Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm Eagle
Really with automation I think there is gonna be a lot less jobs available. Even if what you say is true there is gonna be more jobs but not enough for everyone to move up to and there should not be because these companies with entry level jobs still need people to work there. No companies pay based on what they want over min wage show me a list or chart of what the supply and demand for jobs are there is none. If you can not find a better job that does not mean you are not being underpaid it means that there are just not better jobs out there. You are really ignorant on how the business and economy works.
|
I'm creating automation jobs right now. First I need group A. I could use an app programmer, an electrical engineer, a programming engineer, a mechanical engineer, an industrial engineer, and an experienced spotter. Those jobs will pay very well...in equity at first. If it goes as planned, we will all be on the low end of the 1%'s.
Now, most people putting together a business try to find the lowest cost of everything...because, like us, money is scarce. I might be able to convince Group A that we're going to all get our spouses and us to live a Spartan lifestyle for a couple of years, but that's because we all have savings to make that an option. If we win, we're going to all win.
When their work is complete, then I have Group B to fill. I will have openings people with strong backs, and a few for people who are very organized, a few more for those that can be presentable and teach, and a few who can drive loads to different sites. For the manufacturing site, I'll need assemblers, quality testers, a quality and safety role and some admin jobs.
The strong back role has the least potential. The upward job is to supervise the other strong backs...then that's probably it.
The presenters could be groomed into sales. I want them to know and understand how the product works. I want them to see it in action and help end users. I want them to understand the impact so they can accurately convey what can and cannot be expected. I want them to see the difference between a good site and a bad one. The start wage is low because the value add is low.
Now, for the driver role, I can try and hire the lowest price idiot out there who will take packages and move them into machines. However, I'd like to pay them more and get a type of person that wants to learn about the machines and do some troubleshooting and preventative maintenance on a schedule. I'd like to give them a path forward so they will STAY and GROW with us. I want them to care that their route looks good. I want to rotate them to bigger routes and they will see other routes that have been taken care of. They have a career path.
Assembler can move to field installers. Quality testers are well positioned, but have possible opportunities with engineering. Admin is well positioned, but will grow as the company does.
Unfortunately, I'm having trouble finding everyone for Group A, and until then, I can't create jobs for Group B.
Now, you are correct. I will be a net destroyer of jobs. Anyplace in the industry where company is barely hanging on, not investing in improvement and putting out a poor quality product is going to get slaughtered. The places that provide good quality product are going to see their volumes increase, allowing for growth. I don't see it as destroying jobs as much as destroying bad jobs, and the companies that require underpaid labor to save their existence.
That frees those people up to go help other companies doing something good. Companies barely hanging on, don't develop their employees, because they have no use for developed employees. Frankly, they don't deserve to keep people trapped in a dead end occupation.
The key is to make yourself easier to program than a computer and keep a broader skill set.
I heard a quote somewhere that was something like "The CFO fears developing their employees because they might leave, whereas the CEO fears not developing their employees because they might stay." I wish you could somehow regulate development, but you can't. Which is too bad because the innovation is constant. You may as well try and stop the Earth from spinning on an axis if you want to stop innovation. You need to manage to a constantly changing world. A world where suddenly my product has destroyed some jobs, and created others, but also created a backbone for further development still of things that can't be done today. Two generations from now we'll fly around in self propelled Jetson mobiles with hologrammed calls from our partner offices in Mars. Two generations ago, people were getting their first cars and their first land telephone lines. The legions of switchboard operators are now gone, but how many more jobs have opened up since then? Would you really be happy pulling one plug and putting it into another hole all day, every day for the rest of your life?
Life is good my friend. The automation you need to stop, is the defensiveness. Don't think what it has done to you, but what it can do for you. Then grab it. You can make anything....anything you think you want to make, and sell it to me now over the internet, send it via FedEx, and get paid by taking a few numbers of one of my cards. It's the new water...dive in and start paddling.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
