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.
The interactive visualization above charts specific careers on their automation potential (out of 100%) along with the hourly average wage of the job.
What is most interesting about the analysis is that automation potential doesn’t correlate with low-skill, low-wage jobs as much as one may think. While it’s true that the three million fast food workers across the country have an automation potential of 74%, and that heavy truck driving activities can be 69% automated, there are also great counter-examples: for example, only 7% of manual labor and 22% of janitorial activities could be automated.
Likewise, high-paying jobs are not necessarily robot-proof.
Doctors (23%), nurses (29%), and even CEOs (25%) all have significant amounts of their jobs that can be automated with current technology. Almost half (47%) of what pharmacists do can be done by a robo-pharmacist, and 72% of commercial pilot activities can be done through computers.
One example i know is pilots
If there weren't some other threats like terrorism, hijacking, bad weather or engine failure....etc. they were replaced already.
Technology is there and pilots cost a lot!!!
Who knows maybe i'll be working on this
Retail and transport industries will lead the way in 2-3 years.
I think a lot of this "data" is highly suspect. Commercial pilots already use autopilot controls. I see no near term danger that a pilot will be replaced. There is also a matter of costs. Air travel and transport is expensive while the cost of the pilot is minimal. We will see automated cars and trucks, decades before pilots are eliminated. In spite of all the publicity even automated drivers seems a long way off.
Pharmacists are another issue. What does a pharmacist do? Count out pills and label vials? That should not require a highly trained person. Do they make sure prescriptions seem correct and drug interactions are minimal? Well, that is a job for a computer. There is no reason on earth I can see for retail pharmacists which is the major source of employment.
Trying to predict long term career opportunities is probably something to consider, but as always, learning analytical and other skills that can be adapted to the future jobs is essential. I always found that being on the forefront of automation, computerization and robotics was the best way to make a living.
good point about pharmacy's . i never really thought about it . guess it is like the unions that create way over paid job functions .
Not unions, but lobbies that get favorable legislation passed. Those laws hold back progress but only for so long and then there is an unpleasant correction. Pharmacy is way overdue.
Some pharmacies already have locked pill dispensers that account for the number of pills. The problems with prescription abuse and break-ins was a no-brainer for basic automation.
I've been saying for years that the advanced robotics coupled with adaptive computer technology would eliminate a lot of jobs. Wealthfront.com has eliminated traders in favor of a computerized automated system.
In actuality, the process has been going on for years. I remember rooms full of accountants, who got replaced with spreadsheets and databases. Middle management was largely eliminated or minimized by automated reporting.
The larger point is that it is a societal shift, where increasing numbers of people have to figure out how to survive without a job.
The larger point is that it is a societal shift, where increasing numbers of people have to figure out how to survive without a job.
This is the same, same, old argument about buggy whips. Changes in society and in technology mean new jobs in different areas and old jobs are phased out. With all of the overseas manufacturing and automation and robotics and computerization, plenty of jobs have been phased out but unemployment has sunk to under 5%. That is really, really low considering many people want unemployment and do not want to work. Many are lazy. Many are on drugs. Many are felons no one wants to hire. And a great many have virtually no skills.
Perhaps we need computer economists as well. Capital never causes involuntary unemployment problems.
Why? Because capital lower the need for employment. If we all owned robots that did all the work, we could play all day on their income. We all know this will not be the case because the cheap supply of labor will lower the robot wage.
So what's the problem? The old problem of classical economic rent which are things of value and not a product of human labor that will in price is always the problem.
Your robots can build your house and grow and prepare your food. You don't need employment in that case. However robots can't make a new spot in a nice part of town. That will simply rise in price.
Why don't people understand this? Capital might reduce the need for labor but it also tends to reduce the need for employment. It also creates lots of competition and lots of new people opening up new business because capital is cheap.
Unemployed people could get jobs repeating this thread. There seems to be a lot of demand for it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
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.
