Technology

72440 readers

3322 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related news or articles.
Be excellent to each other!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

L3s@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

technopagan@lemmy.world

L4s@lemmy.world

L3s@hackingne.ws

L4s@hackingne.ws

The Education Crisis: How AI Is Failing Students for the Future Job Market (gazeon.site)

submitted 23 hours ago by eli001@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

18 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

The article is well-written. I wonder how many employees will still be needed in 10+ years from now.

In case you haven't heard about it, the labor market is regulated by supply and demand. That means, if there's less demand, but supply stays equal, wages decline. That's what people experience for the last decades. If this trend continues, demand for human labor might become very weak. That's why people for one can no longer rely only on the incomes through the labor (wages), but need good safety nets (Universal Basic Income, UBI).

And also, demand for labor is another way of saying "how much are humans needed to perform tasks". What if humans aren't needed? Will people be ok with that?

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 2 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

You got a few things the wrong way round.

First, the last few decades it wasn't the demand that was going down but the supply was going up with each generation joining the work force being larger than the one leaving into retirement, and also more women joining the work force.

These effects have ended. There aren't more women to join the workforce and the baby boomers, the largest generation that ever existed going into retirement.

Also, you are forgetting what governs the demand for workers. It's not some mystical fixed amount of work that needs to be done. A main feature of capitalism is that consummation is only governed by the available money, and it's practically limitless apart from that. If people have infinite money, they will just buy 10 cars. Not because they need them, but because they can.

That means if there's enough money around, there's virtually infinite work to do and thus infinite demand for labour. The demand is only bound by the amount of money people are able to spend.

This leads to the current crisis. It's not a crisis of too little demand for workers, but one of a bad economy. If the economy picks up, companies will start to hire again.

[–] Olap@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I suspect people (not billionaires) are realising that they can get by with less. And that the planet needs that too. And that working 40+ hours a week isn't giving people what they really want either.

There's also the value of money has never been lower either. Working for less isn't rewarding. And so demand is getting intensely squeezed, and this is likely to continue with a planet that is full of enough stuff

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago

I suspect people (not billionaires) are realising that they can get by with less. And that the planet needs that too. And that working 40+ hours a week isn’t giving people what they really want either.

Tbh, I don't think that's the case. If you look at any of the relevant metrics (CO², energy consumption, plastic waste, ...) they only know one direction globally and that's up.

I think the actual issues are

Russian invasion of Ukraine and associated sanctions on one of the main energy providers of Europe
Trump's "trade wars" which make global supply lines unreliable and costs incalculable (global supply chains love nothing more than uncertainty)
Uncertainty in regards to China/Taiwan
Boomers retiring in western countries, which for the first time since pretty much ever means that the work force is shrinking instead of growing. Economical growth was mostly driven by population growth for the last half century with per-capita productivity staying very close to inflation.
Disrupting changes in key industries like cars and energy. The west has been sleeping on may of these developments (e.g. electric cars, batteries, solar) and now China is curbstomping the rest of the world in regards to market share.
High key interest rates (which are applied to reduce high inflation due to some of the reason above) reduce demand on financial investments into companies. The low interest rates of the 2010s and also before lead to more investments into companies. With interest going back up, investments dry up.

All these changes mean that companies, countries and people in the west have much less free cash available.

There’s also the value of money has never been lower either.

That's been the case since every. Inflation has always been a thing and with that the value of money is monotonically decreasing. But that doesn't really matter for the whole argument, since the absolute value of money doesn't matter, only the relative value.

To put it differently: If you earn €100 and the thing you want to buy costs €10, that is equivalent to if you earn €1000 and the thing you want to buy costing €100. The value of money dropping is only relevant for savings, and if people are saving too much then the economy slows down and jobs are cut, thus some inflation is positive or even required.

What is an actual issue is that wages are not increasing at the same rate as the cost of things, but that's not a "value of the money" issue.