"Learn-to-code," Developers and Competition in the Future World's Labor Markets
As of late, there has been some controversy over the phrase “Learn to code!” being used as a slur in social media circles.
I won’t get into the specifics, but it started as a suggestion offered by people when it was pointed out that in the future labor market of our world, automation will increasingly replace people, and what we think of as menial jobs in retail, transportation, office clerical and similar would simply go away.
Peaceful stream in the spring...
"People Just Need to be Re-Trained!"
Specifically, this phrase — subsequently used in a controversial meme — referred to four million people in the trucking industry being displaced by self-driving vehicles. The answer for what they should do, when they no longer have a career and income?
Re-train them for other jobs, and they should basically “Learn to code” so they could become app and software developers.
Leaving the overall ridiculousness of teaching sophisticated machine language to a group of people who most likely only have high school diplomas OUT of the equation, that just doesn’t make sense.
We don’t NEED another four million people who know “how to code.” In fact, more and more coding will be created via "smart machines" that learn how to modify their own programming to fit changing situations... no human intervention needed.
Besides, pretty much everyone is already turning in that direction, and there’s only so much code we need to automate the world, although some aspiring developers would probably disagree with me.
Extreme close-up of dandelion fluff
A Long Time Ago, in a State Far, Far Away...
Going way back in time, I learned to code when I was in college… in the early 1980s. I learned to code because — precisely — the rapidly emerging field of computers would require millions and millions of people able to create software.
By the time I was ready to graduate college — 1985 — a freshly baked “Data Programmer” could expect to make a starting salary of $11,000 IF they could actually land a job. Not because there wasn’t demand, but because there was already a HUGE “oversupply” of people who know how to code.
By comparison, an entry level job as an accountant had a starting salary in the region of $28,000… of course, this was before accountants started to be “at risk” of being replaced by the “code” created by the $11,000 programmer…
So what’s the point I’m driving towards, here?
It’s all very nice that we keep holding onto the idea that it is some sort of panacea that we retrain all these people in danger of losing their jobs to automation to become “technically savvy,” but in doing so, all we’re REALLY doing is inviting a tremendous oversupply of workers qualified to do a finite — and potentially declining — number of jobs.
Fall sky with sunshine...
At the Intersection of Demand and Supply
We all know what happens when supply and demand works its magic on any market… when there are more resources available than needed, the price goes down. Which… put a little more bluntly… means it’s “nice” that we can re-train a truck driver making $50K a year to create apps and code, but we’re offering them a potential “place” in an overfilled labor market where their “retraining” is more likely going to be a salary downgrade, than even being able to stay constant.
On top of which, you’re talking about finding work for a bunch of freshly retrained mostly 40-60 year old males in a labor market filled with Millennials and younger who are “technological natives” who have been using the internet and apps since they were old enough to hold a mobile device. Who do you honestly think an employer is going to choose?
My deeper point here, though, is that we’re setting up a similar situation to what I was experiencing back in 1985, when there was an oversupply of “programmers.”
Except THIS time, being a coder is no longer something with a great opportunity for growth — and a certain amount of job “prestige” — it’s going to approach a place where being a developer actually is the new “grunt” job that everyone can do, replacing office clerical, retail clerk and hospitality at the bottom of the labor market food chain.
Red Rocks landscape near Sedona, Arizona
Is that REALLY what we want?
I’m sure many will read this and say “yeah, but it’s better than NOTHING.” And you’re absolutely right!
Which brings the deeper philosophical and sociological question to the table: Are we moving to a place in our evolution where “having a job” can be regarded as no more significant in our life than “better than NOTHING?”
Or do we actually need to completely rethink what "working" and "just compensation" means? Some 15-20 years ago, I remember having quite a few conversations with my relatives back in Denmark, where the "Full Work Week" was being redefined from 40 hours to 32-36 hours a week, in the pursuit of being able to keep the majority of the population working. With growing automation — even then — there simply wasn't the need for the number of "available-work-hours" in the marketplace, under the old paradigm.
But, of course, these are mostly "band-aid" solutions. Technology will keep on developing, and more and more jobs will be replaced by robots and AI.
Clearing in the woods
Then What? Emerging Fields?
In response to a recent post, 
Certain a viable place for some of the displaced workforce to go, but just how many jobs could such a field realistically absorb?
Or are we going to have to come to terms with — gradually — the fundamental truth that there just isn't that much stuff in need of DOING, by human hands?
I know the government and the Labor Department paints a "rosy future of endless job growth," but the math just doesn't add up... because it's predicated on "historical" patterns... patterns that didn't have a bunch of robots standing by to take over human jobs. As such, I don't trust those numbers, and I don't trust those "experts" at Ivy League schools... they are too far removed from the average person who lives "where the rubber meets the road."
Signs of spring...
Of course, some "Utopian" futures paint a society in which all the "menial" work is done by machines, and people make their "work" as artists, writers, poets, musicians, philosophers, and such. That's a very pretty picture, of course... but how realistic is it? As owner of an art gallery, I know lots of people love and appreciate art, but they don't value it in the sense of wanting to pay for it.
And therein lies a dilemma: We VALUE what will be produced by automation ("essentials"), but perhaps not so much the things produced by human hands.
Perhaps what is really needed is a philosophical retraining of what matters to people, more than a job retraining.
Either way, it seems like there are no easy answers.
Thanks for reading!
How about YOU? What do you think the future of "work" holds for us all? In another 20 years, how much of the workforce will be replaced by automation? What will people do for work? What will they turn to, as a source of income? Do you think automation will result in basic services becoming extremely cheap/free to offset shrinking income opportunities? Or will "work" take on a whole new meaning? Leave a comment-- share your experiences-- be part of the conversation!
(As usual, all text and images by the author, unless otherwise credited. This is original content, created expressly for Steemit)
Created at 190217 00:59 PST
0897