Question: Is there a 'trade' that you could learn today that won't..

[tzijlstra]

Question: Is there a 'trade' that you could learn today that won't die out, or worse be done by a robot?

 

I'm actually thinking about the more 'hand-on' type of jobs. If I were leaving school today, and thinking about learning a 'trade' of some sort, then it's a question I would be asking myself.

 

There's an interesting thing on a beeb website which reckons:

 

 

 

So it's a perfectly valid question, especially if starting out in life today.

 

Here's the website at the beeb which prompted my thoughts.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-34066941

 

Electricians, plumbers, builders, carpenters, engineers, software engineers, cable-laying, tarmac/road laying, mechanics, information specialists, researchers, teachers, doctors, lawyers (always), accountants, roofers, drug dealers, baristas, chefs, cooks, car washers, garbagemen, forum moderators.

 

I can carry on, but there are literally hundreds and hundreds of permanent trades that won't die out.

 

Think of the following criteria (forgot the source):

 

Is it location-bound? (An electrician in China isn't going to lay the cabling in your new office).

 

Is it cheaper to do manually than to use a machine? (A roofer won't lose his job in a hurry, roofs need maintaining.)

 

Is the key-product going to remain significant? (A self-driving car still needs a mechanic)

 

 

Is manual dexterity a factor? (A doctor might see parts of operating replaced by mechanisation, but some things still need a fully trained operator)

 

Is it people-focussed? (No matter how hard we try, a computer is not going to replace a human voice satisfactory when you order your bagels in a nice cafe)

 

There are a number of other factors but I can't remember the name of the author of the paper, but in short - mechanisation or robotisation (which is mechanisation) in general leads to MORE jobs, not fewer.

[PeteMorris]

Pete, you can only ever speculate rationally and reasonably on the basis of what is known.

 

Speculating on the basis of what is not yet known is irrational. And sometimes successfully moneyed by so-called clairvoyants

 

It would jut be Sci-Fi and, for that, just go read some Asimov, there isn't much about robot sentience that he hasn't (play-)theorised and written about already.

 

Robots are mere automatons, however complex and agile they may be. They're computers with limbs and, like computers, they can only ever do what they are told to do by humans (ultimately). Look up kinematics and inverse kinematics for an idea of how limb movement is worked out mathematically in a computing context, I do not expect that robotic motion programming is much different.

 

Artificial Intelligence is not self-aware, not now or for the foreseeable future, whence pairing AI with a robot will still not result in a human facsimile able to perform cognitive tasks, only mechanical tasks. It may well perform these tasks with improved accuracy, efficiency, precision, etc. based on task learning and adaptation, and coordinate them ever better with adjacent robots and/or as a function of (in reaction to-) a changing environment...but it will still only be mechanical tasks.

 

So speculation without a basic idea of the current playfield and at least some notions of past progress in the field (to appreciate the rate of development and progression of the technologies involved...which for robotics and AI is not geometric, and I'm not sure that it is even arithmetic) is just pointless.

 

Electricians, plumbers, builders, carpenters, engineers, software engineers, cable-laying, tarmac/road laying, mechanics, information specialists, researchers, teachers, doctors, lawyers (always), accountants, roofers, drug dealers, baristas, chefs, cooks, car washers, garbagemen, forum moderators.

 

I can carry on, but there are literally hundreds and hundreds of permanent trades that won't die out.

 

Think of the following criteria (forgot the source):

 

Is it location-bound? (An electrician in China isn't going to lay the cabling in your new office).

 

Is it cheaper to do manually than to use a machine? (A roofer won't lose his job in a hurry, roofs need maintaining.)

 

Is the key-product going to remain significant? (A self-driving car still needs a mechanic)

 

 

Is manual dexterity a factor? (A doctor might see parts of operating replaced by mechanisation, but some things still need a fully trained operator)

 

Is it people-focussed? (No matter how hard we try, a computer is not going to replace a human voice satisfactory when you order your bagels in a nice cafe)

 

There are a number of other factors but I can't remember the name of the author of the paper, but in short - mechanisation or robotisation (which is mechanisation) in general leads to MORE jobs, not fewer.

 

Both perfectly reasonable arguments. Although I'm not altogether convinced that robotisation in general leads to 'more' jobs...I might need some convincing on that score.

 

One of the reasons for my posting was that the job I do is really only useful in the place I do it. I've been doing it for many years, and have lots of experience, so I'm pretty good at what I do. However, I've always 'sort of' had regrets that I didn't do something other than in the building I work in...If that makes sense?...Something outside of work...On the side if you like. It's pretty restrictive.

[Michael_W]

You will always need the people who make and mend the tools that make and mend the machines that make and mend the robots.

Oh and Sheffield used to be full of them

Edited February 18, 2016 by Michael_W

[Nagel]

Become a watchmaker like Richard W Smith. He's entirely self-taught and now makes an extremely good living. His watches will live on as long as our civilisation does.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wteJsZB_pzA

 

Watchmaking or any other craft at that level will never be replaced by robots.

[Cyclone]

Electricians, plumbers, builders, carpenters, engineers, software engineers, cable-laying, tarmac/road laying, mechanics, information specialists, researchers, teachers, doctors, lawyers (always), accountants, roofers, drug dealers, baristas, chefs, cooks, car washers, garbagemen, forum moderators.

 

I can carry on, but there are literally hundreds and hundreds of permanent trades that won't die out.

 

Think of the following criteria (forgot the source):

 

Is it location-bound? (An electrician in China isn't going to lay the cabling in your new office).

 

Is it cheaper to do manually than to use a machine? (A roofer won't lose his job in a hurry, roofs need maintaining.)

 

Is the key-product going to remain significant? (A self-driving car still needs a mechanic)

 

 

Is manual dexterity a factor? (A doctor might see parts of operating replaced by mechanisation, but some things still need a fully trained operator)

 

Is it people-focussed? (No matter how hard we try, a computer is not going to replace a human voice satisfactory when you order your bagels in a nice cafe)

 

There are a number of other factors but I can't remember the name of the author of the paper, but in short - mechanisation or robotisation (which is mechanisation) in general leads to MORE jobs, not fewer.

 

Bit of a stretch to define "barista" as a trade though...

Some of those roles I'd have said were vulnerable, accountant for example is a process of following the rules (knowing them first) and data in/data out. Expert systems are very good at doing that type of process.

Car washers is an interesting one. They were replaced by robots a long time ago, but have made a comeback, perhaps because it can be done for the same price, but people perceive the robots (automated car wash) to be less effective than 3 guys with pressure washers and sponges.

 

---------- Post added 18-02-2016 at 09:02 ----------

 

You will always need the people who make and mend the tools that make and mend the machines that make and mend the robots.

Oh and Sheffield used to be full of them

 

Why can't other robots make and mend the tools?

 

---------- Post added 18-02-2016 at 09:02 ----------

 

Become a watchmaker like Richard W Smith. He's entirely self-taught and now makes an extremely good living. His watches will live on as long as our civilisation does.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wteJsZB_pzA

 

Watchmaking or any other craft at that level will never be replaced by robots.

 

This is the 3rd time you've posted this...

 

Watchmaking is a huge industry and almost entirely automated. Casio don't have a lot of guys in a factory soldering together parts.

[sgtkate]

Both perfectly reasonable arguments. Although I'm not altogether convinced that robotisation in general leads to 'more' jobs...I might need some convincing on that score.

 

I think we have clear evidence in the UK at the moment that they do. We have a larger than ever population yet unemployment percentages are lower than they've ever been (at least since records began, can't answer for pre-WW2 levels I suppose). So we have more automation, more robots and yet seemingly more jobs.

[PeteMorris]

I think we have clear evidence in the UK at the moment that they do. We have a larger than ever population yet unemployment percentages are lower than they've ever been (at least since records began, can't answer for pre-WW2 levels I suppose). So we have more automation, more robots and yet seemingly more jobs.

 

Hate to appear thick, but where's the direct correlation?

 

A quick google came up with this website (although I can't vouch for the validity or accuracy). It says a lot of jobs will go. It says it doesn't necessarily mean higher unemployment, but if you like, re-deployment. Although I'm struggling to think, doing what?

[Cyclone]

Hate to appear thick, but where's the direct correlation?

 

A quick google came up with this website (although I can't vouch for the validity or accuracy). It says a lot of jobs will go. It says it doesn't necessarily mean higher unemployment, but if you like, re-deployment. Although I'm struggling to think, doing what?

 

Probably the same thoughts that farm labourers had as farming became more and more mechanised.

[sgtkate]

Hate to appear thick, but where's the direct correlation?

 

A quick google came up with this website (although I can't vouch for the validity or accuracy). It says a lot of jobs will go. It says it doesn't necessarily mean higher unemployment, but if you like, re-deployment. Although I'm struggling to think, doing what?

 

I can't predict the future Pete! If I did I'd be sharing lottery winnings with you,

 

However, look at the growth of the IT industry. It's currently growing at 32% quicker than the rest of the economy according to this article. While I am struggling to find figures for the growth of people directly employed in the tech industry, I'd think it's fairly obvious to state that effective none were working in this sector prior to WW1, yet we now have 1.5m jobs. So that's 1.5m jobs created by advances in technology. What we now need to compare that to is the number of jobs lost by the same advances in tech. Going to be difficult to find! Someone without a day job want to pick it up? I do occasionally have real work to do

Edited February 18, 2016 by sgtkate

[PeteMorris]

I can't predict the future Pete! If I did I'd be sharing lottery winnings with you,

 

However, look at the growth of the IT industry. It's currently growing at 32% quicker than the rest of the economy according to this article. While I am struggling to find figures for the growth of people directly employed in the tech industry, I'd think it's fairly obvious to state that effective none were working in this sector prior to WW1, yet we now have 1.5m jobs. So that's 1.5m jobs created by advances in technology. What we now need to compare that to is the number of jobs lost by the same advances in tech. Going to be difficult to find! Someone without a day job want to pick it up? I do occasionally have real work to do

 

Didn't someone once say 'we're a nation of shopkeepers'?...Although I suspect they didn't actually mean, we'll all be working in shops, but I suspect it's heading that way.