People talk about automation all the time,
but how many of the current most common jobs could really realistically be replaced by automation in like a decade?
http://www.ranker.com/list/most-common-jobs-in-america/american-jobs
1
Retail salespersons
# Employed: 4,155,190
2
Cashiers
# Employed: 3,354,170
3
Office clerks
# Employed: 2,789,590
4
Combined food preparation and serving workers
# Employed: 2,692,170
5
Registered nurses
6
Waiters and waitresses
# Employed: 2,244,480
7
Customer service representatives
# Employed: 2,146,120
8
Janitors and cleaners
# Employed: 2,058,610
9
Freight, stock, and hand material mover laborers
# Employed: 2,024,180
10
Secretaries and administrative assistants
# Employed: 1,841,020
11
Stock clerks and order fillers
# Employed: 1,795,970
12
General and operation managers
# Employed: 1,708,080
13
Bookkeeping, accounting, and auditing clerks
# Employed: 1,675,250
14
Elementary school teachers
# Employed: 1,485,600
15
Heavy and tractor-trailer truck drivers
# Employed: 1,466,740
16
Nursing aides, orderlies, and attendants
# Employed: 1,451,090
17
Wholesale and manufacturing sales representatives
# Employed: 1,367,210
18
First-line supervisors of office and administrative support workers
# Employed: 1,359,950
19
Teacher assistants
# Employed: 1,249,380
20
Bus and truck mechanics and diesel engine specialists
# Employed: 1,222,770
>>8120339
Cashiers can go for sure. I've been using the self check-out aisles ever since they introduced them back in the 90's. Fuck people looking at my groceries.
>>8120348
I'd probably say:
2
depends on the def. of 4
9
The others the appeal is the human component or the skill specialization might not be realistic (i.e. janitors, you could get a floor sweeper but random messes/hazards you'd need someone on the job).
>>8120348
>teacher assistants and nurses
Nah, at least not within the next decade.
Kinda glad I'm becoming a psychotherapist, Not the greatest pay, but it will be one of the last jobs automation could take over.
>>8120339
>how many of the current most common jobs could really realistically be replaced by automation in like a decade?
None of them.
>>8120348
>Retail salespersons
These parasites could have been replaced by the Sears catalog before WW2.
I really can't see why the whole lot haven't been subject to Social Darwinism decades ago.
I also don't understand why the /pol/acks don't lump real estate agents, etc in with welfare queens.
Gas 'em all.
>Heavy and tractor-trailer truck drivers
Rail DID automate these jobs long before trucks themselves were invented.
I'm really not sure why these jobs ever existed.
>>8120577
Every civilization that ever was fell. Why shouldn't ours?
>>8120577
cashiers are already mostly replaced. In my town there are ALWAYS more active self checkout lines than there are check out lines with actual cashiers. Usually there's 6 self checkout lines and like 3 isles with actual workers.
>>8120592
We only have one sample size, that being Earth. Sure other cultures have fallen, but humans still live on.
Also, that's like saying "No one's ever been to the moon, why would we be able to??"
>>8120587
How do you get the shit from the rail road to the stores? How do you get the shit to towns that don't have a rail line?
Trucks still are required
>>8120607
>Trucks still are required
Yeah, about 10% of what we have now.
The point is, here's a whole industry, 90% of which could have been automated about 150 years ago.
Obviously, just because there's a machine that *could* do your job doesn't mean you need a new career.
Also, look at the 1980's.
Before 1980, America produced more than it consumed.
After 1980, we developed a trade deficit we've never shaken.
And yet unemployment still goes up and down, about like it did before.
Apparently, we just created more make-work jobs: middle management, sales, etc.
Oh, there are other possible explanations: rising oil costs mean the same imports now cost more.
Increased per-capita consumption, etc.
But it still looks like you can't count on the free market to squeeze every penny out of every hour of labor to the extent we'd like to think.
so I'm a csfag and AI is my main interest, so I've thought sometimes about what I would be responsible for if I actually managed to succeed someday...
I think there would probably have to be laws put in place and we'd only mass produce it for really necessary things like military drones and high-risk jobs, but I have two theories about why this might actually not be a problem:
-robot bodies will still be expensive as hell even after the AI software is finished, companies would lose money by replacing a significant number of minimum wage workers with robots
-after robots are commonplace enough to not be too expensive, they could be made to farm food and build houses for the unemployed people, ideally this could continue until a good portion of the population can live for free
is this plausible or am I a retard
>>8120348
1 and 2 aren't going anywhere.
I've worked in retail part time while in college, and I can tell you people don't like checking out their own groceries if their cart has over so many items.
People actually enjoy human interaction.
Corporations have been trying to get rid of them for a long time to no avail.
>>8120605
>Also, that's like saying "No one's ever been to the moon, why would we be able to??"
no it isn't
>>8120605
>We only have one sample size, that being Earth.
For other hypothetical civilizations outside of Earth, we have the fermi paradox fucking shit up asking why we haven't been contacted by a billion year old civilization.
