Average Is Over

Ridiculous.<p>The solution to average people becoming less relevant in the economy (which I don't dispute, btw) can of course never be to make everyone above average as that is by definition impossible.<p>It's a feel good message for average folk that papers over the truth, which is that average folk that used to make a decent living doing average work will become poor. All of them, eventually. How poor exactly? Well, you could do worse than to look at Chinese factory workers for an indication of where things will end.<p>Of course it's more complicated than that: if the average man has become as poor as a Chinese factory worker, he will no longer be able to afford expensive gadgets and value added services, so it'll be in the interest of at least some sectors of the economy (think Apple and Google) to keep the impoverishment of the middle class down to a minimum. On the other hand there are other sectors of the economy (think McDonalds and Walmart) that will do just fine even if everyone is poor, so it'll be interesting to see how this plays out.<p>But, like I said, this article is ridiculous. Giving everyone a PhD won't solve a thing.

“Apple had redesigned the iPhone’s screen at the last minute, forcing an assembly-line overhaul. New screens began arriving at the [Chinese] plant near midnight. A foreman immediately roused 8,000 workers inside the company’s dormitories, according to the executive. Each employee was given a biscuit and a cup of tea, guided to a workstation and within half an hour started a 12-hour shift fitting glass screens into beveled frames. Within 96 hours, the plant was producing over 10,000 iPhones a day. ‘The speed and flexibility is breathtaking,’ the executive said. ‘There’s no American plant that can match that.’ ”<p>Ah yes, at midnight I'll just go walk over to my "dormitories" on my "plantation" and wake my "employees" and tell them to get to work harvesting cotton. In exchange for their 12 hour work day (and a comfy dormitory in which to live) I'll give them tea and a biscuit!<p>I don't understand why the "Average" American won't come work for me given these perks.

This is fascinating. I think the big (and scary) meta-trend is this:<p>The population is increasing and the requirement for people is decreasing.<p>This gap is made wider by increased birth-rates and better automation. More people are being born into a world where fewer are required. That is quite a scary thought. Computers and machines automate and replace people everywhere.<p>I have some anecdotal evidence of this:<p>At my last business we used to follow-up twice via email with all of the people who had not responded to a quote that we had sent them. We had 50-100 enquiries a day so the follow-ups soon mounted up. I tried every CRM and mail-list manager out there. I could not find one that would trigger an email from my Gmail account if a contact had not responded. I was spending 3-4 hours a day doing the follow-ups. So were my staff. It got to the point where I wanted to hire someone to do it. Eventually I learnt more about the software and read up on ruby on rails. I hired a small software house to help with the backend, built the front-end myself and a month later, a machine replaced the humans and prevented a new hire. That is just one job at a tiny 5-person company. At scale, computer-based automation creates huge efficiencies. The flip-side of that are huge deficiencies in employment.<p>Here come the machines.

It was only a few centuries ago that we paid this exclusive, elite upper class in society called scribes to write and transcribe things for us, because we weren't literate enough to do it ourselves. The parallels are pretty surprising today: we're paying an exclusive, elite class called programmers to write in the languages understood by computers. Software is eating the world, jobs are being displaced, and the demand for technical talent is as high as its ever been.

The author's sudden and poorly supported conclusion doesn't really fit. Because people with bachelor's degrees have the least unemployment, it is imperative we pass a GI Bill to ensure everyone gets a bachelor's degree?!<p>He's getting the causality wrong. It's not because they have bachelor's degrees that they're getting jobs. They're getting jobs because they're (minimally) bright and (minimally) ambitious.<p>Printing 100 million bachelor's diplomas "solves" the unemployment problem in much the same way that printing 100 trillion dollars solves our financial problems: not at all.

I've been thinking about this a lot lately.<p>I think he's right about many things there: manufacturing jobs are leaving and not coming back. Automation is becoming more and more advanced, particularly if you factor advances in robotics and ml since 2006 or so.<p>Things move faster and average just doesn't seem to cut it when you can manufacture excellence. Hell, lawyers and doctors will be next, how about faux ai that can write simple web apps or come up with good designs? Give generative models a few more years to advance, we'll see how far fetched that is. Some people will get very rich from all that. But that wealth will go to those who control what amounts to the means of production and they'll be able to defend those means with patents. I guess workers could strike back in the day, good luck with that now, the little guy has even less negotiating power.<p>All this to say, I think these trends and the shift they bring are going to be the most fundamental shift in economic organization since the industrial revolution. Not sure what the answer is, but I'm concerned that those in power dont even recognize the issues (they're not "nerds", as they say.) Time will tell, but I'm not all that optimistic about the average joes out there.<p>PS I wish the answer was everyone will start their own business, but honestly I just don't think that will be practical.

I think he meant "ordinary" not "average". Average has a specific meaning and as many have pointed out, you can't make everyone above average.<p>What we've got to figure out is how to keep the large mass of ordinaries from being made into Eloi by a combination of welfare states, machine productivity, and wealth disparity.<p>Or, failing that, find a way to prevent the Morlocks from eating the Eloi when it suits them.

Folks are harping on the meaning of "average," but it's clear to me that in the article, "average" here is a euphemism for "unskilled."<p>When you've been working as an semi-skilled laborer in a textile mill for 20 years, and suddenly your job is made redundant in favor of automation- your mill training becomes worthless. You don't need to become "above average," you just need to learn a different semi-skilled trade. Like pushing around excel spreadsheets.

This article reminds me of Player Piano by Kurt Vonnegut.<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player_Piano" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player_Piano</a><p>It's a pretty good read. It has an interesting take on a future where machines do the majority of the work. With the way things are headed, I'd say a society like the one described in Player Piano might not be to far off. I'm still undecided whether that's a good thing or not.

One question I've had for...a while now.<p>If<p><pre><code> a) corporate profits are up b) hiring isn't happening, or is seeing a skills mismatch </code></pre> then where exactly are all these profits going? If they're going to capital goods for the company, that just moves the question on down the line. If they're going to shareholders, then what are those shareholders buying? And if it's just sitting in the bank, where is the bank lending it out?

" Each employee was given a biscuit and a cup of tea, guided to a workstation and within half an hour started a 12-hour shift fitting glass screens into beveled frames. " - This is true in the actual times, since China (no matter how they want you to forget it) is living under very harsh communist regime, but that will change when chinese workers start demanding better working conditions, more time for family, better salaries, etc..as far as I know, it's China who's living in a bubble.

The flip side is that all this automation makes stuff cheaper, and a better lifestyle is available for less money.

So we're currently building an economy that the "average person" doesn't have the skills to participate in.<p>OK.<p>So who are we building this economy for, and why?

Better titled<p><i>Average is looking less attractive than it did 10 years ago</i><p>There will always be a place for average. However, I don't think it's going to be as attractive of a place to be as it has been. It's going to be much more costly to try and coast through life.

I can't believe those Presto touchscreens at restaurants are $100 per month. I love gadgets and technology, but much prefer dealing with a server and think most people do. My kids like the games and nag incessantly to play the "pay" ones, but I hardly think this is the end of waitresses and waiters. (I hope)

When a liberal talks about how somebody "should have access to" something, hang on to your wallet. Because you will pay for it.

Great article. This illustrates a fundamental mistake that many believe which is that just because they have a college degree they deserve a certain job, income or lifestyle.

did you mean to link to the comment field in particular, or the entire article?<p>in any case, it reminded me of<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee</a>

More bachelor's degrees won't increase the number of exceptional people, it will just mean more average people with bachelor's degrees. A side effect of this will be that the number of jobs for average people with bachelor's degrees will increase. Some of the most stable and best paying jobs are in education, law enforcement, state and local government, school and health care administration and so forth. Basically anything that is full or partially funded by tax dollars.<p>In many places there is already an attitude of why would you be so dumb to subject yourself to the logan's run of working in private enterprise when you can get an easy job with a pension by simply working directly or indirectly for the state.

What's usually missed is the value of being a skilled tradesman.<p>Who fixes your robot?<p>Who builds your house?<p>Not everyone is cut out for college, actually, most people aren't.

I always wondered, is it actually possible for us to ever assume that we can achieve better unemployment rates or is there a practical minimum which we can never get below again.<p>If you think about it, in a world without technology, the money we spend has to go to someone in the economy. However, since we know have artificial workforce in play, we effectively pay less, which means that we in consequence pay out less than we receive. So eitheir we all get paid less (yay communism), or some people just naturally have to be unemployed (yay income inequality).

There is no "solution" per se.<p>As I see it it's like this.<p>Most people are paid with how much labor they provide. $X amount of hours worked equals $Y amount of money. Call these people Group A. Some are paid using a different scale in line with the value of their creations. E.g. inventing a better battery, opening a well positioned McDonalds, etc. Call these people Group B.<p>Technology is reducing the amount of hours of labor from Group A the world actually can use. Similarly most of Group A won't be able to create something that actually adds value to the economy and transition into Group B.<p>So what are we going to do with all these people from Group A that are not adding "value" to the economy? The only reasonable solution is to subsidize these people in a way we deem socially acceptable.<p>Social Darwinism isn't acceptable, so the trick is finding a way to do this without causing side effects and hopefully that adds benefit to society. Note these people won't generate benefit to the economy in any meaningful way.

One point of the article that rankled me was his concept of a G.I. Bill so that everyone had access to higher education. That seems very misguided in my opinion. Instead of focusing on "higher education" should we not attempt to remake our primary education system such that we provide people with more relevant knowledge and skills?

&#62; Therefore, everyone needs to find their extra<p>This is Tom Friedman's socioeconomic policy in a nutshell: America as Lake Wobegon.<p>Heaven help us.

Tom Friedman's Lake Woebegone bias is showing. Again.

A more optimistic counterpoint:<p><a href="http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/01/22/predictions_about_the_death_of_american_hegemony_may_have_been_greatly_exaggerated" rel="nofollow">http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/01/22/prediction...</a>

Siri has changed the discussion about voice recognition and semantic search. Hard to imagine what will happen to all the call-centers in India if the use of this technology becomes more widespread. How many years are we away from this?

The majority of comments seem to praise the programming/IT community or question the state of our government/economic system but I have a different question.<p>What future skill set should people be retooling to have? What can our economy use more of?

Same exact article written by Business Insider:<p><a href="http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-01-19/strategy/30642154_1_recession-millennials-change" rel="nofollow">http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-01-19/strategy/3064...</a>

Better education isn't going to solve the problem of technological unemployment.<p>We actually need a completely different structure.<p><a href="http://marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm" rel="nofollow">http://marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm</a>

His arguments, and many here, are moot because of the political ramifications of disenfranching such a huge number of voters. The average worker, by definition, commands by far the biggest voting block.<p>When their minds are concentrated on this one problem, irrespective of their normal voting choice, they will vote for whoever offers them a way out.<p>It will end in tears as almost all wall-papering does, but not for a decade or two.<p>FWIW, I think this is the beginning of the China-induced global economic realignment. But we won't begin to see the real ramifications for a couple of decades because of the above.

Go listen to Davidson's interview with a factory worker over the increasing amount of automation and required technical knowledge that will eventually shove her out of a job if she doesn't acquire the skills to keep up:<p><a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/01/13/145039131/the-transformation-of-american-factory-jobs-in-one-company" rel="nofollow">http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/01/13/145039131/the-tran...</a><p>It's sobering. It makes me eternally grateful I have skills, well at least <i>some</i> skills, that won't be replaced by a robot and CNC mill overnight.

I think that we're taking the concept of "average" too literally. Picture two lines: average worker competency and need/requirement for the company to be competitive. The author states that historically those two lines have been so close as to be equivalent in management's eyes. Now the second line has moved up.<p>So according to this definition, the average line is no longer acceptable. As a result we need to move it up to realign with the need line.<p>Under this definition the author is not as problematic as before.

Interesting. In addition to post-high school education access, it's important that we also re-think our education system by creating environments that inculcates learning around our individual passion/talent. Above average performers are known to love their craft, and in a hyper-competitive economy that requires one to learn, unlearn and relearn, passion would matter a whole lot.

On the contrary, I feel average is the new <i>skill</i>. There are many a time where you need just average skilled workers. High skilled workers may find such tasks mundane while for average skilled workers the same mundane tasks may be challenging. IMHO, I would love to have a good mix of high skilled and average skilled workers.

As a corollary, nobody average is busy.

Post high school education is overrated. In fact the American school system won't really prepare you to face the reality.<p>Yes it seems like the need for these "average" jobs are decreasing but in the end it will all balance itself out and there will be new areas that would need to be filled.

This seems strangely familiar: <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/if-youre-an-average-worker-in-this-forever-recession-youre-going-straight-to-the-bottom-2012-1#ixzz1k0tZFvyn" rel="nofollow">http://www.businessinsider.com/if-youre-an-average-worker-in...</a>

Maybe added economic value is the wrong way for society to decide the quality of someone's life?

In the future, people will need more than a degree. They will need a few. That's what our children will have to deal with. There's nothing ridiculous about this. More and more and people are getting access to education.

I have been thinking about solutions to this, to get a feeling for how things will work out in the future by itself. Technology allows us to replace manual labour with machines, but it also can create jobs for other things we have been struggling to automate since it's naturally resistant to being industrialised. These are human things, which tends to be the service economy.<p>To work on real examples: There are tasks around the house that I don't enjoy doing or don't do reliably. Things like laundry, taking the rubbish out, cleaning, paying the bills, going shopping for food or new underwear. I wouldn't mind laundry people coming into my house once a week to pick the laundry up, doing it somewhere else, and bringing it back. I also wouldn't mind if someone would fold and pack my laundry for me nicely. Also, if my underwear or socks get old, drop me an e-mail allowing me to replace it with a provider of my choice. A cleaner is also very handy. It would be nice if someone would note when my handwash soap or toilet paper is running low, and order it for me. It would be nice if the delivery and placing of those things in the correct place was done for me.<p>Now all of these things I mention can already be done right now by employing serving staff, but this has a few issues. The main is cost, second to that is trust and personal space, and third to that it's perceived as a demeaning job.<p>Technology allows us to solve a lot of these things. From making sure that the right people can enter the property at the right time, e.g. when you are out, and that they do only what they are supposed to do (e.g. track their time, and movement around the house). It can also give anyone easy instructions on what to do when they enter the house (e.g. a mobile device with a checklist to check on things that need replacement, and even to guide them around the house to where these things are, and knowing what stuff has been delivered and needs unpacking) Other things can be -done better off site with modern industrial methods, e.g. your laundry. Also when replacement shopping has been ordered, it can be brought into your home along with the laundry, instead of you having to wait for a delivery. I can see this stuff potentially becoming a lot cheaper while creating a lot of low skilled jobs, perhaps jobs people can do while studying other things. In the long run a lot of these things will probably also be automated, making these jobs go away again. That in itself is a good thing, since all of us want these jobs to go away. Then humans will just be left to making choices about what they want to consume, or be creative if they want to be creative. We won't be happy but that's a different issue.

He mentions most of the points in article in this video - <a href="http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Friedman" rel="nofollow">http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Friedman</a>

Or more accurately, the average has changed.

I believe that the solutions will be found in a change in our value system. Things that we really appreciate, things that are uniquely human, will be valued more. See thisismadebyhand.com Obviously solving big problems and being "not average" will be important, but I believe that many people will be able to find niches doing things that add value to life in ways that a machine can't.

I find Thomas Friedman, as a columnist, to be decidedly below average. Why does he still have a job?

I suppose the original author is worried about U.S. average falling with respect to world average.

I feel like I was just rick rolled.<p><i>Please prefix the pundit's name to these links.</i><p>As for this particular pundit, he lost me at "invade Iraq". After claiming the earth is flat, you'd think people would have learned to ignore this asshat.

This is pretty obvious stuff.

tl;dr<p>america in decline. getting a job hard? try school.

Welcome to Peak Capitalism. This is the peak of our current socio-economic system, and I'm fairly certain that everyone in the White House is now well-aware and convinced of what's likely going to happen over the course of the next 10 years. I hope they're preparing for it right now.<p>I believe the coming collapse of the capitalistic-democractic system is imminent, and America needs to very seriously start planning for a conversion to Socialism/Marxism because the current system is not going to work for very long.

Yet he still has a job at NYTimes.