to automate. On the flip side, a good deal of information processing jobs, no matter how well compensated, can be automated. I think the point was made rather bluntly, without elaboration.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Not the autoworkers of our generation by nrivadeneira on Monday September 02, 2013 @09:16PM (#6318166)

The point was made just fine. He said that there is not one definitive compensation class that will be primarily affected. It doesn't seem like you've refuted that.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Not the autoworkers of our generation by imsky on Monday September 02, 2013 @09:26PM (#6318202)

@nrivadeneira: Yes, the point Ford made works, but it works because of the _nature of the jobs_, not because of any inherent property of theirs that influences their compensation (implied by Ford to be the knowledge/labor distinction). Clearly you and I can think of high-income location-bound jobs (bodyguard) and of low-income information-processing jobs (library clerk).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Not the autoworkers of our generation by tedsanders on Wednesday September 04, 2013 @05:25PM (#6330607)

Thanks for clarifying!

[ Parent | on HN ]