[ars]

No, it means shifted jobs. There's enormous demand for construction employment right now, they would have no trouble finding other employment.

In the entire history of the world automation has never caused employment reduction, only a shift.

[darth_avocado]

No, it means unemployment for a portion of the workers, shifted jobs for some workers and more responsibilities for the rest who get to keep their jobs. And it also means more profits for CEO pay and shareholders, and no net benefits to end consumers.

[redserk]

This is either disingenuous or ignorant of reality.

Yes. Your Econ 101 class may have taught you jobs will shift. Econ 101 does not give you the case study of a 45 year old worker who finds themselves having to restart their career.

So yes, across many years a shift in employment happens.

To the guy who lost his job and now has to figure out what to do, he risks being unable to find a career anywhere near where he was at.

Ideally we would have retraining programs that would meaningfully train and place people into new jobs, but efforts are largely performative.

[ars]

The type of work they were doing translates really well into construction, trucking, and warehouse work. Any retraining is pretty minimal, and all of those fields are desperate for workers.

Also, what's your alternative plan? Just freeze all jobs at current level of technology, because we can never make any changes?

Most ports in the world are automated - they are literally doing pointless busy work!

[ethbr1]

> translates really well into construction, trucking, and warehouse work.

I agree with you, but I think Amazon has shown how much it values warehouse workers.

[tzs]

Automation can be phased in. As existing workers in a given field retire or leave for different work elsewhere automate their positions instead of hiring replacements.

Similar when expanding. Fill the new positions with automation.

[redserk]

What is your experience with construction or working on docks to make this assumption?

Assuming that because someone may arrive home with some debris and grease does not mean the work is directly transferable.

[giantg2]

Yeah, and I should be able to get a Go job if I know Python, Java, etc. Not as easy as it looks on paper.

[ars]

You absolutely should be able to do that. If you know how to program another language, then a couple weeks of using the new language should get you the point of employment, and a couple months should put you close to where you were with the previous language (other than some of the rare esoteric stuff).

And employers know that, and (other than contracting work) they'll usually hire with the expectation of rapid training, and it's not an issue.

[giantg2]

"And employers know that"

That hasn't been my experience. Most hiring managers I've had interviews with are in a hurry and want people with experience now. Good luck getting the job if you have to do a code screen against people with years of experience with that language.