Top 10 Jobs That Might Not Survive the Coming Robot 'Jobocalpyse,' Is Yours on the List?

[Jesus Malverde]

"Kill the humanoid! Uh, I mean...would you like another drink, sir? Or maybe you have some grapes that need picking?"

A new book predicts that robots will not only replace uncomfortable and dangerous jobs, but also jobs that traditionally have required a human touch.

In an interview with the MailOnline, author of the book "Jobocalpyse" Ben Way gave a rundown on the jobs most likely to be automated in the near future.

&quot Robots) will have the impact to take away 70% of all traditional jobs in the next 30 years," he said.
So what are the jobs humans will most likely get the chop in favor of a robot?

http://www.designntrend.com/articles/10370/20140123/jobs-survive-coming-robot-jobocalpyse-yours-list.htm

[Xipe Totec]

1. No jobs = no income = no consumer = no market

So who's gonna purchase all the cheap crap produced by robots?

You don't need babysitters if you're staying at home because you have no job.

You cant buy the produce if you don't have a job.

[jeff47]

3. That's kinda the point.

We're going to have to shift our paradigm.

[pampango]

6. It's the "new paradigm" that is hard to imagine - as they always are.

Humans have lived through and adapted to many "new paradigms" over time, but it is always hard to imagine what life could be like in any paradigm other than the one you are accustomed to.

[Xipe Totec]

32. I for one welcome our new silicon overlords. nt

[Jesus Malverde]

4. You'll find a way or we'll send you off to deal with robotic corrections officers...

Robotic army on it's way, we're half way there with drones which are robots that fly....

The future is coming....fast

[flying rabbit]

45. A corollary

No jobs = no income = no food = pitchforks.
Just sayin...

[Armstead]

2. The Terminator scenerio may become more reakl than we think

[mucifer]

5. Wow I'm a nurse and I'm on the list.

Better go back to school and find another job.

[likesmountains 52]

7. Me too, did not expect to see that.

Maybe the robots can just chart for us!

[Armstead]

8. I hear Robot Repair is an up-and-coming field

[mucifer]

9. Yeah to hell with people lets take care of robots!

[MADem]

33. You will command an army of robots in the new paradigm, and you will be "a" nurse... times 20.

Instead of having to perform a procedure on a patient, you'll speak sweetly to the patient and tell him or her what the robot will be doing, and then you'll tell the robot what to do. The robot will leap to obey you!

You will be the overlord!!!

[Nevernose]

44. When a robot can say

"I know you don't want to say so in front of your wife, but I can tell you're scared. Don't worry. It's all going to be okay," I will believe nurses' jobs are in danger from robots.

When a robot can hug my crying wife and say, "I know that you're devastated by the IVF failure, but you can get through this," I'll worry about nursing jobs.

When a robot can take a rubber glove, blow it up, tie it off, and draw a smiley face in magic marker before telling my kid, "You'll feel a pinch but it shouldn't hurt at all. Just look at Mister Handy Smile," I'll worry that nurses will lose their jobs to robots.

(I'm not a nurse, but my kid starts nursing school in a few months. I talked her out of being a fourth generation teacher, because that's a job going down the tubes)

[unblock]

10. some of these make sense, others boggle the mind.

delivery, sure. it's a pretty mechanical job and often with little or no personal interaction.

babysitting?? how does a robot sitter handle a fire in the house or a kid trying to run out the front door or simply the million and one common sense things that johnny's not supposed to do?

bartending i can understand, though only the mixing and cashiering part. as for the chatty part, not sure people will want to drink with a robot.

teaching? just recording a lecture and having the live teacher handle lab and/or questions and answer sessions sounds like a much easier way to do what the robot solution is attempting.

[MADem]

34. One bartender with three robots can probably do the work of four people easily.

The bartender can chat and make sure that the transactions are happening properly, while the robots do the hard work.

[Ikonoklast]

55. I've got to get busy writing a credit card skimming program for robotic bartenders.

[MADem]

56. Well, you'd probably give that credit card to a human.

The human bartender would punch in the orders and take the money/swipes. The robot bartenders would make the drinks.

Think McDonalds, only no one save robots in the kitchen, and the product is booze instead of burgers.

[Ikonoklast]

58. I wouldn't be caught dead taking any orders from some human meatbag!

[MADem]

61. Oh, Bender!!!!!

He'd be a lousy bartender--he runs on booze!!!!!

[jmowreader]

35. I don't think the states would allow anyone to use robot bartenders

Bartenders' most important job is keeping underaged people from drinking alcohol, and the states wouldn't believe a robot could do that.

[1000words]

11. Musician?

I find that hard to believe. I can see robots performing compositions, but even that seems to counter the crux of a live performance.

[Xyzse]

13. Actually...

There is a music maker that takes algorithms from composers and creates new songs based on the composer's algorithms.

http://www.fastcodesign.com/1673173/can-computers-write-music-that-has-a-soul

See?

As for performance, they already do that in Japan.

[1000words]

17. Interesting

That is truly "math rock." Although, I still prefer Don Caballero ...

[Xyzse]

19. It is pretty interesting.

I mean, with how repetitive some music is nowadays, and dare I say awful?

I don't think I would mind some computer generated music now and then.
I wonder if it might be interesting if there would be competitions on who could get the best algorithm and music created from such a thing.

There might actually be an explosion of new sounds and talent from this.

[1000words]

20. Think of the possibilities:

One could create a musical hybrid from the algorithms of just about anyone. Pair up Beethoven with Stevie Wonder ...

[Xyzse]

24. Yep!

Then get a cat with glasses like avatar playing the piano.

Instant win.

[1000words]

25. I like the way you think!

[NightWatcher]

21. they do know that Daft Punk are not really robots but dudes in costume, right?

[cyberswede]

38. ...

[Jesus Malverde]

23. Japan has already had a hologram pop star..

Hatsune Miku is the rarest kind of pop star. She is enduringly popular in her native country of Japan. She has never been photographed stumbling out of night clubs in the early hours of the morning, and never had issues with drugs or alcohol. She has, in fact, never been seen outside of her concerts at all. This is because Miku is also the fakest kind of pop star. She is a hologram.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hatsune-miku-the-worlds-fakest-pop-star/

[icymist]

60. We already have robot musicians.

[hughee99]

12. So a robot with a perfect measured poor that can tell when you've exceeded limit

and shuts you off is going to replace "Dave" or "Anne" at your townie bar? I wouldn't bet on it. I could see bars at chain restaurants going for it, though.

[LongTomH]

14. I found a critical review of Ben Way's conclusion

Googling on 'Jobocalypse' led me to the blog: Robot Futures Book by an author with his own ideas on what a 'robot future' may look like. The author did a very critical review of Ben Way's book and the conclusions Way reached. Some excerpts below:

Ben Way’s book, Jobocalypse, is subtitled “The End of Human Jobs and How Robots Will Replace Them.” The title summarizes the book’s attitude well, and while I agree that this issue is worthy of serious discussion, Way’s book demonstrates common fallacies that are worth identifying. Way starts with a chart showing employment slack, and here he is inspired by McAfee and Brynjolfsson at MIT. The interesting pattern is that unemployment following recession recovers both less quickly and less fully with every more recent case of recession, and this portends business recovery practices that are becoming ever less friendly toward the individual worker. Way explains just how cautious behavior on the part of a recovering company leads toward lower-cost routes to high productivity and profits rather than making long-term commitments to fully employed new workers, even in the face of increasing consumer demand. Rightly, Way identifies increasingly inexpensive and flexible automation as an important enabler of this pattern, and I agree fully with this analysis.

However in looking at automation itself and how it improves over time, Way’s argument repeats a mistaken trope so common that I believe we need to name it: Moore’s Leak (with due apologies to Gordon Moore). Way shows an oft-reproduced chart of computing power from 1900 through 2020. The chart shows MIPS per $1000 and shows a healthy doubling at least every 18 months, as suggested by Moore’s Law. Computers from various years are labeled on the graph, and the future looks bright for ever-faster computers. But the problem is the labeling: “Brain power equivalent” along the right lists bacteria, spiders, lizards, mice, monkeys and of course humans. And humans are shown easily achievable by 2020. That’s less than seven years from now, folks. Moore’s Law is a fine predictor (actually a milestone-setting device for Intel) for computing speed, but jumping over to animal equivalence forces mistaken conclusions from everyone but the computational biologists amongst us. Way’s point, based on the chart, is that robots will do everything humans can by 2020, and cheaply. For this conclusion the chart lends no support. Yes, singularists will argue that just as soon as computers are fast enough, they will also be smart enough to design their own future evolutionary conclusions, and this runaway chain reaction will yield so much intelligence that super-intelligent computers can then do what we humans have not been able to do: fully emulate a human being. But that is an indirect argument that is mostly an article of faith today.

In literal terms, computer speed just does not approach humanity. Moore’s Leak happens when we use Moore’s Law to optimistically imagine a future breakthrough that doesn’t really have anything to do with computing speed. Way predicts that robots will be cheap and capable thanks to Moore: “Within the next generation, the humanoid robots that we see in films such as I, Robot will find their way into our homes and will be able to perform almost any task more efficiently and better than any human ever could.” I disagree strongly; Way is tapping levels of actuation, hardware innovation, perception and reasoning that are more than a generation away with a statement this strong.

Read the rest here: http://robotfuturesbook.wordpress.com/2013/07/28/mini-review-jobocalypse-by-ben-way/

Note that the argument touches on the often touted: Technological Singularity, which is predicted to occur sometime within the next few decades; although, there are many people skeptical of the whole concept, myself included.

Edited to add: You might try Googling on the name: Illah Nourbakhsh, author of Robot Futures.

[jeff47]

16. The problem is his review boils down to "Nuh uh!!!!"

Basically, he has a difference of opinion.

Then he goes on to think that Moore's Law only ever applied to chips, and thus ignores all the rest of the corresponding advancements to produce the "Moore's Law" advances. At which point he claims those advances are not as predictable as Moore's Law.

IOW He doesn't provide any concrete reason why Way is wrong. He just doesn't think it'll happen.

[LongTomH]

22. I really should have added this paragraph:

Way’s book evaluates robotic job replacement industry by industry, from education and defense to farming, and this vertical analysis is a useful organization; however Moore’s Leak muddies nearly every analysis in the book. There is one additional problem with this form of futurecasting, and it comes from an oversimplification of just what humans do. Way states that the farm of the future, with robots in the employ of the farmer, looks like a “centralized security office.” The farmer becomes a manager who simply watches robots do all the farmwork. I think part of the problem here is misunderstanding just what farmers do. Yes, they drive tractors and harvesters, and those have been recently automated. But the farmers I know also diagnose messy hay baler failures, problem-solve the intermittent breaker on their milk house vacuum pump, shovel a whole lot of hay into the barn and a whole lot of something else out, hand-feed the heifer, deal with deliveries, argue with hunters, overhaul the tractor transmission, et cetera.

Illah Nourbakhsh definitely has a 'difference of opinion' with Way. Illah Nourbakhsh is a professor of computer science at Carnegie Mellon University as well as an author. He's taken a lot of time to consider all the implications of robots: ethics, technological unemployment and the accompanying inequality issues.

[jeff47]

31. I already followed the link and read that.

The problem is he's talking about ye basic wheat farmer, which already has virtually no labor. The point of the book is that the same "virtually no labor" will be extending to crops that are currently much more labor-intensive.

[Jesus Malverde]

40. It's in it's infancy..let it grow...5 Coolest Farm Robots

http://modernfarmer.com/2013/08/5-robots-on-the-farm/

[sendero]

54. I completely agree..

... that applying Moore's law in this way is incorrect. It's like saying we can double the horsepower of an internal combustion engine every 18 month so in a few years the car will be able to drive itself.

Bullshit.

[dilby]

15. Telling my kids to get a degree in Robotics Engineering.

Might as well make money in the design of them.

[Paulie]

29. Nope. The robots will design and build themselves

See: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/With_Folded_Hands

[Jesus Malverde]

41. Likely print themselves....

Using 3d printers

[CFLDem]

18. This list is mostly bunk.

Robots won't replace most bar tenders, musicians, baby sitters, or nurses anytime soon. Those tasks require a special human touch.

The other stuff... Sure.

[Kelvin Mace]

26. List is pretty much BS

Robot nurses are a good century or two away, provided the our civilization can maintain a technological base.

Babysitter? Nope.

Robot truck driver? Over when the first person gets killed by a robot driven truck and the company is sued.

Robot teacher? Not going to happen.

[MADem]

36. Well, depends on what kind of nurse you're looking for.

An RN? Probably not anytime soon...but an "orderly" type person that provides basic hospital care? That's already been designed:

Remember the RIBA robot nurse that was introduced way back in 2009? The robotic hospital helper that was designed to aid people on and off their ward beds into wheelchairs is back. And this time around, it’s been upgraded. Called the RIBA-II, it now has the capability to lift patients off a futon at floor level – something the original RIBA couldn’t do. The RIBA-II features joins in the robot’s base and lower back that enable to perform this physically strenuous task that most care-givers have trouble accomplishing. The RIBA-II is capable of ensuring patients get onto their beds or wheelchairs safely, thanks to some newly developed smart rubber sensors that allow the robot to detect a person’s weight from touch alone. ...

As for Robot Truck Driver, we've already got Google cars that drive themselves--so why not a truck that drives itself? I'd feel safer with one of those than I would with some of these exhausted drivers on the road. It could keep to the speed limit because it could go for more than the "maximum hours" that truck drivers are allowed to work.

And here are some self-driving trucks, crafted for military purposes:

[Kelvin Mace]

39. These devices are all working

under controlled situations, carefully monitored every step of the way.

Platoons of cars driving 70mph six inches off each other's bumper makes for great copy, but the first time Windows suffers of BSoD and you get a massive 100 car crash, it does for self-driving cars what the Hindenburg did for Zeppelins.

Also, the first time a robot assistant drops granny or breaks a disabled child's leg/arm/ribs/skull, lawyers will be lining up for miles.

How many people are going to be anxious to fly when they look on the flight deck and all the see is an iPad? (I exaggerate for effect here)

[MADem]

43. You really, really want to keep making buggy whips, I guess!

The horses and wagons are going by the wayside, though, and here come the motor cars! You can gripe about this all day-it's coming. The Google car has undergone extensive testing, and it's right around the corner. It will be a wonderful thing for older people--I think it's a great invention.

Frankly, I'd feel quite comfortable with a single pilot who is there "just in case" and the plane flown by a drone operator on the ground--hell, after all, pilots have missed the airports they were supposed to land at because they were too busy playing on the internet....

As for the robots, the difference between them and bulky equipment with straps that lift people is that the robots can do it more quickly and smoothly, and the patient feels more secure.
You won't get "100 car crashes." I'm quite sure that if something goes wobbly, those trucks won't keep driving, they'll slow down and stop so that the attendant can push that button and resume manual control. That's probably the first thing they worked on.

[Kelvin Mace]

47. Nope, I am very pro-tech

I just have spent 25+ years of my life working with PCs, networks, programmers and the last six in a machine shop that uses robots. I've worked with the folk who write software for robots and try to anticipate every possibility, or at least the most likely errors to trap.

There are too many variables, so you ALWAYS miss something. The best you can hope for is a true failsafe design in your error trapping routines.

That is not to say that these issues cannot eventually be overcome, they can, provided that we are able to maintain a technological society once peak oil and global climate change wreck havoc with human society.

So far, self-driving cars have all functioned with a team of people monitoring their progress. Not terribly efficient to replace one driver with a team. At some point, you have to trust the onboard computer to make ALL the decision, and that makes for VERY nervous passengers. Also, when you are ready to take that step, there are reams of traffic law that will have to be modified, something that in and of itself can take DECADES.

The company I work for has several robot LASERS used to cut sheet steel. We set these machines up on Friday, and they run all weekend, non-stop, without any human intervention. If an error occurs, the machine will call a supervisor, who can make corrections remotely or go into the plant. We trust these robots to process $100K worth of steel, without human supervision. But the tasks that the robot can perform are VERY defined, in a controlled environment, and lacking the tens of thousands of variables that a self-driving car or a robot babysitter would be subject to.

The article is "click bait", postulating robot replacements for humans jobs that are NOT coming any time soon.

[MADem]

48. Well, you kinda prove my point, there!

Your company works all weekend on robot power-that's pretty substantial. How many people would it take to do that work?

A lot of the jobs that these robots can do won't "replace" a person entirely, but they'll enable one person--as I alluded to elsewhere in this thread--to do the job of three or more. For example, moving a few bedridden patients could exhaust a couple of people in short order, but having the robot to do it, even supervised, makes the job simple and efficient.

Robots already clean my floors--they sweep it and wash it. I have to empty the bins of the robots (of dust or dirty water) and get it set up to clean again, but that's one job we don't do as often by hand anymore. I have a rich relative in the Caribbean with a swimming pool whose pool is cleaned by a robot--no need to hire a company to do the work.

Sure, the ability of the robots will be limited, certainly, at least at first. That doesn't mean you shouldn't use them or try to improve them. Hell, people were farting around with steam cars decades before Model T Fords took over the road--but it's a good thing that someone did that farting around, from the perspective of a driver today. Even if a team of two drivers (one at either end of a convoy) oversees a wagon train of three or more trucks, you're saving manpower. And that, of course, is the ultimate goal--a lot of jobs are boring, dull, repetitive, and don't "feed the spirit." Most people would rather not do those jobs, but they do them to survive. Put a person in a quasi-supervisory capacity, even if they're just supervising robots, and their sense of purpose will increase.

[Kelvin Mace]

49. My point was

yes, robots HAVE replace people in some jobs, just not the ones they listed any time soon. My comments addressed the article in question (Top 10 Jobs That Might Not Survive the Coming Robot 'Jobocalpyse,' Is Yours on the List?) which is, in my opinion, click bait (an article provocatively titled so that people will click on it).

We do use robots, but the job they do is VERY restricted in a VERY controlled environment. A LASER CNC machine running in a locked building with no one around is a very different place than your average public highway. Our building like your friends pool and your living room carpet are very defined spaces.

For self-driving cars to work SAFELY requires:

1) A MAJOR investment (TRILLIONS) is required in road infrastructure in a country that currently refused to repair about 100,000+ substandard bridges that are hazardous.

2) The software has to undergo improvement to the point that the car can operate WITHOUT oversight.

3) Society must change so that they are comfortable enough to TRUST such vehicles.

4) The entire body of traffic law has to be re-written, along with laws governing liability torts.

5) Money to replace all the fines that communities currently collect for traffic offenses has to be found (If memory serves that would be $7 billion a year just for SPEEDING tickets). In a country that thinks $30 is a generous weekly food stipend for people without jobs (realistically about 17% of the population), finding extra money to make up for lost fines will drive a LOT of local governments to oppose the idea.

That is just what it will take for robot drivers.

Let's look at the other jobs that according to this article are due to be replaced:

1) Bartender - Actually possible, though it alters that social chemistry at bars. Of course, the robot must be able to card people, determine if they are intoxicated, recognize and understand when someone wants a drink and what they want, as well as navigate behind a bar. The major barrier is likely the price of the robot which is going to be in the half-million dollar range. Laws, of course, will need to be rewritten, ABC laws, another major source of local/state revenue.

2) Babysitter - Seriously? There are so MANY ways this can so VERY wrong, so VERY fast, it would require its own essay.

3) Musician - We have robot musicians now, we call them ipods and yet real musicians are still out there.

4) Crop-picker/Farmhand - We already have done quite a bit of automation on the farm now, but I really do not see robots picking produce any time soon since there are simply too many variable in the work environment. Also, price will once again be a major issue.

5) Delivery Driver - (See self-driving cars, but with millions of dollars more in liability).

6) Factory workers - Already done in a lot of places, like my own company. But there are still hundreds of jobs robots simply cannot do.

7) Nurse - MAJOR liability issues. The decision tree for the software would give any ethical programmer nightmares.

8) Teacher - Distance learning? Sure. Robot teachers? Not going to happen. No robot is going to survive prolonged contact with teenagers. Anyone spending huge sums of money on robot teachers deserve to find their efforts dismantled and literally flushed down the toilet.

9) Mailman - (See delivery driver)

10) Soldier - (See Terminator series, Colossus: The Forbin Project, Star Trek: The Ultimate Computer, and several thousand science fiction books, plays and movies). Give robots weapons, teach them to kill, then write software to decide when they will kill people.

No way that can go wrong.



I do not disagree with the basic premise that robots MAY replace people in many jobs in the future. I only quibble that the article in question is WAY off on WHEN that might be, and if, given the realistic challenges to our civilization, we will be able to sustain the science needed when we start warring with other nations over food and water, not just oil and rare earth elements.

[MADem]

52. Well, I think you're limiting your concept of "replacement"

The idea isn't that humans in these jobs disappear, the idea is that they become not just "worker bees" but "robot bosses." They use the robots to assist them, thus requiring fewer humans in the job.

I don't think the human supervisory factor will go away, but -- as I said--a human supervising a "nurse robot" can do the work of two or three people. Instead of needing two humans to move a person from a bed to a gurney, you would now only need one. If everyone is carded before they enter the bar, then robot bartenders can make the drinks and a single human can hand them out--no stopping to open bottles/mix drinks with every order; it's like the guy on the counter at McDonalds. Driver-overseers on either end of a convoy, as I said, can eliminate three, four, even five drivers without having to fix any road infrastructure. And at Natick Labs, they have been working for decades on a robotic exoskeleton for military personnel that will turn a human into a blooming forklift, able to lift great weights and haul ass up and down rough terrain--they are getting very close on that one. In the field, now, for years, robots have gone into buildings and checked for people/booby traps/bombs--that's not the future, that's now--and that's a job some poor human used to have to do. iRobot makes those, they look like the toy remote control cars that were popular Xmas gifts, only slightly more robust.

So, it's not really "clickbait" if it can happen soon, and everything I've mentioned in the above paragraph can happen very soon indeed. In fact, robots have for a long time replaced mailmen--just not delivering the mail; a machine does read even the hand written zip codes, though, and sorts the mail. That is a job that humans used to do.

As for revenue from speeding tickets eventually going away, a pot tax would help on that score; alternatively, there is a movement afoot in several states (MA is one) to tax people based on their road usage--people are hating the idea, but it keeps cropping up--usage would be monitored by a transponder embedded in the inspection sticker. Like I said, people hate the idea but it isn't quite dead yet. VA was taxing electric vehicles to make up for the gas they weren't buying, not sure if that tax is still on but that crook governor put that on the books.

I think the article's purpose is to throw these ideas out there--the future is coming, we can't stop it, and it is likely that a lotta jobs are going to change as a consequence of automation. I don't think it's a bad thing--any time people need to use their brains and not just their brawn, I think that makes a job more interesting. Bossing around robots requires people to use their brains, if only just a bit in some cases.

[Kelvin Mace]

53. Again, I agree on most of your points

but it still comes down to "when" and I stipulate not any time soon, if at all.

Unless we solve the energy/carbon problem, it is NOT going to happen, since all of these robots require advanced technological societies/economies to support their development and production. We can debate this issue, but on one point I very much disagree:

So, it's not really "clickbait"

The title of the article is:

"Top 10 Jobs That Might Not Survive the Coming Robot 'Jobocalpyse,' Is Yours on the List?"

THAT is clickbait. You can argue that the first part of the title isn't, but the "question" at the end certainly makes it clickbait.

[PDJane]

27. The trouble with Robots is that they can't be retooled as fast as people can,

Which is the reason that computer parts are made in China; the people can learn to change the boards and parts and assembly faster and cheaper than a robot could.

The fact is that agriculture can be done the way it's done now by robots, providing that they know when the field is ripe. Agriculture done the way that it will need to be done in the future requires a different kind of agriculture that isn't as large scale and damaging...well, if we are to feed ourselves and the rest of the planet. The kind of agriculture that treats every patch of land differently and uses things like no-till agriculture.

Moreover, robots need more energy and more material than humans; that's a problem, since we are running out of the materials and the energy to do this. It's like the flying cars of the '50's. If it happens, it will happen on a smaller scale with much more resources than are practical in a diminishing world.

[bluestate10]

37. I have an interest in robotic agriculture. The fact is, Robots can be designed that can detect a

field or grove better than human can. Robots can have built in sensors that allow them to detect perfect color, smell and texture better than any human can.

The question of what happens to humans when robots replace them in a troubling one that business people must address before moving use of robots. One solution is to up skill humans by having robots do the back breaking work while workers manage and repair the robots. But, fewer human will be needed per farm, that is where the problem comes up - where does the displaced people go.

[JPZenger]

28. The list is complete pigeon do-do

I remember in the early 1980s when everyone was convinced that all of the industrial jobs would quickly disappear because of robots. Instead, they disappeared because of the Chinese.

Now some of those industrial jobs are coming back to the US because of high tech practices in the US and rising costs in China.

[Warpy]

30. That list is laughable

There will always be a need for every one of those occupations, even if factory workers turn into machine tenders rather than bolt tighteners. While vital signs and pill distribution can be done by robot, those things are a tiny part of what a nurse actually does. Teachers, the same. Robots can't assess students for the thousand things that could be causing problems. Not all crops can be picked by machine, some are too fragile and perishable. Robot babysitters? Maybe while an adult is present, no robot is capable of dealing with the complex needs of children.

Robotics might change the jobs but they will never replace them, no matter how bean counters and bloodless administrators lust after it.

Those are the jobs that should go--CEO and CFO. They're not cost effective.

[Duer 157099]

42. I predict: Hackers will always have a job. Always. n/t

[Incitatus]

46. Nurse?

I know a few and a bit about what they do. I do not see robots taking over their jobs anytime soon.

[treestar]

50. Soldier, not a bad idea

As for teacher, musician and nurse, BS. That requires some human thought.

[HughBeaumont]

51. And when the last job is eliminated and the wealthy are holed away on their islands . . .

. . . while the landscape is dotted with vacant homes, crime rampant and bloody, starvation as common as breathing, millions upon millions of nomadic and hopeless people with no ability to buy anything and no ability to live off of non-existent social services (since, you know, no revenue), no potable water, no semblance of a democratic government and America turning into hell on Earth as Capitalism's end game is realized . . .

. . . will that make the hyper-capitalist libertarians happy as pigs in shit?

Would you really want to be the last wealthy guy in a destitute kingdom?

[melm00se]

57. Jobs

have come and gone over time due to changes in technology. That is a fact of technological evolution.

While those jobs have disappeared, others have risen to take their place.

There used to be a day when you entered an elevator, there was an elevator operator who took you (and the other passengers) to the floor you wanted. When was the last time you saw an elevator operator?

If you went on a ship or train, there used to be fireman and stokers who shoveled coal into the furnaces that fed boilers (aka the "black gang" on ships). They don't exist any more (although the names still exist).

Continuing with trains: back in the day, there were brakemen whose job was to hand crank the brakes on individual rail cars to slow/stop the train.

Face it: technology has changed the working environment and will continue to do so. What will probably happen is that this change will accelerate (kind of a work place version of Moore's Law). The trick, IMO, is that we prepare ourselves and/or our children to be flexible enough to roll with the changes as they come and realize that the likelihood of having the same job/career for any extended period of time is almost nil.

Our parents (or grandparents if you are young) may have worked in the same job/career (and possibly the same company) for the bulk of their working lives. My/our generation is expected to change careers a couple/three times during our lifetimes. I think that frequency of change will increase as time progresses. It can't be stopped (and shouldn't be stopped), but it must be prepared for with changes in how we educate and prepare our children and our children's children

[Jesus Malverde]

59. Nice ideas/points... thanks..nt

[HughBeaumont]

63. Questions:

What ARE these new irreplaceable careers going to be?

What's the next "killer app"? What's the next "Steel"? What are our future replacement "industries"?

Where's the next "internet" going to be realized? Is it going to be infrastructure? Energy? Nano-and Bio-tech? Environmental sciences?

Where is the money for these multiple trips to college going to come from to train for these careers when the average worker has no savings and limited prospects? Looking for a "face it"? The average college education costs between $10,000 and $50,000. Will that come from the worker's ASS or the money tree in the back yard?

What if the worker is already financing (as I am) a child's education?

In a world where corporations value American STEM talent as far as they can find cheaper overseas counterparts, how does a person who is now forced to enter that field (never mind whether or not they're INCLINED or MEANT for that field .. . they'll learn to like it, I gues . . . .?) going to compete with the multiple thousands of underpaid workers currently IN these fields that are struggling to survive?

How is the average worker going to be able to consume with no paycheck coming in? How do their bills get paid? How do they retire to make way for younger workers? How does capitalism; better yet, how does American government continue with no revenue, public OR private?

Realistically, between reduced job prospects, astronomical student loan debt, automation and everyone in public and private power subscribing to cheap labor corporatism, how will a Millennial be able to survive, much less retire?

How does one answer the hundreds of thousands, possibly a few or several million, workers that will suddenly have no paycheck and no prospects due to displacement by automation, redundancy, job offshoring or just general "FREE MARKETZ CAPITALISM"?

"Oh well, not MY problem." "Shoulda, woulda, coulda." "Should have prepared, should have thought ahead"??

"Adapt or die" is nothing but a cold-hearted cop-out and a losing alternative to an actual long-term plan for displaced workers. You all attest that futures can and always will work out . . . but what if this time, and sorry to say, it's very much a certainty . . . IT DOESN'T??

Keep giggling gleefuly at "Creative Destruction". Guess when it's not you that's affected, it's hunky dory, right?

Me, I have a heart. My crime, I guess. I want to at least pretend to have some sort of plan for our workers when this hammer drops. Don't you?

[melm00se]

64. those are all excellent quesitons

I don't have the answers, no more so than predicting the internet and its pervasiveness would have been in the 70's or 80's.

Your tone and words indicate that I "don't care" and that I am some cold hearted bastard because "I have mine and screw the rest of the world". This couldn't be farther from the truth. I do care as the success of all members of an economy and society impact and influence all the other members directly or indirectly.

One thing I can (and am willing to) predict (based upon my experience) is that the jobs detailed in the OP will suffer a slow attrition. It won't be a situation where (if the study is accurate and that is open to debate) some of these professions will all of a sudden disappear and millions of bartenders, delivery drivers, nurses and teachers will be tossed out of work on Thursday after they end their shift on Wednesday.

To adapt to this inevitable change requires more change. Changes in how we educate, changes how we pay for this new education, change how we deal with the global economy (and the fact that there will always be someone, somewhere, who can provide a product or service for less), changes in how we view change itself and change the fundamental mindset(s) regarding employment.

What those changes will be, which changes will be correct and which ones will be wrong, I can't possibly begin to answer as the solutions, systems and processes are exceedingly complex and interconnected. The last thing anyone wants to propose or implement is a proposal that takes 3 steps forward but causes 4 steps back in another area (that is a truism of any system design, implementation and maintenance).

[lumberjack_jeff]

62. The dystopian would say that the jobs will survive...

but they'll pay so little that it makes no economic sense to buy the robot.

That said, I use a rudimentary robot to help build wooden boats.

[Xithras]

65. Many things hinge on the development of a decent AI, and we have no idea when that's happening.

Sooner or later someone is going to invent an AI that can match human cognition, and once that happens EVERY job becomes "optional". The robots can fix the robots, the robots can design the robots, and the robots themselves can do anything that people can do.

It could be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on how society reacts to the change. A robot will work for free, 24/7 and will cut production costs to nearly zero (especially as robots will also be able to mine, transport, and create the raw materials needed for production as well). On one hand, it could lead to a society where everything is free and nobody has to work anymore. On the other, it could least to a dystopia where most people are simply stuck in a permanent underclass. I'd guess that we'll get the latter, until a revolution creates the former.