I found Autor's initial claim to be very interesting from the start. I agree that the media peruses the idea that, machines have been slowly replacing human labor, and in many of the factories today, things are built or manufactured almost completely by machines. However, I have never thought about these machines mimicking human capabilities, or learning from humans. Historically, the idea that industrialization is ever progressing and technology is taking over, is accepted, so I haven't thought to question it. This article provides a stance and opinion completely new to me which I am very interested in exploring. I think that a lot of the economic inequality that exists today is blamed on technology, because people think that it inhibits the job market. So, then if it isn't the machines faults, and they aren't taking over our labor, then what is? (Anastasia Kyriakos)
The author made a good argument that contributes to the well known saying "the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer." I am not convinced about the benefits the author argues we will see in the future. Technology will continue to advance and possibly one day machines will be able to perform abstract and manual labor, then what?
Are the rich getting richer due to the rise of machinery? I believe that because machinery take away a lot of entry-level positions, it is harder for people who have been either unemployed or are looking for their first job. The rich are voluntarily getting richer by funding these machines to increase productivity and make themselves wealthier. However, the poor have no opportunity to get out of the hole that they've been dug into.
I find the author's contention to be mostly agreeable. I agree automation is progressing to the point that it is no longer complementing the work of certain professions. Rather, it is starting to replace it. At the same time, the overall wealth of society is likely to increase because the automated performance is a one time cost (not including repairs). However, I do not think machines will likely take over major forms of economic activity for some time. A large part of the economic engine is social the social interactions that come from that. There is little incentive to radically shift from that. Further, it would be immensely hard for a computer to engage in abstract reasoning for even relatively simple tasks that require decision making.
I disagree with the author on how computers low tech education level differs them from their intelligence. Computers are acquiring more and more intelligence every single day they will become self-aware. Stephen Hawking even predicts that there will be a war between mankind and the future robots that will develop into their own. Machines help us but at the same time take away jobs and basic skills we develop making humans less needed in the work force. -Joshua Zidek
I found David H. Autor to be very interesting; he certainly thinks outside of the box. I believe that he yet again proves that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Some of the “poor” can be easily replaced with machinery/computers in factories because they are doing tedious and menial tasks; however, the “rich” who are owners and managers cannot be replaced. So the poor lose their jobs because they become obsolete, and the rich continue to get richer.
David H. Autor offers an interesting view on the notion of machines substituting human labor. He does so by comparing this idea with Polyani's paradox which states that our tacit knowledge of how the world works often exceeds our explicit understanding. Autor then describes how the rich become richer and the poor become poorer through the decrease of jobs. As more machines are created, low skilled employees are not able to keep their jobs since machines can do them. There are many challenges to this shift in the job market and it will increase inequality as more low skilled people are not able to obtain jobs. The rich will continue to have their money since they own factories and companies and employment will decrease if this becomes a bigger movement.
Machines taking human jobs and industrialization is hardly anything new however as technology modernizes and machines become more capable and efficient, more and more human labor can be replaced by machine labor. As the author discussed, it is clear that poor, manual labor jobs are the ones that will be replaced by the machine labor, but again this has been true for a long time. I think that it is more of an issue today and in the future because rather than just industrial jobs, machines will replace more and more entry level jobs, then eventually skilled jobs, as technology is advancing at an exponential rate. I think that technology should be continuously advanced, however more consideration to the impacts should be taken.
It is not surprising that unskilled manual labour jobs are being replaced by technology. Self-checkouts are just one example of this happening. Machines are only able to substitute human labour that is simple and repetitive at this point in time higher skilled jobs such as doctor’s therapists or even teachers remain jobs that are solely performed by humans or with the aid of humans. As more jobs are replaced by machines the poor will become more disadvantaged, whereas the rich due to factors such as increased productivity become richer.
I did not even think about how machines really are taking human jobs. I think for some industrial jobs like wood cutting or steal cutting it may be a more efficient was to preform the task. However all the kiosks at airports that check you into your flight and all of the self check outs at grocery stores are not really a necessity but it keeps the store owner from paying a human to do it. This puts a disadvantage for people looking for jobs because they may be taken by a computer.
We have seen examples of this in even the most recent years. Let's consider a few years ago in grocery stores. Back then when you got your groceries you would go and stand in line where someone would scan and bag your food for you. Now there are rarely stores where you can't go to a self scanner and do it yourself. Going back even further, people didn't used to pump their own gas. There was a person who came and did that for you. As the technology progresses, less lower level jobs are needed.
David Autor sheds light on the fact that human labor at factories is being replaced by machinery. It has been and it will continue to do so as technology advances. As good as it may appear; this is actually a problem for the economy. It is taking the jobs of low-skilled individuals who are not able to obtain other jobs, leaving them unemployed. This factor only helps out the factory owners because they no longer have to pay workers to do the job. Clearly, this is another cause for the large inequality gap in the United States.
Human labor was the backbone on which America was found on. From the slaves that were shipped to America, to the very patriots that first set foot on this land, our economy and cities were built on manual labor. However, as technology becomes more advanced, the applications for it become more broad. Machines took over textile worker's jobs and now, have replaced statisticians, programmers, and many more. This not only contributes to the increase in unemployment, but it also adds to the economic inequality in America. Machines don;t get paid to do work, people do. When these people are laid off and replaced by machines, they have less money to spend. Not only that, but the rich who have the capital to make and take advantage of these machines get more wealthy because they have found a way to increase productivity. It is a continuing cycle that leads people jobless and allow the rich to get richer, staring away from America's foundations on manual labor.
I think this article is really interesting because even though I have never thought about it before, computers and computer run machines are taking more and more jobs every day. When you think of factory jobs, most of the humans have been replaced by machines that are cheaper, run faster, and can get more done. This is so crucial because more and more jobs are being lost because of this.
Throughout history we have seen the cycle in which workers populate an industry, and then a technology is created that can do the work of multiple workers quicker and easier and many people lose these jobs. Historically people's jobs have been taken by machines that can do the physical labor of humans, but today we are seeing jobs taken by computing technologies. Software and computers are now cutting down on jobs with the capabilities they have to do tasks error-free in a split second. On the other hand, this industry is creating jobs, just not as the same skill level.
I think this is a very interesting article, it seems that many who posted seem to agree. However, I do not think that computers or technology will ever replace the total workforce. I think it will just began to benefit those who are skilled highly enough to work with the machines. The STEM fields come to mind when I was reading this article. Engineers are skilled in fixing and building machines therefore more machines means more work for them. It is unfortunate however that the lower skilled workers will suffer job lost.
The author makes a good argument by saying that machines have been displacing human labor and the result of that being inequality. Although machines are more efficient at completing tasks and that it can do the work of many employees, the over use of these machines can really set the economy low. For example, in high end grocery stores, the self-checkout line has been increasing and taking over the cashier job. Soon enough, many people would not be able to take a cashier's position because there would be none left due to the increasing amount of machines that do the work for them. The inability for people to get jobs causes the economy decrease because there is an increase in the number of people who are unemployed and not making money. Increasing the number of people who are unemployed can increase tax rates to help those who are unemployed survive. It is clear that even something that might seem beneficial to people such as the increase in machines in business can lead to a detrimental effect on the economy.
Wage polarization is an unsurprising development with the advent of modern technology. It is a cause of concern, but should also be a strong incentive for governments to tailor their education system to reflect these needs. Students should be majoring in productive STEM fields, which is a wiser decision based on the technical nature of the modern economy, however, this does not take into account that some people just do not have the skills to make it into STEM fields. A possible solution could be the government placing a higher standard and making it easier to learn about STEM fields from an early age.
I found this article to be completely agreeable. David H, makes a strong argument about the notion of machines. I do feel that technology is replacing a lot of what people (human labor) should be responsible and capable of doing. This causes decreases in jobs especially for the low and non-skilled workers, making the rich richer and the poor poorer. Yes there are great benefits for machinery but at the same time it takes away from having to exercise our own personal intelligences to solve things. This will not only limit less skilled workers from obtaining jobs but it also raises more economic inequality as a whole.
It's interesting to think about how computers change our life. Auture talks about how there is a long history of labor forces being replaced and new one's created. How the green revolution displaced farm laborer. Artisan labor being replaced with unskilled factory labor after the industrial revolution. etc. Now it seems that computers are making the way for middle skilled jobs to grow. Because those jobs require a nice balance where the jobs could be replaced by machines, but due to human flexibility and ability to adapt are much better suited to a human labor force. Technology grows really quickly though, and I wonder what the movement will be once computers could replace a middle skill work force.
Technology, in my opinion has always been an important part of life. We build new things, we try to improve those inventions.This post also reminds me of Charlie and the Chocolate factory where his dad's job was to place the caps on the toothpaste tubes. He quickly got replaced by a machine, that could obvious do the job more effectively for less money. I think its natural for machines to take over at a certain, but I do think that there is a point in which machines cannot take over some jobs.
I always find it a little scary how computers are slowly but surely becoming able to think and reason like humans. While I do think think that computers are efficient replacements, there are certain boundaries that I don't believe should be crossed. I like the progression of technology and I feel that computers are really helpful tools, but once too many people begin to lose their jobs to them, it can take a toll on the economy.
Computers and Inequality- What I found most interesting about this article was Polanyi’s paradox. I agree that you cannot program a machine to do what we humans do not necessarily understand. There are no rules and procedures for everything in life; some of it is just common sense. We cannot expect machines to make a judgment call or display flexibility. They can only do what we specifically make them to do.
I have to agree with Andryana in how scary machine learning and thinking is progressing...it reminds me of the computers in Eagle Eye and I Am Robot, where the master computers took the "safety" of humans and the improvement of human life into their own softwares. Without a don't technology will transform how we do things in the workforce and in our personal lives, especially with infants and children understanding how to use IPads and smartphones at an impressive rate. But I don't think computers, even programmed to think and progressively learn, can beat out human individuality and creativity. If we take that into account, then we need to reconsider the replacement of hard working creative people with machines and other tech.
Given my own backgrounds in technology, I agree with Autor on the importance and significance of automation and other important advancements in technology. However, prior to reading this article, I was unaware of the many ways that it perpetuates inequality within our society. While sometimes beneficial, this same technology tends to replace labor working workers and jobs, while improving the efficacy and wealth of companies which use them. Seems pretty unequal if you ask me.
On page 5, Autor reiterates and reminds readers that computers are just machines that have been programmed and are unable to use common sense, think for themselves, or deviate from their programming. With the rise of computers there is less need for people who work as clerks, secretaries, or in a supporting roles. I agree with Autor’s argument that computers will continue to evade society. Computers continue to grow more powerful. While these computers become sleeker, thinner, and “smarter” human interaction dwindles. This article explains at why At times it is nice to avoid the polite small talk which is accustomed when you are checking in with a person. But the issue is soon computers will take over and we will continue to lose human ties with one another.
I completely agree with Andryana above. People being replaced by machines has an effect on the economy, however, is it actually a bad one? Business may begin to save money by not having to pay a human, and from there, the technology that replaced the human can only get better. If a business is able to produce revenue quicker because their products are created faster, this is also a good thing. We must from here decide which effects the economy better, technological advancements or a human losing their job.
The rich have always wanted the cheapest form of labour in order to get richer. And just as the author points out this is exactly what the rich are doing once again. Rather than sending jobs to cheaper off shore facilities to pay their workers much less, they are now completely replacing their human labour force with computers. This will inevitably lead to greater inequality as the rich keep gaining money and the poor or working class will continue to lose jobs to computers leaving them with very few options- especially those who are uneducated.
The article mentions that economists rejects the ideas of Luddites because there was a a productivity increased there would be no need to hire more people because the amount of work there is to be done is finite. This is true but if technology takes over the jobs of man then what will they do then? And since manual labor is more expensive, that explains why the owners of companies would prefer machines but I don't think they understand the catastrophic impact that excluding or limiting people from the labor force will have.
Technological advancement is inevitable especially in this society. Although it has harsh effects on the economic side of things as this article demonstrates, it is something that needs to continuously occur in order to keep our society modern. However, I believe that replacing labor jobs with machines should be something that is treated and considered separately because that is affecting peoples ability to attain jobs.
we are in a data and age of technological advances. I think as a nation we have to really examine our students within the schools system because many of them can not find a j0b unless they have a technical background. The technological advances are coming more vastly now but it would not be made possible if it wasn't for humans.
This article was a very interesting read. Even though great advancements are being made when it comes to technology does not mean that they will ultimately takeover. I feel as though it is just something that is meant to just assist in the process. Like it was brought up before, you can never totally replace people because when you think of the STEM fields. When you technology and machines you must alwayd have people to manage them.
Technological advancement is continuing to rise every single day. Today, college students, adults and kids learn everything from technology. Although it is something that does not necessarily help our economy, it is something that needs to continue in order to keep our society in tact and moving.
Being from a technical background of being an electrical engineering major, I understand the relationship between humans and computers, especially when it comes to replacing human labor. I believe the author makes a good point, that while computers can replace all the information and functions that come with a basic worker, there are things about human nature that a computer simply cannot replicate. While the rate of humans being replaced by computers in the workplace is increasing, there are still many jobs for humans. While many will be replaced, many new ones will be created and the demand for a higher education will increase. In this sense, computers will increase inequality between those with education that’s in demand and those without, however, the need for innovation will always be prevalent in a capitalist society.
This reminds me of a quote from the documentary "Inequality for All." A man who recently lost his job stated that he never goes to the automated self check out line in grocery stores, because every time that someone does, they are decreasing the need for human labor; they are taking away someone's source of income. I think that technology is an underrated aspect of income inequality. As companies are finding ways to employ less people and become more efficient with machines, they are increasing their profit and becoming richer. Meanwhile, the jobs that low skilled and uneducated people generally held, such as cashier, and being outsourced by this new technology. As many people have stated above, the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer. -Damarr Gordon
Though it is true that the advances in computer technology may be responsible in part for rising inequality, this should not be viewed as necessarily bad. There will always be a need for people to operate and manufacture the computers, to make sure that things are going rght. To say that computers will eventually "take over" is an oversimplification of matters. Even though the rise in computer technology excludes less-skilled workers from certain jobs, this doesn't necessarily mean that computers will take over all jobs.
The authors thoughts regarding machinery and other advanced technologies are interesting, however I don't think that machines will ever take over manual labor. Humans will always need to maintain computers, as technology deteriorates over time, so it will need to be maintained. That being said, technology and computers are definitely making their way into the replacement of jobs previously worked by people, such as a lot of customer service phone lines being heavily prompted by machines before you can get ahold of a human. I think as time goes on this will continue to happen but I don't think it will ever reach a point in which humans are at a severe threat of losing manual labor jobs.
I found David H. journal very informative. Although I do not agree with the fact that he says that the richer are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Although I am a firm believer that the key to become successful comes from the opportunities and resources a person has when growing up, I also think that whoever wants to succeed in the United States can as long as they work hard. Also, he talks about industrialization, how machines are replacing human labor. That is an excellent point that has already been proven when it comes to less people working on factories. But one thing he forgets to mention is that machines will never replace the owners. Machines replace laborers and although productivity increases the unemployment rate may increase.
I found Autor's initial claim to be very interesting from the start. I agree that the media peruses the idea that, machines have been slowly replacing human labor, and in many of the factories today, things are built or manufactured almost completely by machines. However, I have never thought about these machines mimicking human capabilities, or learning from humans. Historically, the idea that industrialization is ever progressing and technology is taking over, is accepted, so I haven't thought to question it. This article provides a stance and opinion completely new to me which I am very interested in exploring. I think that a lot of the economic inequality that exists today is blamed on technology, because people think that it inhibits the job market. So, then if it isn't the machines faults, and they aren't taking over our labor, then what is? (Anastasia Kyriakos)
ReplyDeleteThe author made a good argument that contributes to the well known saying "the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer." I am not convinced about the benefits the author argues we will see in the future. Technology will continue to advance and possibly one day machines will be able to perform abstract and manual labor, then what?
ReplyDeleteAre the rich getting richer due to the rise of machinery? I believe that because machinery take away a lot of entry-level positions, it is harder for people who have been either unemployed or are looking for their first job. The rich are voluntarily getting richer by funding these machines to increase productivity and make themselves wealthier. However, the poor have no opportunity to get out of the hole that they've been dug into.
ReplyDeleteI find the author's contention to be mostly agreeable. I agree automation is progressing to the point that it is no longer complementing the work of certain professions. Rather, it is starting to replace it. At the same time, the overall wealth of society is likely to increase because the automated performance is a one time cost (not including repairs). However, I do not think machines will likely take over major forms of economic activity for some time. A large part of the economic engine is social the social interactions that come from that. There is little incentive to radically shift from that. Further, it would be immensely hard for a computer to engage in abstract reasoning for even relatively simple tasks that require decision making.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the author on how computers low tech education level differs them from their intelligence. Computers are acquiring more and more intelligence every single day they will become self-aware. Stephen Hawking even predicts that there will be a war between mankind and the future robots that will develop into their own. Machines help us but at the same time take away jobs and basic skills we develop making humans less needed in the work force.
ReplyDelete-Joshua Zidek
I found David H. Autor to be very interesting; he certainly thinks outside of the box. I believe that he yet again proves that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Some of the “poor” can be easily replaced with machinery/computers in factories because they are doing tedious and menial tasks; however, the “rich” who are owners and managers cannot be replaced. So the poor lose their jobs because they become obsolete, and the rich continue to get richer.
ReplyDeleteLindsey Stalnaker
David H. Autor offers an interesting view on the notion of machines substituting human labor. He does so by comparing this idea with Polyani's paradox which states that our tacit knowledge of how the world works often exceeds our explicit understanding. Autor then describes how the rich become richer and the poor become poorer through the decrease of jobs. As more machines are created, low skilled employees are not able to keep their jobs since machines can do them. There are many challenges to this shift in the job market and it will increase inequality as more low skilled people are not able to obtain jobs. The rich will continue to have their money since they own factories and companies and employment will decrease if this becomes a bigger movement.
ReplyDelete-Tchad Bruce
Machines taking human jobs and industrialization is hardly anything new however as technology modernizes and machines become more capable and efficient, more and more human labor can be replaced by machine labor. As the author discussed, it is clear that poor, manual labor jobs are the ones that will be replaced by the machine labor, but again this has been true for a long time. I think that it is more of an issue today and in the future because rather than just industrial jobs, machines will replace more and more entry level jobs, then eventually skilled jobs, as technology is advancing at an exponential rate. I think that technology should be continuously advanced, however more consideration to the impacts should be taken.
ReplyDeleteIt is not surprising that unskilled manual labour jobs are being replaced by technology. Self-checkouts are just one example of this happening. Machines are only able to substitute human labour that is simple and repetitive at this point in time higher skilled jobs such as doctor’s therapists or even teachers remain jobs that are solely performed by humans or with the aid of humans. As more jobs are replaced by machines the poor will become more disadvantaged, whereas the rich due to factors such as increased productivity become richer.
ReplyDeleteI did not even think about how machines really are taking human jobs. I think for some industrial jobs like wood cutting or steal cutting it may be a more efficient was to preform the task. However all the kiosks at airports that check you into your flight and all of the self check outs at grocery stores are not really a necessity but it keeps the store owner from paying a human to do it. This puts a disadvantage for people looking for jobs because they may be taken by a computer.
ReplyDeleteWe have seen examples of this in even the most recent years. Let's consider a few years ago in grocery stores. Back then when you got your groceries you would go and stand in line where someone would scan and bag your food for you. Now there are rarely stores where you can't go to a self scanner and do it yourself. Going back even further, people didn't used to pump their own gas. There was a person who came and did that for you. As the technology progresses, less lower level jobs are needed.
ReplyDelete-Matt Fera
David Autor sheds light on the fact that human labor at factories is being replaced by machinery. It has been and it will continue to do so as technology advances. As good as it may appear; this is actually a problem for the economy. It is taking the jobs of low-skilled individuals who are not able to obtain other jobs, leaving them unemployed. This factor only helps out the factory owners because they no longer have to pay workers to do the job. Clearly, this is another cause for the large inequality gap in the United States.
ReplyDeleteHuman labor was the backbone on which America was found on. From the slaves that were shipped to America, to the very patriots that first set foot on this land, our economy and cities were built on manual labor. However, as technology becomes more advanced, the applications for it become more broad. Machines took over textile worker's jobs and now, have replaced statisticians, programmers, and many more. This not only contributes to the increase in unemployment, but it also adds to the economic inequality in America. Machines don;t get paid to do work, people do. When these people are laid off and replaced by machines, they have less money to spend. Not only that, but the rich who have the capital to make and take advantage of these machines get more wealthy because they have found a way to increase productivity. It is a continuing cycle that leads people jobless and allow the rich to get richer, staring away from America's foundations on manual labor.
ReplyDeleteI think this article is really interesting because even though I have never thought about it before, computers and computer run machines are taking more and more jobs every day. When you think of factory jobs, most of the humans have been replaced by machines that are cheaper, run faster, and can get more done. This is so crucial because more and more jobs are being lost because of this.
ReplyDeleteThroughout history we have seen the cycle in which workers populate an industry, and then a technology is created that can do the work of multiple workers quicker and easier and many people lose these jobs. Historically people's jobs have been taken by machines that can do the physical labor of humans, but today we are seeing jobs taken by computing technologies. Software and computers are now cutting down on jobs with the capabilities they have to do tasks error-free in a split second. On the other hand, this industry is creating jobs, just not as the same skill level.
ReplyDeleteJack O'Connor
I think this is a very interesting article, it seems that many who posted seem to agree. However, I do not think that computers or technology will ever replace the total workforce. I think it will just began to benefit those who are skilled highly enough to work with the machines. The STEM fields come to mind when I was reading this article. Engineers are skilled in fixing and building machines therefore more machines means more work for them. It is unfortunate however that the lower skilled workers will suffer job lost.
ReplyDeleteThe author makes a good argument by saying that machines have been displacing human labor and the result of that being inequality. Although machines are more efficient at completing tasks and that it can do the work of many employees, the over use of these machines can really set the economy low. For example, in high end grocery stores, the self-checkout line has been increasing and taking over the cashier job. Soon enough, many people would not be able to take a cashier's position because there would be none left due to the increasing amount of machines that do the work for them. The inability for people to get jobs causes the economy decrease because there is an increase in the number of people who are unemployed and not making money. Increasing the number of people who are unemployed can increase tax rates to help those who are unemployed survive. It is clear that even something that might seem beneficial to people such as the increase in machines in business can lead to a detrimental effect on the economy.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWage polarization is an unsurprising development with the advent of modern technology. It is a cause of concern, but should also be a strong incentive for governments to tailor their education system to reflect these needs. Students should be majoring in productive STEM fields, which is a wiser decision based on the technical nature of the modern economy, however, this does not take into account that some people just do not have the skills to make it into STEM fields. A possible solution could be the government placing a higher standard and making it easier to learn about STEM fields from an early age.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI found this article to be completely agreeable. David H, makes a strong argument about the notion of machines. I do feel that technology is replacing a lot of what people (human labor) should be responsible and capable of doing. This causes decreases in jobs especially for the low and non-skilled workers, making the rich richer and the poor poorer. Yes there are great benefits for machinery but at the same time it takes away from having to exercise our own personal intelligences to solve things. This will not only limit less skilled workers from obtaining jobs but it also raises more economic inequality as a whole.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting to think about how computers change our life. Auture talks about how there is a long history of labor forces being replaced and new one's created. How the green revolution displaced farm laborer. Artisan labor being replaced with unskilled factory labor after the industrial revolution. etc. Now it seems that computers are making the way for middle skilled jobs to grow. Because those jobs require a nice balance where the jobs could be replaced by machines, but due to human flexibility and ability to adapt are much better suited to a human labor force. Technology grows really quickly though, and I wonder what the movement will be once computers could replace a middle skill work force.
ReplyDeleteTechnology, in my opinion has always been an important part of life. We build new things, we try to improve those inventions.This post also reminds me of Charlie and the Chocolate factory where his dad's job was to place the caps on the toothpaste tubes. He quickly got replaced by a machine, that could obvious do the job more effectively for less money. I think its natural for machines to take over at a certain, but I do think that there is a point in which machines cannot take over some jobs.
ReplyDeleteI always find it a little scary how computers are slowly but surely becoming able to think and reason like humans. While I do think think that computers are efficient replacements, there are certain boundaries that I don't believe should be crossed. I like the progression of technology and I feel that computers are really helpful tools, but once too many people begin to lose their jobs to them, it can take a toll on the economy.
ReplyDeleteComputers and Inequality- What I found most interesting about this article was Polanyi’s paradox. I agree that you cannot program a machine to do what we humans do not necessarily understand. There are no rules and procedures for everything in life; some of it is just common sense. We cannot expect machines to make a judgment call or display flexibility. They can only do what we specifically make them to do.
ReplyDelete- Hannah
I have to agree with Andryana in how scary machine learning and thinking is progressing...it reminds me of the computers in Eagle Eye and I Am Robot, where the master computers took the "safety" of humans and the improvement of human life into their own softwares. Without a don't technology will transform how we do things in the workforce and in our personal lives, especially with infants and children understanding how to use IPads and smartphones at an impressive rate. But I don't think computers, even programmed to think and progressively learn, can beat out human individuality and creativity. If we take that into account, then we need to reconsider the replacement of hard working creative people with machines and other tech.
ReplyDeleteGiven my own backgrounds in technology, I agree with Autor on the importance and significance of automation and other important advancements in technology. However, prior to reading this article, I was unaware of the many ways that it perpetuates inequality within our society. While sometimes beneficial, this same technology tends to replace labor working workers and jobs, while improving the efficacy and wealth of companies which use them. Seems pretty unequal if you ask me.
ReplyDeleteOn page 5, Autor reiterates and reminds readers that computers are just machines that have been programmed and are unable to use common sense, think for themselves, or deviate from their programming. With the rise of computers there is less need for people who work as clerks, secretaries, or in a supporting roles. I agree with Autor’s argument that computers will continue to evade society. Computers continue to grow more powerful. While these computers become sleeker, thinner, and “smarter” human interaction dwindles. This article explains at why At times it is nice to avoid the polite small talk which is accustomed when you are checking in with a person. But the issue is soon computers will take over and we will continue to lose human ties with one another.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Andryana above. People being replaced by machines has an effect on the economy, however, is it actually a bad one? Business may begin to save money by not having to pay a human, and from there, the technology that replaced the human can only get better. If a business is able to produce revenue quicker because their products are created faster, this is also a good thing. We must from here decide which effects the economy better, technological advancements or a human losing their job.
ReplyDeleteThe rich have always wanted the cheapest form of labour in order to get richer. And just as the author points out this is exactly what the rich are doing once again. Rather than sending jobs to cheaper off shore facilities to pay their workers much less, they are now completely replacing their human labour force with computers. This will inevitably lead to greater inequality as the rich keep gaining money and the poor or working class will continue to lose jobs to computers leaving them with very few options- especially those who are uneducated.
ReplyDeleteThe article mentions that economists rejects the ideas of Luddites because there was a a productivity increased there would be no need to hire more people because the amount of work there is to be done is finite. This is true but if technology takes over the jobs of man then what will they do then? And since manual labor is more expensive, that explains why the owners of companies would prefer machines but I don't think they understand the catastrophic impact that excluding or limiting people from the labor force will have.
ReplyDeleteTechnological advancement is inevitable especially in this society. Although it has harsh effects on the economic side of things as this article demonstrates, it is something that needs to continuously occur in order to keep our society modern. However, I believe that replacing labor jobs with machines should be something that is treated and considered separately because that is affecting peoples ability to attain jobs.
ReplyDeletewe are in a data and age of technological advances. I think as a nation we have to really examine our students within the schools system because many of them can not find a j0b unless they have a technical background. The technological advances are coming more vastly now but it would not be made possible if it wasn't for humans.
ReplyDeleteThis article was a very interesting read. Even though great advancements are being made when it comes to technology does not mean that they will ultimately takeover. I feel as though it is just something that is meant to just assist in the process. Like it was brought up before, you can never totally replace people because when you think of the STEM fields. When you technology and machines you must alwayd have people to manage them.
ReplyDeleteTechnological advancement is continuing to rise every single day. Today, college students, adults and kids learn everything from technology. Although it is something that does not necessarily help our economy, it is something that needs to continue in order to keep our society in tact and moving.
ReplyDeleteMolly
Being from a technical background of being an electrical engineering major, I understand the relationship between humans and computers, especially when it comes to replacing human labor. I believe the author makes a good point, that while computers can replace all the information and functions that come with a basic worker, there are things about human nature that a computer simply cannot replicate. While the rate of humans being replaced by computers in the workplace is increasing, there are still many jobs for humans. While many will be replaced, many new ones will be created and the demand for a higher education will increase. In this sense, computers will increase inequality between those with education that’s in demand and those without, however, the need for innovation will always be prevalent in a capitalist society.
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me of a quote from the documentary "Inequality for All." A man who recently lost his job stated that he never goes to the automated self check out line in grocery stores, because every time that someone does, they are decreasing the need for human labor; they are taking away someone's source of income. I think that technology is an underrated aspect of income inequality. As companies are finding ways to employ less people and become more efficient with machines, they are increasing their profit and becoming richer. Meanwhile, the jobs that low skilled and uneducated people generally held, such as cashier, and being outsourced by this new technology. As many people have stated above, the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer.
ReplyDelete-Damarr Gordon
Though it is true that the advances in computer technology may be responsible in part for rising inequality, this should not be viewed as necessarily bad. There will always be a need for people to operate and manufacture the computers, to make sure that things are going rght. To say that computers will eventually "take over" is an oversimplification of matters. Even though the rise in computer technology excludes less-skilled workers from certain jobs, this doesn't necessarily mean that computers will take over all jobs.
ReplyDelete- Brian Kang
The authors thoughts regarding machinery and other advanced technologies are interesting, however I don't think that machines will ever take over manual labor. Humans will always need to maintain computers, as technology deteriorates over time, so it will need to be maintained. That being said, technology and computers are definitely making their way into the replacement of jobs previously worked by people, such as a lot of customer service phone lines being heavily prompted by machines before you can get ahold of a human. I think as time goes on this will continue to happen but I don't think it will ever reach a point in which humans are at a severe threat of losing manual labor jobs.
ReplyDeleteI found David H. journal very informative. Although I do not agree with the fact that he says that the richer are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Although I am a firm believer that the key to become successful comes from the opportunities and resources a person has when growing up, I also think that whoever wants to succeed in the United States can as long as they work hard. Also, he talks about industrialization, how machines are replacing human labor. That is an excellent point that has already been proven when it comes to less people working on factories. But one thing he forgets to mention is that machines will never replace the owners. Machines replace laborers and although productivity increases the unemployment rate may increase.
ReplyDelete