Automation and the Second Coming?

[Guest]

So, what do you think of that report that 47% of U.S. jobs will be automated by 2034?  Overblown hype, or the end of capitalism and civilization as we know it?  

Obviously, if half of America's jobs are taken over by machines, and we have an unemployment rate of 50% or more, capitalism will fall apart.  Some say new jobs will be created, but will these new jobs be abundant and accessible enough to help those who lost their jobs to automation?  

Is the only workable solution to this dilemma the Second Coming?

[Fether]

39 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

So, what do you think of that report that 47% of U.S. jobs will be automated by 2034?  Overblown hype, or the end of capitalism and civilization as we know it?  

Obviously, if half of America's jobs are taken over by machines, and we have an unemployment rate of 50% or more, capitalism will fall apart.  Some say new jobs will be created, but will these new jobs be abundant and accessible enough to help those who lost their jobs to automation?  

Is the only workable solution to this dilemma the Second Coming?

If machines are making everything for us, why would we need to work? 

Now I don’t fully agree with my presumption in my question, but what I do believe is that what has been happening will continue to happen. Overall economy will continue to grow. The poorer may have less money, but what they can do with that money will be vastly greater than what a millionaire can do today with his money. The poor today are much better off than the rich of 1960. Those with jobs will be vastly more rich than the poor, but then it no longer becomes a problem of “everyone is going to be poor”, it is a problem of “everyone is some much richer than me”... this is becomes a matter of pride... which is what it is today 

[NeuroTypical]

I work for a company that sells stuff to companies that build these sorts of things.  As long as there are machines doing stuff for us, there are umpteen humans happily designing, building, testing, maintaining, researching these machines.  And marketing them.  And doing IT support for them, and providing medical benefit packages to them, building roads and infrastructure and buildings to keep them in, the list goes on and on.

[JohnsonJones]

13 minutes ago, Fether said:

If machines are making everything for us, why would we need to work? 

Now I don’t fully agree with my presumption in my question, but what I do believe is that what has been happening will continue to happen. Overall economy will continue to grow. The poorer may have less money, but what they can do with that money will be vastly greater than what a millionaire can do today with his money. The poor today are much better off than the rich of 1960. Those with jobs will be vastly more rich than the poor, but then it no longer becomes a problem of “everyone is going to be poor”, it is a problem of “everyone is some much richer than me”... this is becomes a matter of pride... which is what it is today 

I'm not so certain I agree with this idea.  There are Poor in the US that are homeless.  There are Poor in the US that are still without heat, electricity, or even the capacity to see a doctor.

There are poor in the US that live on illegal immigrant farms (it's an interesting thing that I see), or that barely have enough food from day to day.

Going outside the US, there are poor that live in cages, or a 7x3 foot area when they aren't working.  When they do work they work a 12 hour work day or more at times. 

Many do not realize what the truly poor in the US deal with (unless, of course, they are there themselves), and when you get outside the US, many Americans can't even dream of the brutal poverty found in some locations in the rest of the world.

I think that automation will make capitalism more profitable, but I do not think it necessarily will resolve the poverty issues.  I think that relies more on people having the pure love of Christ, charity, and seeing things more of belonging to the LORD and thus EVERYONE rather than trying to hog it and say this is our piece of the pie that we have earned and thus it is OURS.

It would probably need to be more like the Nephite society after the Coming of the Lord, that society we find in 4th Nephi, than anything else.  To get there...though...it may need to have a massive disaster on a similar scale to that right before his coming to humble all of us (me included) so that we could accept living in such a society.

[Fether]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

I'm not so certain I agree with this idea.  There are Poor in the US that are homeless.  There are Poor in the US that are still without heat, electricity, or even the capacity to see a doctor.

There are poor in the US that live on illegal immigrant farms (it's an interesting thing that I see), or that barely have enough food from day to day.

Going outside the US, there are poor that live in cages, or a 7x3 foot area when they aren't working.  When they do work they work a 12 hour work day or more at times. 

Many do not realize what the truly poor in the US deal with (unless, of course, they are there themselves), and when you get outside the US, many Americans can't even dream of the brutal poverty found in some locations in the rest of the world.

I think that automation will make capitalism more profitable, but I do not think it necessarily will resolve the poverty issues.  I think that relies more on people having the pure love of Christ, charity, and seeing things more of belonging to the LORD and thus EVERYONE rather than trying to hog it and say this is our piece of the pie that we have earned and thus it is OURS.

It would probably need to be more like the Nephite society after the Coming of the Lord, that society we find in 4th Nephi, than anything else.  To get there...though...it may need to have a massive disaster on a similar scale to that right before his coming to humble all of us (me included) so that we could accept living in such a society.

As long as there is addiction, people who don’t want to work, or bad luck... there will be poverty. It will never go away and I don’t think there is anyone trying to end it. But poverty in the US is much more luxurious than poverty in Africa. 

Thebricher our nation is, the more we can give to the poor.

I think machines taking jobs is also somewhat synonymous with jobs being exported to other countries. I think that too is just part of economic growth. It’s more financially beneficial for our nation to import socks from Vietnam so we can focus on technological growth and industry. If we can hand construction of cars 100% to machines, import products from DEVELOPING countries and only pay technicians to make sure the machines are running well, then the cost of car manufacturing will drop dramatically and the selling prices will drop and everyone will have a car (ideologically, I recognize this is wishful thinking, but the concept is there).

There will still be people with cars made out of diamond, but that won’t take wealth from the poor class.

Another concept: ANY kind of technological growth will get rid of jobs. If I developed the technology to create 10 jumbojet airplanes for less than $100,000, millions of people will be out of jobs, but at the same time, the cost of a jumbo jet now become $10,000 and everyone can have their own jumbo jet for like $20,000. And who knows what other things this would do for the world economy.

So it’s hard to talk about poverty when just looking at dollars made. We should look more at what can be acquired with it. My parents grew up for the first years of their marriage with only one car for a vast portion of their college life.

Now, most single college students have a car and when we get married, we inherit a second car in the marriage. The apartment I live in is much nicer than the one my parents had when they were first married even though my dad was graduated and working a in a higher field than what I currently worked. All the while struggling more financially than my wife and I are.

Edited February 15, 2018 by Fether

[mordorbund]

17 minutes ago, Fether said:

Another concept: ANY kind of technological growth will get rid of jobs.

@JohnsonJones or others care to comment on this?

This automation concerns seems parallel to the industrial revolution when low-level automation (by today's standards) took over manufacturing jobs. I don't have any links or documentation, but I seem to remember that unemployment was staggeringly high for about a generation until the overall economy could adjust to this new normal. If that's correct, what steps were taken to alleviate that suffering, or perhaps we should think about what we can do to reduce the lag time?

[JohnsonJones]

4 hours ago, mordorbund said:

@JohnsonJones or others care to comment on this?

This automation concerns seems parallel to the industrial revolution when low-level automation (by today's standards) took over manufacturing jobs. I don't have any links or documentation, but I seem to remember that unemployment was staggeringly high for about a generation until the overall economy could adjust to this new normal. If that's correct, what steps were taken to alleviate that suffering, or perhaps we should think about what we can do to reduce the lag time?

Automation I think can get rid of some jobs and create others, but technology itself does not get rid of jobs.  In some instances it actually creates jobs. 

For example, let's look at Train engines when they were first developed.  This reduced the number of cross country carriages, and hence got rid of those jobs.  It also reduced the number of cross country deliveries, on coach, or via horse...thus getting rid of those jobs.  We'll say that got rid of approx. 10,000 jobs in the 19th century.

However, the steel industry was increased to make the trains, the boiler industry and instruments were increased to create those trains, and that in itself created 10,000 jobs, they just were DIFFERENT jobs.  Then you have to lay track and for a few decades, THAT made a LOT of jobs as well, some estimate over 100K over that time period.  Then you needed engineers and conductors, which also made jobs, though not as many as the others.

It also made it FAR more accessible and safer to travel across long distances.  This meant that the industry itself grew into money and more money as a lot more people could travel in this fashion...so though travel was cheaper for them overall, with the numbers now travelling, it brought in a LOT more money.

However, then we bring in automation.  Let's say that we could have automated most of this, so that the trains were made by automation, that the trains were driven by automation (did not happen, this is conjecture).  We lose all those jobs.

How about the track then being laid by automation?  We have a folk legend in this regard (John Henry) in this regards.  This happens, and suddenly you do not gain all those jobs.  The jobs that you lose are NOT returned.  Those people have no living and no jobs have replaced the ones that were lost.  You still have accessibility...but no one to pay for it.

What happens then?

It's what people have predicted in the long term future, and what has already happened in some occasions.  Ford (of the model T fame) noted that he wanted to pay his workers so that they could buy his cars.  He recognized that if you have no one with money, you cannot make any money to begin with.  Hence, he needed to set an example with his workers, so other companies also paid a wage so that their workers didn't desert over to Ford's factories.  Hence, by paying a higher wage, he got others to do so, and people bought his cars.

However, what happens if there are NO jobs and thus no one can buy anything.  Capitalism falls. 

People assume that the US government is doing all the money handouts because of charity, but this may not actually be true.  Currently, we have only around 2/3 of Americans that work and make money.  Over 50% of Americans get government assistance of some kind.  This enables them to buy stuff.  In essence, the US is the cornerstone of the world's capitalism.  We buy a LOT of stuff (between us, Australia, Japan, Korea, and Western Europe, we buy so much stuff that it's incredible).  Most of these nations are actually rather socialistic these days in the programs it uses to help people survive and get by. 

Without these programs, what happens?  People buy less stuff.  Capitalism crashes. 

So, in essence, right now, the US and Western governments are actually propping up that very capitalism that we say we treasure.  This makes our standard of living better in the US and the West (as Fether aptly has noted...but this is an artificial propping up by the governments, if it didn't prop up the population, then we'd end up more like those other nations where poverty IS worse then in the US). 

The question then is if automation continues as it has over the past 100 years, we can expect in another 100 years that there will only be enough jobs for 1/3 of the population, or at least that's a possibility.  The governments will have to print MORE money, and prop up even MORE people to keep this type of system going.  Even those that have jobs, many may be as they are today, where they do not pay a living wage, meaning that they will probably be dependant on the government assistance also.  That means up to 75% will only survive due to the government programs.

The big question then, is whether the governments of the West will go bankrupt or otherwise fall into a deficiency before this happens or when it happens.  At that point, is this fake capitalism really capitalism, or some perverse combination between capitalism and socialism?  Is this the best way to do things?

No one knows.

Some utopian idealists have theorized many ideas, from things very similar to what we see in the Law of Consecration occurring (for example, Roddenberry's TNG star trek where there is no longer a use of money in the Federation, but people don't seek the acquirement of stuff anymore, but rather to better themselves in other ways), to that of Karl Marx's thougths which led to some of the more drastic ideas of communism. 

We don't know what will happen, the irony of it all is that with automation we SHOULD have more than we have ever had before.  There SHOULD be enough for everyone and there should not be any poor (in fact, we have already reached that point in North America, even if you include Mexico, in practice, we should not have any homeless or poor...but there is a CATCH as you will see)...the problem comes in with greed.  AS long as people horde and do not want to share (and that is pretty much almost everyone), this type of program will never work.  The problem is how do you work a system where you have a population that is inherently greedy...when in order for a system to work, you need a population that is inherently virtuous and selfless?

Edited February 16, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[mordorbund]

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

However, then we bring in automation.  Let's say that we could have automated most of this, so that the trains were made by automation, that the trains were driven by automation (did not happen, this is conjecture).  We lose all those jobs.

How about the track then being laid by automation?  We have a folk legend in this regard (John Henry) in this regards.  This happens, and suddenly you do not gain all those jobs.  The jobs that you lose are NOT returned.  Those people have no living and no jobs have replaced the ones that were lost.  You still have accessibility...but no one to pay for it.

What happens then?

Well, since you went hypothetical, I will play along. You bring in automation, but it doesn't start as automation. I know you said it did, but that's just not the reality that we see. Tasks are still performed manually until some sort of systematic "best practice" is enshrined which can then be captured via automation. There's still John Henry's for the first 2 decades before 1) track-laying standards are established by the railroad industry, and 2) innovators work out the kinks in their steel drivers. So the reality is that you DO gain all those jobs, but it doesn't create a long-time boon to the economy. The trick then is fostering an environment for innovators to keep innovating (to drive the next wave) and for manual laborers to be willing to take risks working alongside new technologies even if it's just until the kinks get worked out (to continue employment and marketability).

We already have quite a bit of automation through computers. When I call for support I first talk to an automated operator. A large portion of my banking transactions do not involve anyone besides myself. Most of the time, a machine checks me out of a grocery store. Even the software world replaces a LOT of testing tasks with automation. Is the 1/3 people who aren't working right now former telephone support, bank tellers, grocery checkout people, and software testers?

OP asks

10 hours ago, DoctorLemon said:

Some say new jobs will be created, but will these new jobs be abundant and accessible enough to help those who lost their jobs to automation?  

so I'll ask again for historical examples. You've provided the Ford innovation and the train innovation. And it sounds like these didn't have an overall immediate or long-term negative impact on the economy (overall, because obviously there's specific industries that were washed up). I mentioned the Industrial Revolution, because I think that did have an overall negative impact for about one generation's worth of class warfare, but then it righted itself (it's also closer to the fear that automation will replace jobs instead of a new invention replacing the way it was always done). But I also mentioned that I may be wrong on that.

Is there an example of a wave of jobs getting replaced by machines that had overall negative impact on the economy or the social classes for the short- or long-term?

[JohnsonJones]

The Industrial revolution wasn't that bad for the reasons I listed.  Technology actually created more jobs overall, just in different areas.  As certain occupations were lost, others were made. 

However, currently the problem has been that automation has literally been destroying jobs that were there all along.  For example, When they created robots on the factory lines, it did away with 50% of those jobs that never came back.  It was cheaper for the Robots....UNTIL...China and other labor came into the picture.  The same goes with many other arenas. 

As I said, right NOW in the US only 2/3 have jobs...and it's just about at parity in the US for unemployment in relation to those who are employed.  That means, overall, there's really only work for around 2/3 of Americans.  That's a LOT lower than decades ago.  The projections I've given were actually rather optimistic...in that it said that it be in 100 years (some projections have that 1/3 employed in FAR less time than that).  The job quality has gone down...50% of US citizens are on government subsidies or assistance of some sort.  It's projected to rise (as I said, 75% is also a low rating all things considered).

Technology itself does NOT reduce jobs...but automation DOES reduce jobs.  That's the entire point of automaton, to make things more efficient, reduce costs, and thus increase profits.

The irony is that with automation, we can produce more efficiently and even produce more than what is needed.  AS it moves into retail, it most likely will also get rid of other jobs that will not be replaced, because...simply put...there is no need to replace them. 

When you can replace the job of 3 cashiers with 4 machines and one machine attendant cashier...those jobs are not going to come back...and they aren't really going to be replaced by anything that matches it overall.  You could claim that it will with the factory workers (that are not even in the US)...but with the ratio of only a few factories and 1 worker for every 100 cashiers lost...that's not exactly a good ratio.  You toss in the machine repair guy...for a total of 4 more for every 100 cashier jobs lost and that means that you have lost 20 jobs for every 1 job that you've created. 

 

PS: Of course, just to point it out, this IS my opinion on automation...not necessarily something I've studied all that much in depth myself.  I am not a historian of economic history, especially not American economic history, so my opinions are probably just as reliable as any other joe that you might meet on the street.  Just in case anyone thought it was (which I highly doubt anyone was...but just to make sure that everyone understand, I am NO expert on this...).

 

Edited February 16, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[mordorbund]

26 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Technology itself does NOT reduce jobs...but automation DOES reduce jobs.  That's the entire point of automaton, to make things more efficient, reduce costs, and thus increase profits.

And haven't we already had examples of this in the past? Maybe I'm not understanding how you draw the distinction between technology and automation, but the textile industry created spinning machines and weaving machines to "make things more efficient, reduce costs, and thus increase profits".

32 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

The irony is that with automation, we can produce more efficiently and even produce more than what is needed.  AS it moves into retail, it most likely will also get rid of other jobs that will not be replaced, because...simply put...there is no need to replace them. 

When you can replace the job of 3 cashiers with 4 machines and one machine attendant cashier...those jobs are not going to come back...and they aren't really going to be replaced by anything that matches it overall.  You could claim that it will with the factory workers (that are not even in the US)...but with the ratio of only a few factories and 1 worker for every 100 cashiers lost...that's not exactly a good ratio.  You toss in the machine repair guy...for a total of 4 more for every 100 cashier jobs lost and that means that you have lost 20 jobs for every 1 job that you've created. 

The principle difference I'm seeing is that the automation examples I've provided are in production and yours are in service. The cotton gin replace 60 manual laborers with a single machine operator. I don't think that manual job ever came back, and I don't think it was replaced by factory labor.

All that said, I share your disclaimer, since I already used up my year's allotment of time peering into the Urim and Thummim, so I'm whistling in the dark on this.

And just to disclaim the disclaimer, I have seen other discussions on the doom and gloom that follows automation, but find much of it to be rhetorical and thought-experiments. But since that's what it is, I think it's quite reasonable to show alternate rhetoring and think-experimenting.

[person0]

5 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

People buy less stuff.  Capitalism crashes.

This is a false premise.  In a society where people buy less stuff, the supply and demand curves adjust for all products, and capitalism shifts production toward things that are important to the consumers.  There could be negative inflation, but ultimately the free market will still prevail.

[NightSG]

13 hours ago, DoctorLemon said:

So, what do you think of that report that 47% of U.S. jobs will be automated by 2034?  Overblown hype, or the end of capitalism and civilization as we know it?  

What will become of the Department of Candles?

[zil]

5 hours ago, NightSG said:

What will become of the Department of Candles?

It will become the Department of Scented Candles, and many will wish to burn it to the ground.

[Sunday21]

19 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I work for a company that sells stuff to companies that build these sorts of things.  As long as there are machines doing stuff for us, there are umpteen humans happily designing, building, testing, maintaining, researching these machines.  And marketing them.  And doing IT support for them, and providing medical benefit packages to them, building roads and infrastructure and buildings to keep them in, the list goes on and on.

We are deeply grateful that robots are giving @NeuroTypical a job! 

[NeuroTypical]

9 hours ago, NightSG said:

What will become of the Department of Candles?

I'm also in full swing with every notion that book was pushing.  No really - having a bazillion robots doing stuff we used to do, just means there are a bazillion jobs in higher paying high-tech industries.  Anyone can be trained to mop floors for minimum wage, but also pretty much anyone can be trained to test circuit boards for $15/hr.

Edited February 16, 2018 by NeuroTypical

[Vort]

9 hours ago, person0 said:

This is a false premise.  In a society where people buy less stuff, the supply and demand curves adjust for all products, and capitalism shifts production toward things that are important to the consumers.  There could be negative inflation, but ultimately the free market will still prevail.

I'm rather astounded at the whole premise.

"Look! Hot air balloons! Does this spell the END OF GRAVITY AS WE KNOW IT?! Prepare for doom! All of your loved ones and all you possess WILL FLOAT OFF INTO SPACE!"

Capitalism is not merely some economic theory or political flag to rally around. Capitalism is the observation and sober acknowledgement of the realities of how human beings economically interact with each other.

Robots are mechanical slaves. Any work they can take from us is, in effect, slave labor. If a robot can weld a car body together better and far cheaper than a human, I want the robot doing it. Everyone benefits -- even the tiny slice of the workforce that gets displaced, the ten thousand auto body welders. In the end, most of them find equivalent or even more meaningful employment elsewhere, while the entire rest of the population enjoys the fruits of higher-quality, less expensive car bodies.

I think that even my European friends would be able to understand and acknowledge this. I'm astounded that any American over the age of 15 might have trouble seeing it.

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

I'm rather astounded at the whole premise.

"Look! Hot air balloons! Does this spell the END OF GRAVITY AS WE KNOW IT?! Prepare for doom! All of your loved ones and all you possess WILL FLOAT OFF INTO SPACE!"

Capitalism is not merely some economic theory or political flag to rally around. Capitalism is the observation and sober acknowledgement of the realities of how human beings economically interact with each other.

Robots are mechanical slaves. Any work they can take from us is, in effect, slave labor. If a robot can weld a car body together better and far cheaper than a human, I want the robot doing it. Everyone benefits -- even the tiny slice of the workforce that gets displaced, the ten thousand auto body welders. In the end, most of them find equivalent or even more meaningful employment elsewhere, while the entire rest of the population enjoys the fruits of higher-quality, less expensive car bodies.

I think that even my European friends would be able to understand and acknowledge this. I'm astounded that any American over the age of 15 might have trouble seeing it.

Wow. @Vort and I agree word for word. Amen bud. 

Just to reiterate what @Vort said-a robot can't make mistakes. Robotic workers can't have bad days. They can't skip work with the flu or a hangover. They can't have a bad day at work because they are going though a divorce or their kid is about to get expelled from school for smoking weed. In the end, it works out for all of us and makes the world a much better place. 

Humans will adapt. We always do. Only because Darwin was right-adapt or die. So there is no alternative. 

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I'm also in full swing with every notion that book was pushing.  No really - having a bazillion robots doing stuff we used to do, just means there are a bazillion jobs in higher paying high-tech industries.  Anyone can be trained to mop floors for minimum wage, but also pretty much anyone can be trained to test circuit boards for $15/hr.

I am somewhat of this mentality.  But Mike Rowe is making me consider a different outcome. The liberal mentality (yes, I absolutely blame liberals for this societal phenomenon) is telling people that if your job doesn't require a college degree, then it is really beneath you, yet at the same time they're trying to promote meaningless jobs over automation and technological advancement.

The fact is that we already have millions of jobs out there for various technicians that simply aren't being filled.  Too many people are being told that jobs like "Caterpillar repairman" is an undesirable job even though it pays more than your average office worker.  All this because you have too many people with a piece of paper who refuse to work in any field other than what that piece of paper is telling them to do.

The underlying agenda is to get as many children as possible to become indoctrinated by liberal bureaucrats who never heard a reasoned, well-balanced argument if it hit them in the face.  And fewer and fewer of them even know their own subject matter.  The result is a generation of adult children who are in debt up to their eyes with no marketable skills.  And in their eyes, they have no choices before them because of what that piece of paper is telling them.  Heaven forbid should they consider other options.

[Guest MormonGator]

And I don't like agreeing with @Vort because that usually means that I am wrong. 

[zil]

22 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I am somewhat of this mentality.  But Mike Rowe is making me consider a different outcome. The liberal mentality (yes, I absolutely blame liberals for this societal phenomenon) is telling people that if your job doesn't require a college degree, then it is really beneath you, yet at the same time they're trying to promote meaningless jobs over automation and technological advancement.

The fact is that we already have millions of jobs out there for various technicians that simply aren't being filled.  Too many people are being told that jobs like "Caterpillar repairman" is an undesirable job even though it pays more than your average office worker.  All this because you have too many people with a piece of paper who refuse to work in any field other than what that piece of paper is telling them to do.

The underlying agenda is to get as many children as possible to become indoctrinated by liberal bureaucrats who never heard a reasoned, well-balanced argument if it hit them in the face.  And fewer and fewer of them even know their own subject matter.  The result is a generation of adult children who are in debt up to their eyes with no marketable skills.  And in their eyes, they have no choices before them because of what that piece of paper is telling them.  Heaven forbid should they consider other options.

The over-emphasis on "office work" in this country is downright tragic, perhaps even demonic in origin.  Implementation of the idea that it's somehow wrong to train children into a "trade" or (egads!) an art or (break out the pitchforks) just to be intelligent, independent, thinking beings who can then decide for themselves what to think and do, was one of the worst things to ever happen.  (PS: Implementation of that idea is the definition of modern "education".)

With luck, I will soon be replaced by a robot...  Don't worry, they can write with fountain pens too:

 

[NeuroTypical]

So, this is a picture of my dad in the 1950's or '60's:

He was a typesetter/proofreader.  You see him there selecting blocks of letters to line up by hand, so he can form sentences, paragraphs, stories.  He would ink them up and run papers across them.  That was called "printing".  Some technology advances, but basically the same way they printed the first edition of the Book of Mormon.

In 1987 or so, happy little NT came bouncing home from school, to hear my dad tell me he had taken early retirement at 55.  He could see which way the wind was blowing.  His entire job was eventually replaced by (in his words) "a dumb blonde with an F7 button".  Please forgive the blatant sexism - it was very much alive and well in the '80's in Utah, and in him especially.  The proper term was "male chauvanist".  And the F7 button was the standard key to activate the spell checker in both Word and Word Perfect.

Despite his outdated sexist language, he was basically correct.  The typesetting and proofreading industry basically disappeared.  Replaced by graphic artists and layout designers, often kids straight out of high school who couldn't spell their way out of a paper bag.  Today, we still have reporters and journalists and editorial pages and editors.  But the professional typesetter/proofreader went the way of the buggy whip industry.  Computers can spell and indent and double-space between paragraphs - nobody needed him any more.  Few people pick "Kinkos employee" as a career choice these days.

Anyway, they gave him the option of doing some re-training and moving to computers.  You type the story into a keyboard and read it on a screen, then machines move all the type to where it needed to be.  Or the generation after that, where you type onto a screen, and a machine prints out something on a sheet of plastic, and the ink adheres to what's printed - no more need for a wall full of "R"s.  He flipped them the bird, retired early, and spent the remainder of his life catching up on the sleep he'd lost during WWII.  And swearing at the newspaper whenever he saw sloppy editing or a misspelled word.  He did that a lot.  

This story is called "the way it's supposed to be".   There were people that fretted and hand-wrung about the industry leaving.  Every single idea they proposed to keep the industry, can only be measured in hindsight, as costly and inefficient delays to the inevitable computer and modern printing technology.  Even the printers unions didn't do much of that - they embraced new technologies and lobbied for things like paid retraining and higher wages and such things.

Edited February 16, 2018 by NeuroTypical

[Vort]

I take it your dad was a stogie man, NT.

[zil]

3 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

And the F7 button was the standard key to activate the spell checker in both Word and Word Perfect.

You didn't even need to tell me that part.  It's still the spell checker key in multiple apps.

[NeuroTypical]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

I take it your dad was a stogie man, NT.

Indeed.  In his world, cigarettes were feminine, and any guy who smoked one was probably "one of those".

He'd sit under his apple trees and smoke, he called it "natural pesticide".  And his favorite apple tree didn't usually have many bugs - it worked.  My snarky teenage self always wanted to ask him if the bugs hated it so much, what did he think the smoke was doing to him.  But I never asked.

 

[Vort]

1 minute ago, NeuroTypical said:

In his world, cigarettes were feminine

Nothing captures the delicate essential allure of women quite like breath scented with rotting animal carcasses.