81,744
edits
Redundancy: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
In actual fact, it is ''not'' a paradox. Pursuing change will ''not'' get you fired. Pursuing change inoculates you against redundancy, and for those of you who catch it anyway, it boosts your prospects of the next job. | In actual fact, it is ''not'' a paradox. Pursuing change will ''not'' get you fired. Pursuing change inoculates you against redundancy, and for those of you who catch it anyway, it boosts your prospects of the next job. | ||
Why? ''Because the work is never done''. | |||
{{sa}} | There is no limit to number of tasks in the world, which, once automated, will no longer reach the threshold of paid employment. It is a [[reductionist]] canard of the first order that once routine work is automated there will be nothing left to do. If you sort out routine work, ''it makes the machine go faster''. A machine that goes faster finds new things to do. It also — and this may seem like cold comfort, but it provides warm employment, so don’t knock it — ''will blow up more spectacularly''. | ||
As long as ''you'' are resourceful, flexible and smart, the more bureaucratic pain you eliminate, the sooner you can get to interesting, knotty problems that need solving. | |||
''Solving interesting knotty problems is fun''. | |||
And, see above — if, as we are coming to suspect, most people do ''not'' think, “For the love of God, this is ''absurd''! We must fix it!” — then those people who do, and who can thereby alleviate process pain and make the machine run faster — they are like ''gold-dust''.{{sa}} | |||
*[[Reduction in force]] | *[[Reduction in force]] | ||
*{{br|Bullshit Jobs: A Theory}} | *{{br|Bullshit Jobs: A Theory}} | ||