 |
"Looking Weighed-Down:
The Appearance Of A Waitress At Fukagawa In The Tempo Era"
|
How might technology affect the careers you are considering? Could it make the kind of work that you do more efficient? Could it make jobs more scarce?
Saturday, June 25, 2016
2b. Careers in food service
How might technology affect the careers you are considering? Could it make the kind of work that you do more efficient? Could it make jobs more scarce?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Information technology creates idleness in many workforce areas. As a Pre-Med student, I fear that technology will bypass the need for well-rounded medical professionals. Of course, medical professionals themselves will be required, but one's depth of knowledge can potentially be hindered if one relies too much on a search engine for a patient's diagnosis instead of relying on set in stone knowledge and common sense. Yet, I can understand how information technology can make medical careers more efficient by providing a quick and easy way of communication to other professionals or relay prescription information to a pharmacy. Overall, information technology has the potential to make jobs like these more scarce due to how lazy the minds of humans are becoming as we look to technology for all the answers.
ReplyDeleteAs someone who is also planning to go into the medical field, I completely agree with Constance. I sometimes worry that technology will take over some of the jobs in the medical field, and they will require less workers because of it. However, I know that the people of the world will always need people in the medical field. I just hope that if the medical field ever gets to a point that it needs less workers due to technology, that I offer enough value as a human worker to not be replaced by a machine.
DeleteAs a pharmacy technician striving to be a pharmacist, technology has majorly impacted my field of study. There is constantly new updates to be added, many prescriptions are filled by a machine that automatically fills the prescription for the pharmacy technician, and puts the label on. This machine makes the work more efficient, as one prescription is filling inside the machine, this allows the pharmacy technician to work on another prescription. These machines could not make jobs scarcer because pharmacy technicians and pharmacists will always be needed. The pharmacist will always need to be a person. A person is more inclined to make the patient feel better about the prescriptions their taking, and ask questions, along with answering any questions that a prescriber or patient might have. The pharmacy technicians will always need to be there in order to check prescriptions, put them in the right places, put new prescriptions into the system, and to sell prescriptions to the patients.
DeleteI am currently planning to enter the health industry as an occupational therapist. While I am sure that machines would be beneficial to this career's efficiency in areas such as paperwork and saving files, I do not believe that computers could ever dramatically make positions more scarce in this career. Occupational therapists must form strong bonds with their patients and this is not something that a computer would be able to do. Occupational therapists and their patients get to know each other extremely well as they work together and strive to meet goals and constantly improve the patient's well being. The healing process would be much colder and slower if the patient simply had to complete exercises as described by a computer.
ReplyDeleteI'm majoring in Business Management and plan to have a job in the business world after college. Technology could affect the career I'm considering because technology has taken the place of numerous workers in various businesses throughout the country. I wouldn't be surprised that if I do have a career in big business management, I would have to choose between machines and software or an actual human worker. Yes, machines are more efficient. That's evident in that machines have replaced jobs in Wall Street, banks, and other major business sectors. Machines may not always be the best solution, however. Machines definitely could make job more scarce, which is why employers should take more care into deciding between machine and man. It will drastically influence our future economy and country's well-being.
ReplyDeleteI think that progressive technology will change all careers, in some form or fashion, very soon. The main change that I see in many careers is simply being able to understand technology to some extent and being able to monitor it. For our parent's generation this change is very concerning because they will have to learn new ways to do their jobs, but for us I think it will change the way we are schooled in our career paths. For instance, instead of learning to read handwritten medical charts medical students will need to learn how to run specific EMR programs. This change in education could very easily lead to a change in the availability of jobs, making the job search more competitive in all areas. Although work might be done more efficiently by machines it makes a huge difference in the lives of everyday human beings who rely on the jobs that machines are taking over. Personally, I would rather have people doing jobs less effectively than machines could, instead of having an economical crisis worse than the Great Depression.
ReplyDeleteYou say that you would rather have people doing jobs less effectively than to face the prospect of an economic collapse.
DeleteWhat about the job of a underwater pressure welder? One misguided movement and your entire body can be sucked through a hole the size of a melon or you can be incinerated while underwater. Would you rather a human, who is susceptible to distraction and error, complete this task- or a machine that is just as efficient as it is disposable?
There are some jobs that can not sacrifice accuracy and efficiency just because a human needs the job more.
Speaking as an aspiring attorney, technology won't be putting us out of business any time soon. Lawyers don't have to manually search through piles of paper and ink for cases anymore, nor do we rely on huge tomes of law. Computers have simplified things, but it still requires a human being to interpret the law, to make arguments based on precedent (or lack thereof), and most importantly to appeal to other humans, be it on the bench, in the jury stand, or on the witness stand. Now if AI is perfected we might have some cause for concern, but for me the prospect of arguing with a machine is more a source of intrigue than anxiety. The law is a living thing: it evolves in response to changes in our society. As long as law pertains to humanity, humanity will have a place in the legal profession.
ReplyDeleteAs a pharmacy technician striving to be a pharmacist, technology has majorly impacted my field of study. There is constantly new updates to be added, many prescriptions are filled by a machine that automatically fills the prescription for the pharmacy technician, and puts the label on. This machine makes the work more efficient, as one prescription is filling inside the machine, this allows the pharmacy technician to work on another prescription. These machines could not make jobs scarcer because pharmacy technicians and pharmacists will always be needed. The pharmacist will always need to be a person. A person is more inclined to make the patient feel better about the prescriptions their taking, and ask questions, along with answering any questions that a prescriber or patient might have. The pharmacy technicians will always need to be there in order to check prescriptions, put them in the right places, put new prescriptions into the system, and to sell prescriptions to the patients.
ReplyDeleteAs a Computer Science major looking to go into a career of programming and server management, the improvement of automation and Information Technologies is directly beneficial to my future. However, the constant improvement does mean that I might struggle to keep up with the most modern systems, the most efficient languages, and the most secure servers. This constant stream of improvement is partially why the middle-class jobs, the ones that are more manual or mundane, are all at risk of slowly being replaced. Somebody who's entire job is to make schedules for a group of workers might be replaced instantly by a program that can instantly read every workers availability and make a schedule that allows them all to get the optimal hours. However, that program won't easily know or work well if a worker needs to take a day off in an emergency.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I cannot wait to get into psychiatry and work with criminals. I am seriously so ecstatic. However, the technological “advances” being made in my field do cause me to worry at times. In the past years, some psychologists and psychiatrists have turned to computers to give their clients therapy sessions. This has become very popular, as the psychologist or psychiatrist does not have to be present, allowing them to focus on other things. I, however, believe a personal connection to another human really helps patients. Therefore, I do not agree with computers taking over for psychologists and psychiatrists. I do believe that computers can greatly aid in therapy sessions, depending on the case, and therefore am thankful for certain aspects. As long as psychologists and psychiatrists stand their ground and do not allow computers to overtake them completely, the machines will in fact be very beneficial to our field.
ReplyDeleteThe more research I do on my career choice, the more I hear about robots taking the place of surgeons. Wow! Look at what this new robot can do all on its own! I think an autonomous robot could easily take the place of surgeons completely at some point, but I cannot see it happening any time soon for safety reasons and the general fear of not knowing. Safety reasons such as not being able to detect small problems that could potentially be life threatening. The people of today want everything. However, if you had to choose between being operated on by a human with years of experience, that has performed this certain procedure countless times, or a new robot that could possibly do it faster and more efficiently, which would you choose? I personally would choose the surgeon. I do not want to feel like a guinea pig to the newest technology and put my life in its hands. Surgeons and doctors alike use technology on a regular basis for assistance and advanced technology can help to cut down surgery times. I have heard of an autonomous suturing algorithm being used. Even in this situation, a surgeon was still needed to do the initial work before using the system. The surgeon should still be in full control of the operation. They feel empathy for the patient they are operating on. A robot could not. A surgeon needs to think on his/her own, make the decisions quickly and weigh options that a robot probably could not. I think that this kind of technology is a long way away from being utilized.
ReplyDeleteThe more research I do on my career choice, the more I hear about robots taking the place of surgeons. Wow! Look at what this new robot can do all on its own! I think an autonomous robot could easily take the place of surgeons completely at some point, but I cannot see it happening any time soon for safety reasons and the general fear of not knowing. Safety reasons such as not being able to detect small problems that could potentially be life threatening. The people of today want everything. However, if you had to choose between being operated on by a human with years of experience, that has performed this certain procedure countless times, or a new robot that could possibly do it faster and more efficiently, which would you choose? I personally would choose the surgeon. I do not want to feel like a guinea pig to the newest technology and put my life in its hands. Surgeons and doctors alike use technology on a regular basis for assistance and advanced technology can help to cut down surgery times. I have heard of an autonomous suturing algorithm being used. Even in this situation, a surgeon was still needed to do the initial work before using the system. The surgeon should still be in full control of the operation. They feel empathy for the patient they are operating on. A robot could not. A surgeon needs to think on his/her own, make the decisions quickly and weigh options that a robot probably could not. I think that this kind of technology is a long way away from being utilized.
ReplyDeleteI am a Business Major that is planning to focus on Management Information Systems which ties into the IT field. So my career would require me to keep up with technological advancements. Technology definitely has the potential to make my work more efficient. However, as with all technology there are the challenges of streamlining, maintaining, updating and understanding the function, role and ability of technology within the scope of your job and business. I know technology will make certain jobs scarcer but it will increase other jobs, whether this will be a balanced exchange I have no idea.
ReplyDeleteAs an aspiring anesthesiologist I worry for job security in the future. The field has already been impacted greatly by computers and autonomous machines. Less than 50 years ago it was all done by hand and the anesthesiologists had to be extremely skilled in order to ensure that their patient would wake up again. I noticed however while interning at the Chickasaw medical center that the anesthesiologist just watched a couple screens and occasionally would adjust a dosage through the computer. Although they still had an immense understanding for their field and the medication they used I realized that the job had been largely replaced by this new technology. Even though there isn’t as much risk of not waking back up from the anesthesia anymore it’s still makes you think what will happen in another 50 years. Will there still be physicians babysitting machines or will my prospective field be extinct, needing only nurses to intubate the patient and the computer to do the rest.
ReplyDeleteI plan to go into the education field and while teaching students is a very important job that is crucial to America, online education is starting to take over the field at an alarming rate. We will always need educators and experts in certain fields, but the threat of not having the one-on-one engagement with students is becoming very real. One of the top reasons I am looking into teaching is to become a part of forming a child's life and mind; if the classroom is going down a path of pure technology and minimal interaction then it threatens many teachers' job and purpose. There has already been a tremendous strain in the budget for educators which has led to a gradually growing number of cut-backs, especially in Oklahoma.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading the first chapter I was actually thinking about how technology has already affected the field I want to go into; teaching. Many students prefer online school now, for a very wide range of reasons. If online classes become more mainstream, this could affect the amount of teaching positions available. In turn, this might make teaching a more competitive career and could even potentially be a good thing, because only the most outstanding teachers would be hired, and they would probably subsequently get paid more. We see teachers, doctors, lawyers, and funeral directors as jobs that we will always need, but what if, with the mainstreaming of online school, teachers became obsolete? I know many students do not fare well without someone to facilitate learning, so this could be a bad thing for those who enjoy and depend on interactive, creative, and kinesthetic learning styles. The online programs would need to improve drastically for technology to “take over” the career of teaching. There is much more to teaching than content knowledge and curriculum, which is mainly what online school programs consist of. They are very dry- they require reading, memorizing, and regurgitating. They are very repetitive and isolated, whereas the current classroom is very socialized and offers a variety of tools and learning methods.
ReplyDeleteAs a nursing student, I'm confident the need for nurses will never dwindle. There's no machine that can do what a nurse does. We may use machines to be more efficient but nursing is most about caring for someone's emotional and mental state than their physical health. No machine can comfort the dying child or the grandmother with fading memories. Nursing is not a science that can be programmed into a computer. With today's technology, we've created disease databases where we can search our symptoms and hope for the right diagnosis, but more often than not the computer is completely wrong. This is because diagnostic medicine is not an exact science. Each disease presents differently in every person.
ReplyDeleteI would like to teach for a career, either at the secondary or collegiate level. Teaching is almost entirely unthreatened by technological obsolescence, mostly because we as humans seem to feel it requires that discretionary “human touch”, guided either by experience or intuition, or both. People are fundamentally creeped out by the idea of a robot teaching the nuances of Shakespeare. Therefore, any scarcity of jobs in the field probably isn’t going to be helped along by machination. Teaching and scholarship have however been made more efficient with the advent of online academic databases, grading software, online classes, and education tech such as Blackboard. The primary impediment to increased efficiency is a dearth of funding for professional development that would help educators better integrate these technologies into their classrooms or better operate their virtual classes. The heft of this impediment lies in a lack of technological fluency. Jobs are changing as quickly as the technology they use does, and professional development programs help employees become more fluent in their implementation of tech.
ReplyDeleteThere is no gainsaying that technological advancement culminates in the displacement of human labor and eventually mass unemployment; We are already witnessing that in different capacities and sectors. For instance, the emergence of sophisticated software and hardware that handle data manipulation and storage, the number of employees for book-keeping and accounting has reduced in financial institutions, the specialty that is likely to experience job boost in the financial sector during a bad economy is Marketing, which functions to create more markets for the Business. That somewhat disagrees with David Autor's findings. Some low-paying jobs like food service tend to get more employees during recession not because new jobs are created, but because people tend to resort to them when they do not have their high-paying jobs anymore.
ReplyDeleteThere are still careers that technological advancement can only improve rather than bring about massive unemployment. For example the job of a nurse, which entails much of care, empathy and emotions cannot be overtaken by a computers that are mindless, as we know them. The employment of advanced equipment in the nursing care will rather make the delivery of the services more efficient that disable the nurses' abilities or make them redundant. Machines lack the emotions humans use to care for patients.
In the book, Carr states that automated is one of the reasons for the reduction of middle-waged jobs. Automation has been taking over certain skills and jobs, such as looming and other skillful trades, leaving these once skillful artisans without work. Machines can outproduce people hundredfold, so what has this caused? Careers that require aspects that machines cannot replace, such as doctors and lawyers, are something that cannot quite be replaced by automation. With the "unskilling" of people, we begin to notice a trend of people trying to work less skillful jobs. Automation in this sense has a negative direct effect on people. However, with the creation of machines, jobs are created because technicians are required to keep them running. If this issue is perceived from this stance, automation may be creating skillful jobs.
ReplyDelete