Bosses believe your work skills will soon be useless
The Washington Post
By Danielle Paquette May 3 at 10:00 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/05/03/what-are-humans-good-for-bosses-worry-about-the-workforce-of-tomorrow/?utm_term=.bd7692bae1b9
Bosses believe your work skills will soon be useless
Nearly a third of business leaders and technology analysts express "no confidence" that education and job training in the United States will evolve rapidly enough to match the next decade's labor market demands, a new report from the Pew Research Center finds.
About 30 percent of the executives, hiring managers, college professors and automation researchers who responded to the Pew survey felt future prospects looked bleak, anticipating that firms would encounter more trouble finding workers with their desired skill sets over the next decade.
""Seriously? You're asking about the workforce of the future?" added another respondent, a science editor who asked to stay anonymous. "As if there's going to be one?""
Part of the problem is that no one can accurately predict what skills are going to be needed in the lead time that is necessary to develop the training.
I graduated from college in 1984 with a degree in accounting. Spreadsheet software wasn't even really a thing at the time. Hell, desktop computers weren't even really a thing. We went out to audits with a ten-key printing calculator and a crapload of yellow seven-column paper. I had to develop skills as the technology involved.
I have a Facebook friend who got all ranty that the government should be training people for the "jobs of the future". I responded, "Who knows what those jobs are going to be? If the government did that in the mid-80's, they would have churned out a bunch of Walkman repair technicians and Blockbuster store managers."
If you keep telling people to sell Apple, can you blame them?
This is news?
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on May 03, 2017, 02:22:34 PM
This is news?
Nope, Heisey just doesn't have anyone to translate for him what the sharing economy does to workplace environment and availability of skill sets.
Not far is the day where most engineers or software programmers or whatever technical role you want will work for themselves and be contracted independently. The world isn't pumping out enough talent in the right fields to support the economy of the future so we're going to have to leverage resources that do exist.
We're coming into a sellers market for talented employees.
Quote from: warriorchick on May 03, 2017, 12:36:08 PM
Part of the problem is that no one can accurately predict what skills are going to be needed in the lead time that is necessary to develop the training.
I graduated from college in 1984 with a degree in accounting. Spreadsheet software wasn't even really a thing at the time. Hell, desktop computers weren't even really a thing. We went out to audits with a ten-key printing calculator and a crapload of yellow seven-column paper. I had to develop skills as the technology involved.
I have a Facebook friend who got all ranty that the government should be training people for the "jobs of the future". I responded, "Who knows what those jobs are going to be? If the government did that in the mid-80's, they would have churned out a bunch of Walkman repair technicians and Blockbuster store managers."
Exactly. It's not as though when people enter the workforce their skill sets stop evolving and they don't have any adaptability. The basics of how I do my job is the same, but the way the job is done is completely different. I didn't need a college class to teach me that.
Quote from: mu03eng on May 03, 2017, 04:20:27 PM
Nope, Heisey just doesn't have anyone to translate for him what the sharing economy does to workplace environment and availability of skill sets.
Not far is the day where most engineers or software programmers or whatever technical role you want will work for themselves and be contracted independently. The world isn't pumping out enough talent in the right fields to support the economy of the future so we're going to have to leverage resources that do exist.
We're coming into a sellers market for talented employees.
Already here ... Google Peter Diamondis and X-Prizes. The new way R&D will be done.
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on May 03, 2017, 08:05:36 PM
Already here ... Google Peter Diamondis and X-Prizes. The new way R&D will be done.
Yeah...uh, no. The X-prizes although cool, are not replacing anything. Right now the amount of money one can win through the prizes can't cover R&D for the technologies they are developing. Given that even the winning team losses money it is not a good system going forward. No one will switch to a system where the people doing innovation are always losing money. Not sustainable.
Right now it is a beauty pageant, to facilitate angel investing to small businesses, but is not a global model that can be remotely followed.
In terms of people not having the qualifications to do their work. Of course, that is well known, has been well know for at least a decade...this is news??? But the general workers are not the problem, there is general and widespread incompetence amongst management/leaders that is causing the biggest issues.
This one is one of those things that I think has always been true but seems new to people because now we have easier access to information. Similar to how crime rates have gone down but we think they've gone up because of the constant news coverage.
One of my favorite examples of this is how much sex teenagers are having. I remember growing up hearing about how kids were having more sex and younger than ever before. I believed it too, included that belief in some of my work. But the reality is that millenials are the biggest prudes of the generations!
Quote from: mu03eng on May 03, 2017, 04:20:27 PM
Not far is the day where most engineers or software programmers or whatever technical role you want will work for themselves and be contracted independently. The world isn't pumping out enough talent in the right fields to support the economy of the future so we're going to have to leverage resources that do exist.
We're coming into a sellers market for talented employees.
Don't you think this is always the case? As Chick mentioned, we don't know what the jobs of the future will be until the future arrives.
When I got a Computer technician degree back in the 90's, I had my pick of dozens of jobs locally. Now someone with a similar degree most likely has to settle for an internship and then hope to get lucky.
I think it has always been as seller's market for talented employees.
Quote from: Jockey on May 04, 2017, 02:32:40 PM
Don't you think this is always the case? As Chick mentioned, we don't know what the jobs of the future will be until the future arrives.
When I got a Computer technician degree back in the 90's, I had my pick of dozens of jobs locally. Now someone with a similar degree most likely has to settle for an internship and then hope to get lucky.
I think it has always been as seller's market for talented employees.
As TAMU points out, there could be a recency bias here.....but I do think there is greater misalignment between educational levels and job opportunities than there have been in the past. Technology is changing faster than it ever has and all levels of education are not keeping up with that rate of change.
Quote from: mu03eng on May 04, 2017, 03:13:24 PM
As TAMU points out, there could be a recency bias here.....but I do think there is greater misalignment between educational levels and job opportunities than there have been in the past. Technology is changing faster than it ever has and all levels of education are not keeping up with that rate of change.
Agreed. Same process as always - at least since the Industrial revolution. It's just occurring at a much faster pace.
Quote from: Jockey on May 04, 2017, 04:32:37 PM
Agreed. Same process as always - at least since the Industrial revolution. It's just occurring at a much faster pace.
Isn't that the point ... the speed?
(https://marketrealist.imgix.net/uploads/2015/06/technology-adoption-rates11111111.png)
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on May 04, 2017, 04:44:11 PM
Isn't that the point ... the speed?
(https://marketrealist.imgix.net/uploads/2015/06/technology-adoption-rates11111111.png)
What's the adoption curve on the "human transporter"?
https://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/09/27/from-hype-to-disaster-segways-timeline/
I am 70 years old, retired for 9 years, and I still have recruiters calling me. Forty years of experience in clinical R&D. I keep telling them to give a younger person an opportunity and give them a chance to acquire the skill sets you desire. To find someone ready to hit the road running is a myth. Sometimes it is better just to walk.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on May 05, 2017, 06:11:32 AM
I am 70 years old, retired for 9 years, and I still have recruiters calling me. Forty years of experience in clinical R&D. I keep telling them to give a younger person an opportunity and give them a chance to acquire the skill sets you desire. To find someone ready to hit the road running is a myth. Sometimes it is better just to walk.
I think it's more about management not wanting to adjust to what/how the younger generation wants to work than a reluctance to get them experience. I'm sure there is some of the "I just want someone who knows what they are doing" but a fair amount the discord in the workplace, especially white collar, is the changing paradigm of how employees do their jobs and their expectations for management.
Quote from: mu03eng on May 05, 2017, 06:45:11 AM
I think it's more about management not wanting to adjust to what/how the younger generation wants to work than a reluctance to get them experience. I'm sure there is some of the "I just want someone who knows what they are doing" but a fair amount the discord in the workplace, especially white collar, is the changing paradigm of how employees do their jobs and their expectations for management.
I have been out of the work force for a while now. Not sure what you mean about "how" people want to work.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on May 05, 2017, 08:25:39 AM
I have been out of the work force for a while now. Not sure what you mean about "how" people want to work.
It's been well documented, that among other traits, millennials as a group are more likely to job-hop than boomers. They also value time off over more pay.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on May 05, 2017, 08:25:39 AM
I have been out of the work force for a while now. Not sure what you mean about "how" people want to work.
What chick said. Plus millenials learn differently. They ask a ton of questions and expect you to give them the answers. They have short attention spans but lots of creativity. They value ownership of projects and tasks. Their need for recognition and feeling valued is higher. They value context in decisions being made.
Quote from: warriorchick on May 05, 2017, 08:29:30 AM
It's been well documented, that among other traits, millennials as a group are more likely to job-hop than boomers. They also value time off over more pay.
I worked at one company for 20 years before I was down sized (it went out of bussiness). My wife worked at her company for 35 years. I think back in our day loyalty ran both ways. Today not so much? Perhaps my assumption in incorrect, but could it be that millennials sense that?
Quote from: muwarrior69 on May 05, 2017, 09:35:34 AM
I worked at one company for 20 years before I was down sized (it went out of bussiness). My wife worked at her company for 35 years. I think back in our day loyalty ran both ways. Today not so much? Perhaps my assumption in incorrect, but could it be that millennials sense that?
I think that is part of it. The other part is that millennials really don't believe in "paying your dues" when it comes to promotions and the like. If they start one job and see a better opportunity at another company a year later (and at another place a year after that), they have no reservations about jumping ship.
Quote from: warriorchick on May 05, 2017, 09:40:40 AM
I think that is part of it. The other part is that millennials really don't believe in "paying your dues" when it comes to promotions and the like. If they start one job and see a better opportunity at another company a year later (and at another place a year after that), they have no reservations about jumping ship.
Agreed, it's like extreme meritocracy
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on May 05, 2017, 08:47:51 AM
What chick said. Plus millenials learn differently. They ask a ton of questions and expect you to give them the answers. They have short attention spans but lots of creativity. They value ownership of projects and tasks. Their need for recognition and feeling valued is higher. They value context in decisions being made.
Is that true across all disciplines? Are they asking the questions and expecting the answers because they don't know the answer or are they just trying to avoid making mistakes. I know in the STEM fields making mistakes is how you gain knowledge and finding the answer on your own builds understanding as well as confidence in mastering the methods to achieve your goals.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on May 05, 2017, 10:33:03 AM
Is that true across all disciplines? Are they asking the questions and expecting the answers because they don't know the answer or are they just trying to avoid making mistakes. I know in the STEM fields making mistakes is how you gain knowledge and finding the answer on your own builds understanding as well as confidence in mastering the methods to achieve your goals.
My understanding is that its a byproduct of how primary and secondary education is being taught now. Students are encouraged to ask questions when they don't know something and the teachers are expected to give them the answers rather than making the student figure it out for themselves. Testing has become more about regurgitating memorized information than using critical thinking to determine the correct answer.
I agree with you that making mistakes and finding answers on your own is how you should learn and build understanding. But that's not how millennials are being taught. As an example, you may notice on this site that some of the younger posters will often ask questions that could easily be answered by a quick google search. I'm a millennial myself, but the younger millennial and igen students that I work with drive me crazy with this. Its hard to balance my response because I want to challenge them to critically think but I also want them to feel comfortable coming to me with questions if they truly are stuck.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on May 05, 2017, 11:19:04 AM
My understanding is that its a byproduct of how primary and secondary education is being taught now. Students are encouraged to ask questions when they don't know something and the teachers are expected to give them the answers rather than making the student figure it out for themselves. Testing has become more about regurgitating memorized information than using critical thinking to determine the correct answer.
I agree with you that making mistakes and finding answers on your own is how you should learn and build understanding. But that's not how millennials are being taught. As an example, you may notice on this site that some of the younger posters will often ask questions that could easily be answered by a quick google search. I'm a millennial myself, but the younger millennial and igen students that I work with drive me crazy with this. Its hard to balance my response because I want to challenge them to critically think but I also want them to feel comfortable coming to me with questions if they truly are stuck.
I agree with this analysis. The single biggest flaw in younger gen millenials is a fear of ambiguity.
Quote from: warriorchick on May 05, 2017, 09:40:40 AM
I think that is part of it. The other part is that millennials really don't believe in "paying your dues" when it comes to promotions and the like. If they start one job and see a better opportunity at another company a year later (and at another place a year after that), they have no reservations about jumping ship.
Or quit when passed over for a promotion.
Quote from: mu03eng on May 05, 2017, 11:56:50 AM
I agree with this analysis. The single biggest flaw in younger gen millenials is a fear of ambiguity.
I respectfully disagree ... I think millennials are among the hardest working generation ever (note, I am
not one).
They have a different approach and mindset that the older generations are having a hard time adapting too. So, as it has been since the dawn of time, the "fossils" (which I am one) think the younger generation is lazy mainly because "they don't get it."
So what is it that millennials think/do?
They have no time for office politics, or the office in general. They think the idea that you wake up everyday and go to some big building is wasteful and unproductive. So they are not interested in this way to collaborate. And to some degree they are correct. The modern office is a 19th century invention. So, they have no interest in the trapping of corporate success (i.e., the corner office).
The 21st century form of collaboration is online. They think their entire office is apps on their tablet/Laptop, They will give you 10ish hours a day, but they will decide which 10 hours. That means they might work all night, and take the afternoon off. The office is a place to float in and out of to hold meetings, get things done, that need to be done there, and leave. This is what Chick referred to about jumping ship and job hopping. If they have nothing to do at 1PM they want to go do something fun. Yes, as 03 said, they believe in extreme meritocracy.
They believe in leverage. That means crowd sourcing problems. This is what TAMU referred to a "asking a lot of questions." No one can possible know all the outcomes and alternates. So instead of pretending you do, or worse, making it up, present your problem to 10,000 people online and have them help you with it.
MU69 ... am I to assume that your job entailed you driving to some big building, wearing a white coat and doing research in secret behind high security? If so, they think this is possibly the most inefficient way to do things. Maybe your collaboration was with a university. Today they think it should be with the entire world online.
That is why I brought up the x-prize approach before. One of the millennials that works for me is even noting that police detectives are finding crowd sources useful is solving crimes, the most famous is Reddit crowd sourcing the Boston bombing case in 2013.
Now before Jockey (Brandx) and the other fossils tell me I'm wrong ... your criticism will probably go along the lines of "it is not perfect." You will do what Jockey did with x-prize ... find a flaw here or there and then use it as a reason to dismiss the entire concept is bad. Fact, is we do that because we are threatened by the change that is coming. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. These new approaches are far superior to "our" 19th century way of collaborating.
Be honest with yourself, if you are over 45 (which I am) have you done the mental calculations about how fast your job is changing and whether you can make it to retirement? If you have (and yes, I have too) then you are the biggest danger to the economy today. Because you are willing to slow down the process of change, retard it, or even sabotage it for purely selfish reasons.
Millennials are possibly the most productive generation ever. They have created great things, and have great plans. And those plans involving changing the way we work to the point that it will be unrecognizable to those over 45. We have to stop being scared of the change, fighting it at every turn, and embrace it. Part of being scared is making ourselves feel better by using the standard criticisms of the millennial generation found in the post above.
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on May 05, 2017, 12:35:42 PM
I respectfully disagree ... I think millennials are among the hardest working generation ever (note, I am not one).
They have a different approach and mindset that the older generations are having a hard time adapting too. So, as it has been since the dawn of time, the "fossils" (which I am one) think the younger generation is lazy mainly because "they don't get it."
So what is it that millennials think/do?
They have no time for office politics, or the office in general.
They think the idea that you wake up everyday and go to some big building is wasteful and unproductive. So they are not interested in this way to collaborate. And to some degree they are correct. The modern office is a 19th century invention. So, they have no interest in the trapping of corporate success (i.e., the corner office).
The 21st century form of collaboration is online. They think their entire office is apps on the tablet/Laptop, They will give you 10ish hours a day, but they will decide which 10 hours. That means they might work all night, and take the afternoon off. The office is a place to float in and out of to hold meetings, get things done, that need to be done there, and leave. This is what Chick referred to about jumping ship and job hopping. If they have nothing to do at 1PM they want to go do something fun. Yes, as 03 said, they believe in extreme meritocracy.
They believe in leverage.
That means crowd sourcing problems. This is what TAMU referred to a "asking a lot of questions." No one can possible know all the outcomes and alternates. So instead of pretending you do, or worse, making it up, present your problem to 10,000 people online and have them help you with it.
MU69 ... am I to assume that your job entailed you driving to some big building, wearing a white coat and doing research in secret behind high security? If so, they think this is possibly the most inefficient way to do things. Maybe your collaboration was with a university. Today they think it should be with the entire world online.
That is why I brought up the x-prize approach before. One of the millennials that works for me is even noting that police detectives are finding crowd sources useful is solving crimes, the most famous is Reddit crowd sourcing the Boston bombing case in 2013.
Now before Jockey (Brandx) and the other fossils tell me I'm wrong ... your criticism will probably go along the lines of "it is not perfect." You will do what Jockey did with x-prize ... find a flaw here or there and then use it as a reason to dismiss the entire concept is bad. Fact, is we do that because we are threatened by the change that is coming. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. These no approaches are far superior to our 19th century way of collaborating.
Be honest with yourself, if you are over 45 (which I am) have you done the mental calculations about how fast your job is changing and whether you can make it to retirement? If you have (and yes, I have too) then you are the biggest danger to the economy today. Because you are willing to slow down the process of change, retard it, or even sabotage it for purely selfish reasons.
Millennials are possibly the most productive generation ever. They have created great things, and have great plans. And those plans involving changing the way we work to the point that it will be unrecognizable to those over 45. We have to stop being scared of the change, fighting it at every turn, and embrace it. Part of being scared is making ourselves feel better by using the standard criticisms of the millennial generation found in the post above.
Whoa! Cool your jets, bro. How in the world did you pick up in any of our comments that we thought Millenials were not hard-working? I said that Millenials job-hop. That is a stone cold fact, and I did not make any judgmental comments on whether that was a good thing or a bad thing.
Heisty there is nothing to respectfully disagree on. No one said millenials weren't hard working. We said they work differently.
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on May 05, 2017, 12:35:42 PM
I respectfully disagree ... I think millennials are among the hardest working generation ever (note, I am not one).
They have a different approach and mindset that the older generations are having a hard time adapting too. So, as it has been since the dawn of time, the "fossils" (which I am one) think the younger generation is lazy mainly because "they don't get it."
So what is it that millennials think/do?
They have no time for office politics, or the office in general.
They think the idea that you wake up everyday and go to some big building is wasteful and unproductive. So they are not interested in this way to collaborate. And to some degree they are correct. The modern office is a 19th century invention. So, they have no interest in the trapping of corporate success (i.e., the corner office).
The 21st century form of collaboration is online. They think their entire office is apps on their tablet/Laptop, They will give you 10ish hours a day, but they will decide which 10 hours. That means they might work all night, and take the afternoon off. The office is a place to float in and out of to hold meetings, get things done, that need to be done there, and leave. This is what Chick referred to about jumping ship and job hopping. If they have nothing to do at 1PM they want to go do something fun. Yes, as 03 said, they believe in extreme meritocracy.
They believe in leverage.
That means crowd sourcing problems. This is what TAMU referred to a "asking a lot of questions." No one can possible know all the outcomes and alternates. So instead of pretending you do, or worse, making it up, present your problem to 10,000 people online and have them help you with it.
MU69 ... am I to assume that your job entailed you driving to some big building, wearing a white coat and doing research in secret behind high security? If so, they think this is possibly the most inefficient way to do things. Maybe your collaboration was with a university. Today they think it should be with the entire world online.
That is why I brought up the x-prize approach before. One of the millennials that works for me is even noting that police detectives are finding crowd sources useful is solving crimes, the most famous is Reddit crowd sourcing the Boston bombing case in 2013.
Now before Jockey (Brandx) and the other fossils tell me I'm wrong ... your criticism will probably go along the lines of "it is not perfect." You will do what Jockey did with x-prize ... find a flaw here or there and then use it as a reason to dismiss the entire concept is bad. Fact, is we do that because we are threatened by the change that is coming. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. These new approaches are far superior to "our" 19th century way of collaborating.
Be honest with yourself, if you are over 45 (which I am) have you done the mental calculations about how fast your job is changing and whether you can make it to retirement? If you have (and yes, I have too) then you are the biggest danger to the economy today. Because you are willing to slow down the process of change, retard it, or even sabotage it for purely selfish reasons.
Millennials are possibly the most productive generation ever. They have created great things, and have great plans. And those plans involving changing the way we work to the point that it will be unrecognizable to those over 45. We have to stop being scared of the change, fighting it at every turn, and embrace it. Part of being scared is making ourselves feel better by using the standard criticisms of the millennial generation found in the post above.
My statement had exactly zero to do with productivity(their productivity) or their work ethic. It was merely the amount of "management" that the millenial generation requires.
Lastly, I am a millennial and have millennials working for me...I've got some experience on this front.
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on May 05, 2017, 12:35:42 PM
I respectfully disagree ... I think millennials are among the hardest working generation ever (note, I am not one).
They have a different approach and mindset that the older generations are having a hard time adapting too. So, as it has been since the dawn of time, the "fossils" (which I am one) think the younger generation is lazy mainly because "they don't get it."
So what is it that millennials think/do?
They have no time for office politics, or the office in general.
They think the idea that you wake up everyday and go to some big building is wasteful and unproductive. So they are not interested in this way to collaborate. And to some degree they are correct. The modern office is a 19th century invention. So, they have no interest in the trapping of corporate success (i.e., the corner office).
The 21st century form of collaboration is online. They think their entire office is apps on their tablet/Laptop, They will give you 10ish hours a day, but they will decide which 10 hours. That means they might work all night, and take the afternoon off. The office is a place to float in and out of to hold meetings, get things done, that need to be done there, and leave. This is what Chick referred to about jumping ship and job hopping. If they have nothing to do at 1PM they want to go do something fun. Yes, as 03 said, they believe in extreme meritocracy.
They believe in leverage.
That means crowd sourcing problems. This is what TAMU referred to a "asking a lot of questions." No one can possible know all the outcomes and alternates. So instead of pretending you do, or worse, making it up, present your problem to 10,000 people online and have them help you with it.
MU69 ... am I to assume that your job entailed you driving to some big building, wearing a white coat and doing research in secret behind high security? If so, they think this is possibly the most inefficient way to do things. Maybe your collaboration was with a university. Today they think it should be with the entire world online.
That is why I brought up the x-prize approach before. One of the millennials that works for me is even noting that police detectives are finding crowd sources useful is solving crimes, the most famous is Reddit crowd sourcing the Boston bombing case in 2013.
Now before Jockey (Brandx) and the other fossils tell me I'm wrong ... your criticism will probably go along the lines of "it is not perfect." You will do what Jockey did with x-prize ... find a flaw here or there and then use it as a reason to dismiss the entire concept is bad. Fact, is we do that because we are threatened by the change that is coming. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. These new approaches are far superior to "our" 19th century way of collaborating.
Be honest with yourself, if you are over 45 (which I am) have you done the mental calculations about how fast your job is changing and whether you can make it to retirement? If you have (and yes, I have too) then you are the biggest danger to the economy today. Because you are willing to slow down the process of change, retard it, or even sabotage it for purely selfish reasons.
Millennials are possibly the most productive generation ever. They have created great things, and have great plans. And those plans involving changing the way we work to the point that it will be unrecognizable to those over 45. We have to stop being scared of the change, fighting it at every turn, and embrace it. Part of being scared is making ourselves feel better by using the standard criticisms of the millennial generation found in the post above.
While doing our clinical R&D we were bound to keep our research "secret or confidential". All who participated and/or collaborated were bound by such agreements. As one who saw how inefficient clinical trials were conducted back in my day we always looked for new and innovative ways to reduce costs and time. One example: Data was collected on paper forms, often in cursive, and then had to be entered by data entry into the database; then the data had to be validated; that is what was now in the database was exactly the same as reported on paper. By the time I retired the data was no longer recorded on paper but entered directly into the database remotely over a "secured" server. At least from my own experience we embraced technology and "new" ways of doing the task at hand.
Quote from: warriorchick on May 05, 2017, 12:40:30 PM
Whoa! Cool your jets, bro. How in the world did you pick up in any of our comments that we thought Millenials were not hard-working? I said that Millenials job-hop. That is a stone cold fact, and I did not make any judgmental comments on whether that was a good thing or a bad thing.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on May 05, 2017, 12:47:22 PM
Heisty there is nothing to respectfully disagree on. No one said millenials weren't hard working. We said they work differently.
Your comments came off as criticisms, as does your defense. Maybe the millennials have it right and the proper way is to say it "they work correctly and they are showing us that the way we work, and manage, is incorrect."
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on May 05, 2017, 01:23:12 PM
Your comments came off as criticisms, as does your defense. Maybe the millennials have it right and the proper way is to say it "they work correctly and they are showing us that the way we work, and manage, is incorrect."
Since all three of us simultaneously told you that you had misinterpreted our remarks, that probably means you are in the wrong here.
But it you wouldn't be Heisy if you didn't double down every time you were wrong, so by all means, go ahead and do so.
Quote from: warriorchick on May 05, 2017, 01:35:51 PM
Since all three of us simultaneously told you that you had misinterpreted our remarks, that probably means you are in the wrong here.
But it you wouldn't be Heisy if you didn't double down every time you were wrong, so by all means, go ahead and do so.
(https://cdn.meme.am/instances/400x/65848589.jpg)
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on May 05, 2017, 01:23:12 PM
Your comments came off as criticisms, as does your defense. Maybe the millennials have it right and the proper way is to say it "they work correctly and they are showing us that the way we work, and manage, is incorrect."
Again, I (and the others) didn't say millennials work incorrectly (at 28 I'm smack dab in the middle of the millennial generation). I said they work differently from previous generations (which is also what I believe you are saying).
I did say that I personally am driven crazy by one specific aspect of millennials and said that I have been challenged in how to manage that. That's not even close to saying millennials are lazy and not hard working.
And you know what, there are some things that are just incorrect. Crowdsourcing ideas is great and millennials are the best at that. Wanting to get things right the first time is great too. Walking down the hall to my office to ask me where the meeting is without checking your calendar first, that is never correct.
Quote from: warriorchick on May 05, 2017, 01:35:51 PM
Since all three of us simultaneously told you that you had misinterpreted our remarks, that probably means you are in the wrong here.
But it you wouldn't be Heisy if you didn't double down every time you were wrong, so by all means, go ahead and do so.
Just to be clear, this is not a criticism?
Quote from: warriorchick on May 05, 2017, 09:40:40 AM
I think that is part of it. The other part is that millennials really don't believe in "paying your dues" when it comes to promotions and the like. If they start one job and see a better opportunity at another company a year later (and at another place a year after that), they have no reservations about jumping ship.
Got it.
Quote from: mu03eng on May 05, 2017, 02:07:56 PM
(https://cdn.meme.am/instances/400x/65848589.jpg)
You too ... this is not a criticism?
Quote from: mu03eng on May 05, 2017, 11:56:50 AM
I agree with this analysis. The single biggest flaw in younger gen millenials is a fear of ambiguity.
And what were you agreeing with ...
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on May 05, 2017, 11:19:04 AM
My understanding is that its a byproduct of how primary and secondary education is being taught now. Students are encouraged to ask questions when they don't know something and the teachers are expected to give them the answers rather than making the student figure it out for themselves. Testing has become more about regurgitating memorized information than using critical thinking to determine the correct answer.
I agree with you that making mistakes and finding answers on your own is how you should learn and build understanding. But that's not how millennials are being taught. As an example, you may notice on this site that some of the younger posters will often ask questions that could easily be answered by a quick google search. I'm a millennial myself, but the younger millennial and igen students that I work with drive me crazy with this. Its hard to balance my response because I want to challenge them to critically think but I also want them to feel comfortable coming to me with questions if they truly are stuck.
Got it ... again
nm
Quote from: muwarrior69 on May 05, 2017, 09:35:34 AM
I worked at one company for 20 years before I was down sized (it went out of bussiness). My wife worked at her company for 35 years. I think back in our day loyalty ran both ways. Today not so much? Perhaps my assumption in incorrect, but could it be that millennials sense that?
This x100. I was working at Groupon for the past year and was a part of the layoffs that just happened last month. I always hit my sales goals, daily dial targets, talk time, etc. but still laid off. Then I just found today they're hiring new college grads again. It's a freaking joke. After that I'm not going to act loyal to an employer again. Just started a new job but I'm not getting invested into them whatsoever. Making as much money as I can, as quick as I can and they can hire me up or other companies can take notice. Screw companies that make you feel like a part of something and claim to want you, kick you out the door and then start a new cycle the next month.
Quote from: warriorchick on May 05, 2017, 09:40:40 AM
I think that is part of it. The other part is that millennials really don't believe in "paying your dues" when it comes to promotions and the like. If they start one job and see a better opportunity at another company a year later (and at another place a year after that), they have no reservations about jumping ship.
I disagree with this statement and believe you are mistaking correlation with causation. Companies have switched to a different model of raises over the past 15 years, where raises are minimized and new talent via poaching other companies employees has gained prominence.
It is widely known in many fields that if you want to get a raise at all you have to leave to another company. A friend of mine in biotech started at a small company. Got annual raises essentially equal to inflation. Promotions came with no extra money. When he asked for a real raise, they said there was no money for it. After 6 years he left to go to Merck and got a 20% pay bump. Same thing happened at Merck, put his time in for 6-years, minimal raises. After 6-years he left to go to Pfizer, and got another 20%+ pay increase. Both times he moved he never applied anywhere, they came calling to him, because he was well regarded and successful.
He would have loved to stay with his first company forever, but they want to take advantage of that by not giving pay increases. The companies prey off people not wanting to move.
Millenials do not desire moving any more than other generations, they just have never known a system where hard work/loyalty were rewarded with pay increases.
Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on May 05, 2017, 04:52:44 PM
This x100. I was working at Groupon for the past year and was a part of the layoffs that just happened last month. I always hit my sales goals, daily dial targets, talk time, etc. but still laid off. Then I just found today they're hiring new college grads again. It's a freaking joke. After that I'm not going to act loyal to an employer again. Just started a new job but I'm not getting invested into them whatsoever. Making as much money as I can, as quick as I can and they can hire me up or other companies can take notice. Screw companies that make you feel like a part of something and claim to want you, kick you out the door and then start a new cycle the next month.
You're figuring out what the modern workplace is. WELL DONE.
The old model encouraged loyalty with loyalty. The same cannot be said for the new model.
One of my best friends has jumped companies every three years, and gotten major raises every time (class of 2004, so edge millennials).
Another friend of the same age group who graduated from PSU tried to quit EPIC in the Madison area (hope they need no introduction) and every time he threatened to quit, they threw 10k more per year at him... this happened 4 times... Eventually, he left and started his own consulting firm.
Quote from: forgetful on May 05, 2017, 08:11:29 PM
I disagree with this statement and believe you are mistaking correlation with causation. Companies have switched to a different model of raises over the past 15 years, where raises are minimized and new talent via poaching other companies employees has gained prominence.
It is widely known in many fields that if you want to get a raise at all you have to leave to another company. A friend of mine in biotech started at a small company. Got annual raises essentially equal to inflation. Promotions came with no extra money. When he asked for a real raise, they said there was no money for it. After 6 years he left to go to Merck and got a 20% pay bump. Same thing happened at Merck, put his time in for 6-years, minimal raises. After 6-years he left to go to Pfizer, and got another 20%+ pay increase. Both times he moved he never applied anywhere, they came calling to him, because he was well regarded and successful.
He would have loved to stay with his first company forever, but they want to take advantage of that by not giving pay increases. The companies prey off people not wanting to move.
Millenials do not desire moving any more than other generations, they just have never known a system where hard work/loyalty were rewarded with pay increases.
I agree with this ... changing companies is disrupting, especially if you have to move ... especially if you have a family.
So companies are "calling your bluff and daring you to move.
In the end, it is a bad strategy for companies to do this because only the best move the mediocre stay put. It waters down your workforce.
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on May 05, 2017, 03:31:56 PM
You too ... this is not a criticism?
And what were you agreeing with ...
Got it ... again
Our point was the criticism had nothing to do with millennial work effort or productivity which is what you accused us of. Our criticism was the millennials impact on management's productivity and/or their ability to work in the grey areas. Your objection was not about us being critical generally but critical about specific things we never said
I believe bosses will be replaced by robots first.
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on May 05, 2017, 08:35:33 PM
In the end, it is a bad strategy for companies to do this because only the best move the mediocre stay put. It waters down your workforce.
This I couldn't agree with more.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on May 05, 2017, 11:12:35 PM
I believe bosses will be replaced by robots first.
Twilight Zone: Season 5, episode 33 "The Brain Center at Whipples"
Quote from: warriorchick on May 05, 2017, 09:40:40 AM
I think that is part of it. The other part is that millennials really don't believe in "paying your dues" when it comes to promotions and the like. If they start one job and see a better opportunity at another company a year later (and at another place a year after that), they have no reservations about jumping ship.
The irony here is the elder generation degrading millennials for being a part of "participation trophy" culture, then giving out raises or promotions to their own just for being present.
Clearly I'm painting with broad strokes, but it's something that annoys me about the current working environment.
Quote from: jesmu84 on May 06, 2017, 10:19:47 AM
The irony here is the elder generation degrading millennials for being a part of "participation trophy" culture, then giving out raises or promotions to their own just for being present.
Clearly I'm painting with broad strokes, but it's something that annoys me about the current working environment.
See earlier ... they weren't criticizing the millennials ... even though what they wrote was critical of them.
And, you are exactly right ... the older genrations participation trophy is getting to work before the boss and staying until you're the last to leave. This should count for nothing but in their generation, it counted for a lot.
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on May 06, 2017, 10:45:15 PM
See earlier ... they weren't criticizing the millennials ... even though what they wrote was critical of them.
And, you are exactly right ... the older genrations participation trophy is getting to work before the boss and staying until you're the last to leave. This should count for nothing but in their generation, it counted for a lot.
Sigh....
Here's how this conversation went.
MUEng said, part of the issue is that managers refuse to adapt to how the younger generation works. (Which I believe is your overall point)
Mu69 asked how is the younger generation different?
Chick, Eng, and myself all provided different aspects of how millennials work, both positive and negative. And explained why they are challenging for the older generation.
MU69 commented on how he had seen the workplace change and asked more honest questions about how millennials were different.
I answered the question, not even commenting if it was positive or negative, just shared where the characteristic came from, and shared how I had struggled to manage fellow millennials because one of the aspects.
Eng agreed and noted that ambiguity was one of the biggest challenges for millennials. Which it is. That is well documented and researched.
Up until this point it was a civil dialogue between members of different generations sharing their observations on generational theory.
Then....
YOU FOSSILS NEED TO GET WITH THE TIMES! HOW CAN YOU SAY MILLENNIALS ARE NOT HARD WORKING!?!?!?!?
Everyone: We didn't say they weren't hard working.
BUT YOU CRITICIZED THEM!
Everyone: Yes, we pointed out things they are good at and things they struggle with. But we never said they weren't hard working.
HA! THEY SAY THEY DIDN'T CRITICIZE THEM!
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on May 07, 2017, 02:12:49 AM
Sigh....
Here's how this conversation went.
MUEng said, part of the issue is that managers refuse to adapt to how the younger generation works. (Which I believe is your overall point)
Mu69 asked how is the younger generation different?
Chick, Eng, and myself all provided different aspects of how millennials work, both positive and negative. And explained why they are challenging for the older generation.
MU69 commented on how he had seen the workplace change and asked more honest questions about how millennials were different.
I answered the question, not even commenting if it was positive or negative, just shared where the characteristic came from, and shared how I had struggled to manage fellow millennials because one of the aspects.
Eng agreed and noted that ambiguity was one of the biggest challenges for millennials. Which it is. That is well documented and researched.
Up until this point it was a civil dialogue between members of different generations sharing their observations on generational theory.
Then....
YOU FOSSILS NEED TO GET WITH THE TIMES! HOW CAN YOU SAY MILLENNIALS ARE NOT HARD WORKING!?!?!?!?
Everyone: We didn't say they weren't hard working.
BUT YOU CRITICIZED THEM!
Everyone: Yes, we pointed out things they are good at and things they struggle with. But we never said they weren't hard working.
HA! THEY SAY THEY DIDN'T CRITICIZE THEM!
Thou doth protest too much, methinks
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on May 06, 2017, 10:45:15 PM
See earlier ... they weren't criticizing the millennials ... even though what they wrote was critical of them.
And, you are exactly right ... the older genrations participation trophy is getting to work before the boss and staying until you're the last to leave. This should count for nothing but in their generation, it counted for a lot.
OK, so my take away from this is that in your view millennials have this working thing all figured out and that they are 100% correct and everyone who doesn't line up with that is 100% wrong. Noted
(https://mysteriouseats.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/18q4id7cio2qngif.gif)
As a millennial with two boomers working underneath me, nothing irritates me more than when their car is at the office at 7:30a when I'm getting in 'early'.
Quote from: PTM on May 08, 2017, 10:41:06 AM
As a millennial with two boomers working underneath me, nothing irritates me more than when their car is at the office at 7:30a when I'm getting in 'early'.
ha ha, this is one of those places where I'm not a "typical" millennial and you'd hate me.
I'm into the office by 715 and try and be out the door by 430 at the latest. A lot of that is dictated by my kid's schedule as I do daycare drop off in the mornings and half the days in the evenings. I'm up by 5 most mornings so I can get a run in and then get the kid ready for daycare and dropped off then commute to work. All that let's me have the evenings free to do stuff fun.
Biggest thing I don't understand....people who "waste" time sleeping at least 8 hours, I'll sleep when I'm dead :)
Quote from: mu03eng on May 08, 2017, 10:45:56 AM
ha ha, this is one of those places where I'm not a "typical" millennial and you'd hate me.
I'm into the office by 715 and try and be out the door by 430 at the latest. A lot of that is dictated by my kid's schedule as I do daycare drop off in the mornings and half the days in the evenings. I'm up by 5 most mornings so I can get a run in and then get the kid ready for daycare and dropped off then commute to work. All that let's me have the evenings free to do stuff fun.
Biggest thing I don't understand....people who "waste" time sleeping at least 8 hours, I'll sleep when I'm dead :)
I'm in heavy highway construction though, so there's more imporant things to do outside the office 95% of the time. However, boomers will still race to the office for the presence. It's a shame, really. They need to get that coffee chat in and talk about the weekend with everyone.
I'm all about time utilization. I hate going to the office Monday morning, too much wasted time. I do not pull the 8 hour workday ever. I will do 7a to 12p often. Go hit some golf balls, cut the grass, pick up the kid early and go to a park. Usually after the family is asleep, I'll fire back online for another 3-4 hours.
I find my afternoon is often wasted time, unplugging for the afternoon allows the work to generate and sit until I come back to it. I can then knock everything out quicker instead of getting distracted. It also allows me to fully prepare for the morning, which often go to crap quite quickly.
Quote from: PTM on May 08, 2017, 10:59:25 AM
I'm in heavy highway construction though, so there's more imporant things to do outside the office 95% of the time. However, boomers will still race to the office for the presence. It's a shame, really. They need to get that coffee chat in and talk about the weekend with everyone.
I'm all about time utilization. I hate going to the office Monday morning, too much wasted time. I do not pull the 8 hour workday ever. I will do 7a to 12p often. Go hit some golf balls, cut the grass, pick up the kid early and go to a park. Usually after the family is asleep, I'll fire back online for another 3-4 hours.
I find my afternoon is often wasted time, unplugging for the afternoon allows the work to generate and sit until I come back to it. I can then knock everything out quicker instead of getting distracted. It also allows me to fully prepare for the morning, which often go to crap quite quickly.
I'm usually 8:00 - 4:00. Work over lunch. After dinner I will generally do another 1-2 hours. I have no interest in "office time" either.
Quote from: PTM on May 08, 2017, 10:59:25 AM
I'm in heavy highway construction though, so there's more imporant things to do outside the office 95% of the time. However, boomers will still race to the office for the presence. It's a shame, really. They need to get that coffee chat in and talk about the weekend with everyone.
I'm all about time utilization. I hate going to the office Monday morning, too much wasted time. I do not pull the 8 hour workday ever. I will do 7a to 12p often. Go hit some golf balls, cut the grass, pick up the kid early and go to a park. Usually after the family is asleep, I'll fire back online for another 3-4 hours.
I find my afternoon is often wasted time, unplugging for the afternoon allows the work to generate and sit until I come back to it. I can then knock everything out quicker instead of getting distracted. It also allows me to fully prepare for the morning, which often go to crap quite quickly.
I whole heartedly agree with everything you said, and my getting in as early as possible has nothing to do with making it look "right". My boss and most of the engineering team are on east coast time, so I want to beat most of them in so I can be productive before they get spun up and start pinging me for stuff and/or the meetings start up in earnest.
Side note for meetings, I've started a policy with my employees that they better have a really really good reason why they schedule a meeting for longer than 30 minutes. Unfortunately, outlook defaults to an hour, but the vast majority of meetings can complete the task in less than 30 minutes the rest of the time we just end up having a freeform discussion which is fine to a certain extent but if it's a conversation that needs to take place, let's have it official/documented so we all remember what the hell we agreed to.
It's funny, for the most part I hate the chit chat around the office, I just want to plug away at my work with my headphones in so I can get crap done and get home. If I could go virtual more I would, but I really only work from home a handful of days a month.
Quote from: mu03eng on May 08, 2017, 11:26:31 AM
I whole heartedly agree with everything you said, and my getting in as early as possible has nothing to do with making it look "right". My boss and most of the engineering team are on east coast time, so I want to beat most of them in so I can be productive before they get spun up and start pinging me for stuff and/or the meetings start up in earnest.
Side note for meetings, I've started a policy with my employees that they better have a really really good reason why they schedule a meeting for longer than 30 minutes. Unfortunately, outlook defaults to an hour, but the vast majority of meetings can complete the task in less than 30 minutes the rest of the time we just end up having a freeform discussion which is fine to a certain extent but if it's a conversation that needs to take place, let's have it official/documented so we all remember what the hell we agreed to.
It's funny, for the most part I hate the chit chat around the office, I just want to plug away at my work with my headphones in so I can get crap done and get home. If I could go virtual more I would, but I really only work from home a handful of days a month.
My biggest fear is having a tradesman killed/injured on a job.
My second biggest fear? Returning to the office after holidays or a vacation.
Quote from: mu03eng on May 08, 2017, 11:26:31 AM
Unfortunately, outlook defaults to an hour, but the vast majority of meetings can complete the task in less than 30 minutes the rest of the time we just end up having a freeform discussion which is fine to a certain extent but if it's a conversation that needs to take place, let's have it official/documented so we all remember what the hell we agreed to.
Not to veer too far off topic, but my guess is that the 1-hour default is a setting that can be (or was) changed. I have been using Outlook for many years at several companies, and it has always defaulted to 30 minutes for me.
Quote from: warriorchick on May 08, 2017, 12:53:54 PM
Not to veer too far off topic, but my guess is that the 1-hour default is a setting that can be (or was) changed. I have been using Outlook for many years at several companies, and it has always defaulted to 30 minutes for me.
I'm sure that it is....but I'm not going to be able to steer the iceberg that is my corporate IT system or even by business unit....I'm just a low level dictator, making do the best I can. :)
Quote from: warriorchick on May 05, 2017, 09:40:40 AM
I think that is part of it. The other part is that millennials really don't believe in "paying your dues" when it comes to promotions and the like. If they start one job and see a better opportunity at another company a year later (and at another place a year after that), they have no reservations about jumping ship.
They've seen their parents dumped by corporate America and don't want it to happen to them.
Corporate America is a crap hole. My friends (mid 50s) are hanging on for dear life. Hate their jobs and are treated like crap. "Oh, you don't want to work eighty hours a week, unnatural carnal knowledge you. We have other drones we can plug in."
I went off on my own 15 years ago. The only way to fly. Need to adopt to the new technology, but that's for my customer's sake.
Quote from: warriorchick on May 03, 2017, 12:36:08 PM
Part of the problem is that no one can accurately predict what skills are going to be needed in the lead time that is necessary to develop the training.
I graduated from college in 1984 with a degree in accounting. Spreadsheet software wasn't even really a thing at the time. Hell, desktop computers weren't even really a thing. We went out to audits with a ten-key printing calculator and a crapload of yellow seven-column paper. I had to develop skills as the technology involved.
I have a Facebook friend who got all ranty that the government should be training people for the "jobs of the future". I responded, "Who knows what those jobs are going to be? If the government did that in the mid-80's, they would have churned out a bunch of Walkman repair technicians and Blockbuster store managers."
I feel your pain. I finished my MBA in 1987. I recall going into Chicago on a Saturday morning for a seminar on Lotus 123 and basic spreadsheet use. That was in 1985 and it remains about all the formal Lotus or Excel training I ever received. The rest I taught myself. I did OK.
Compare that to the education the Millennials I hire have. Computer literacy is a pre-requisite for any business school. These kids (and they are kids) are technical geniuses. But the challenge is that too many of them don't know how to "think" and communicate beyond their field of study. Fundamentally, too many of them can't carry a conversation outside of a business field and God help them if they actually have to sell something.
So yes, there are specialties we need to prepare for. But if I was running Marquette or any other university, I'd be focusing on turning out young men and women who are broadly educated, know how to think and can adapt as the world changes.
Quote from: dgies9156 on May 09, 2017, 08:55:18 AM
I feel your pain. I finished my MBA in 1987. I recall going into Chicago on a Saturday morning for a seminar on Lotus 123 and basic spreadsheet use. That was in 1985 and it remains about all the formal Lotus or Excel training I ever received. The rest I taught myself. I did OK.
Compare that to the education the Millennials I hire have. Computer literacy is a pre-requisite for any business school. These kids (and they are kids) are technical geniuses. But the challenge is that too many of them don't know how to "think" and communicate beyond their field of study. Fundamentally, too many of them can't carry a conversation outside of a business field and God help them if they actually have to sell something.
So yes, there are specialties we need to prepare for. But if I was running Marquette or any other university, I'd be focusing on turning out young men and women who are broadly educated, know how to think and can adapt as the world changes.
I would think you need to start much earlier with that approach. As a member of a family with many grade school and high school teachers, logic and critical thinking have gone by the wayside as standardized testing and rote memorization have become the norm.
As someone who lives in the IT world, I can tell you that in an amoral view of things, we bucket every process into a "value-add" and "non-value-add" category. The latter used to be prime candidates for offshoring, but we're rapidly moving towards automating (via bots) them altogether, where any scripted decision making requires little to no human intervention.
In the next 5, 10, 15, 20 years, business will rapidly change the nature of work for kids leaving school. There soon will be no such thing as 'entry-level' jobs that require data entry to learn the ropes; new hires will be expected to be fluent in data and decision analytics, since the lowest tiers of the organization will be close to entirely automated. This increases competition for those entry level jobs (Example: for every 10 entry level jobs, you'll get 1 job to monitor, analyze and provide insights), pushing the next tier of applicants elsewhere, pushing non-college grads further down the ladder still. It can and will get to the point where the "insights" can be partially automated. I imagine that it will get to a point where you will have masters' prepared students entering the workforce, because these are the skills needed to compete. This is already happening in some fields.
There are some very real ethical concerns about the impact of "progress" in this space, as these types of things have the propensity to consolidate knowledge and power in the hands of the well-to-dos more than it already is. Even for well-meaning companies who care about their employees, at some point this becomes an arms race, and it becomes the cost of remaining competitive.
Moral of the story: The old American dream of working one job, the same job for your entire career is dead. Even if you are in the same job role, the expectation is that you reinvent yourself over and over again, and the "product lifecycle" of the career you currently have is getting shorter and shorter. Those that don't reinvent will get reinvented out.
Quote from: GB Warrior on May 09, 2017, 12:53:30 PM
As someone who lives in the IT world, I can tell you that in an amoral view of things, we bucket every process into a "value-add" and "non-value-add" category. The latter used to be prime candidates for offshoring, but we're rapidly moving towards automating (via bots) them altogether, where any scripted decision making requires little to no human intervention.
In the next 5, 10, 15, 20 years, business will rapidly change the nature of work for kids leaving school. There soon will be no such thing as 'entry-level' jobs that require data entry to learn the ropes; new hires will be expected to be fluent in data and decision analytics, since the lowest tiers of the organization will be close to entirely automated. This increases competition for those entry level jobs (Example: for every 10 entry level jobs, you'll get 1 job to monitor, analyze and provide insights), pushing the next tier of applicants elsewhere, pushing non-college grads further down the ladder still. It can and will get to the point where the "insights" can be partially automated. I imagine that it will get to a point where you will have masters' prepared students entering the workforce, because these are the skills needed to compete. This is already happening in some fields.
There are some very real ethical concerns about the impact of "progress" in this space, as these types of things have the propensity to consolidate knowledge and power in the hands of the well-to-dos more than it already is. Even for well-meaning companies who care about their employees, at some point this becomes an arms race, and it becomes the cost of remaining competitive.
Moral of the story: The old American dream of working one job, the same job for your entire career is dead. Even if you are in the same job role, the expectation is that you reinvent yourself over and over again, and the "product lifecycle" of the career you currently have is getting shorter and shorter. Those that don't reinvent will get reinvented out.
I don't know that I totally agree with this. If you think of humans and technology as "processing machines" technology is absorbing the repetitive and knowable processing which frees up human capital to focus on the unknown or undetermined. That doesn't necessarily require smarter people, simply people who can absorb the technology output and utilize it in the pursuit of the unknown or undetermined. We don't have to clutter everyone's brain with the how of machine learning or neural networks or algorithm development, but educate as to what those things tell us then teach people how to "connect the pieces".
I remember getting into an argument with my high school calculus teacher about having to learn Leibniz's Fundamental Theorems and how they were mathematically derived. I don't care why the first derivative of the equation of the line gives me velocity and the second gives me acceleration, some really smart dudes 300 years ago already figured that out and proved it. I'm much more interested in how I can apply that truth to scenario's that I might face. Even further, I shouldn't have to know how to do the first derivative I have any number of means to figure that out (apps, calculator, internet, etc). What I need to understand is where it is useful to apply that technology.
We need to teach people how to use the technology and more importantly how to think critically to pull technology and it's outputs together in new or interesting ways. Assume the technology is there, how do I maximize it's utility?
Quote from: mu03eng on May 09, 2017, 03:22:06 PM
I don't know that I totally agree with this. If you think of humans and technology as "processing machines" technology is absorbing the repetitive and knowable processing which frees up human capital to focus on the unknown or undetermined. That doesn't necessarily require smarter people, simply people who can absorb the technology output and utilize it in the pursuit of the unknown or undetermined. We don't have to clutter everyone's brain with the how of machine learning or neural networks or algorithm development, but educate as to what those things tell us then teach people how to "connect the pieces".
I remember getting into an argument with my high school calculus teacher about having to learn Leibniz's Fundamental Theorems and how they were mathematically derived. I don't care why the first derivative of the equation of the line gives me velocity and the second gives me acceleration, some really smart dudes 300 years ago already figured that out and proved it. I'm much more interested in how I can apply that truth to scenario's that I might face. Even further, I shouldn't have to know how to do the first derivative I have any number of means to figure that out (apps, calculator, internet, etc). What I need to understand is where it is useful to apply that technology.
We need to teach people how to use the technology and more importantly how to think critically to pull technology and it outputs together in new or interesting ways. Assume the technology is there, how do I maximize it's utility?
The highlighted part above is 100% correct. But while we all understand this means jobs like cashier, clerk, secretary, factory worker and driver are going away as these jobs are, as you said,
repetitive and knowable processing many white collar jobs are also going away for the same reason.
Think about your job. How much of it is a
repetitive and knowable processing? If all of that is eliminated via algo or robot, do you still have a job?
The white collar jobs most at risk are:
Accountants
Office support
most Lawyers (estates, will, contracts and real estate closing can all be done by computer without a human involved)
Securities traders
Portfolio managers (they are already are)
Surgeons (in fact I think virtually all these jobs will be replaced by a robot)
many types of Engineering jobs.
Quote from: mu03eng on May 09, 2017, 03:22:06 PM
I don't know that I totally agree with this. If you think of humans and technology as "processing machines" technology is absorbing the repetitive and knowable processing which frees up human capital to focus on the unknown or undetermined. That doesn't necessarily require smarter people, simply people who can absorb the technology output and utilize it in the pursuit of the unknown or undetermined. We don't have to clutter everyone's brain with the how of machine learning or neural networks or algorithm development, but educate as to what those things tell us then teach people how to "connect the pieces".
I remember getting into an argument with my high school calculus teacher about having to learn Leibniz's Fundamental Theorems and how they were mathematically derived. I don't care why the first derivative of the equation of the line gives me velocity and the second gives me acceleration, some really smart dudes 300 years ago already figured that out and proved it. I'm much more interested in how I can apply that truth to scenario's that I might face. Even further, I shouldn't have to know how to do the first derivative I have any number of means to figure that out (apps, calculator, internet, etc). What I need to understand is where it is useful to apply that technology.
We need to teach people how to use the technology and more importantly how to think critically to pull technology and it's outputs together in new or interesting ways. Assume the technology is there, how do I maximize it's utility?
I think we're indirectly saying the same thing. We're freeing up human capital to focus on things that provide insights into the unknown or that can't be scripted (yet). That requires a changing the pedagogy with which we approach the world's problems. But I'll add that while critical thinking is a foundation course in every degree, it needs to be at the center of everything- not 3-6 credits. We're talking about changes to the core of the educational model. If we extrapolate the premise of this thread a decade or two, the jobs that this type of advanced critical thinking caters to are typically those that are reserved for those with experience, so education has to accelerate this. I don't think someone has to be masters' prepared to be qualified, but that is one way people try to get 'qualified' (sometimes MBAs are used in the absence of experience). Every field is already moving towards advanced or terminal degree programs (needlessly, I'll add), so this only adds to a pre-existing trend.
Where you and I disagree, I think, is the value of understanding why something works the way it works. So while calculus has stood the test of 4 centuries, understanding how to prove that it's true is a valuable mental exercise. That's not to say that nothing is sacred and we can't hold some things to be true without breaking it all down into component parts - just that there's value in understanding those component parts exist and how they work. Applying that in today's economy, businesses, processes, etc aren't usually one-size-fits-all. They're different. They're subjective. So understanding the foundational pieces that comprised yours and my educations still have to be there - they're the basis of all of our insights and value we add to the analytics. The hurdle that i'm referring to is weave really advanced critical thinking into the curriculum that expands beyond the X's and O's of a given degree. It's a level of maturity greater than many 4-year degrees, where some courses will require critical thinking, but others are facts and regurgitation.
Most people won't care (and they shouldn't - that's the point of the technology) how something does what it does. But we do need to understand WHAT and WHY. I think it's uncommon for a new hire to understand these in their entirety out of school, but that is precisely what these technological developments are demanding.