Submitted by just-a-dreamer- t3_11eex2z in singularity
phriot t1_jae1348 wrote
I'm already a white collar worker with a PhD. While I am always learning, if I have to receive a new credential to prove additional competencies, I doubt I have more than one go around left before that's entirely unfeasible. This is partly a funding thing, and partly a time thing. Having degrees already, I'm pretty sure that I'm ineligible for federal student loans for another Bachelor's, and getting into a second PhD program with assistantships would be difficult, if not impossible. That leaves me likely self-funding a Master's Degree. Doing this more than once would wipe my finances out beyond the point where there would ever be a payoff.
I think a better route is for people to self-learn as much as they can about where their fields are heading, and the tools that are on the horizon. I believe that it will likely be easier to try to evolve with your current degree than banking on trying to repeatedly get new ones. Try to be the last "you" standing, as it were. This could involve getting certificates, certifications, or even new degrees if you can get them paid for, but I see this as extending skills, rather than replacing them. What I can't see is saying "Okay, my accounting job is likely to get automated, so I'll get Master's in Computer Science. Okay, I probably won't be senior enough to survive chatbots coming for entry level coding positions, so in 3 years I'll go get an Associate's in robot repair. Okay, now robots are all modular and self-repairing, so it's back to another Master's in Space Civil Engineering." You'll just never be actually working long enough to make any progress other than always having an entry level job.
just-a-dreamer- OP t1_jae2beq wrote
What would motivate a young person to get a PhD. then? When AI development happens so fast, how can higher education that takes so long outpace AI capabilities?
phriot t1_jae522p wrote
It's the same answer as it has always been: You do a PhD, because you love the research (or at least like it a hell of a lot more than anything else you think you could do).
Some PhDs do pay off, but you don't do one for the money. There are easier ways to make money. If I was 18-20 today, and I only cared about money, I'd probably try to get into a trade, live as cheaply as possible, and try to invest half of each paycheck. I'd buy a house (or 2-4 unit multifamily property) as soon as I could afford it, and rent out all the other rooms/units. When I could afford another one, I'd move out, rent that room, and do it all again. Repeat as necessary until I could trade up into an apartment building. At the same time, I'd be trying to figure out how to run my trade as a business. If I had done something like that, I probably could have retired by the age I was when I finished my PhD (but I did finish rather late; I was a bit older when I finished my BS, and then my PhD took longer than average).
All that said, I love science. I wouldn't trade it for anything, now, but that's what I would do if I were starting over today, knowing what I know from my experiences, and if my priorities were different.
claushauler t1_jae66qe wrote
If everyone's getting displaced by AI labor who can afford to pay the rent on those investment properties? We're looking at cascading levels of failure.
phriot t1_jae72c7 wrote
If automation-based job displacement is that widespread, either the government steps in with expanding welfare in some way (UBI or a jobs guarantee), or we'll have a lot more going wrong than "will my apartment building be profitable?" But in reality, I'd probably split my investing somewhat between real estate and index funds. Corporations are likely to do amazing as automation increases. (Again, if we get to the point that literally no one can afford to buy the things corporations are selling, there's not much you can do other than stock up on canned food and a shipping container in the woods.)
claushauler t1_jaea5ku wrote
You forgot firearms and ammunition. Lots and lots of ammunition. But as always the truly rich - the ones who are creating this scenario - are already several steps ahead of that.
just-a-dreamer- OP t1_jae6fpy wrote
Good point.
If you didn't have to care about money, got your 4 walls covered and UBI, would you rather work or study further and do academic research?
phriot t1_jae9xnr wrote
Not exactly what you asked, but as I sit here today, I feel like my ideal life would look something like: 2 days a week doing science of some kind, either academia or industry; 2 days a week working for a charity, likely either based around homelessness, nutrition, or education; no more than a 10 minute commute for either thing; 3 days a week, plus all the time gained from not commuting for spending time with my family, exercising, and doing hobbies.
(FWIW, I have a spouse and a house. One day we'll have kids. I'm not really in a place where I'd be satisfied with 4 walls, a UBI, and a subscription to Nature anymore.)
just-a-dreamer- OP t1_jaebcg9 wrote
That's the problem with the concept of a post scarcity society. Who decides who gets to live in a house and who gets the 4 wall appartment?
Right now, money determines where and how you live. And money is tied to employment. Money is what makes people show up at work and do their job.
It will be interesting to see how we allocate scarce resources in the future. For, as not everybody can have a house, fewer can have a house at the beach and even fewer a mansion.
LastInALongChain t1_jaemp8w wrote
They probably shouldn't. At this point they should do entrepreneurship.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments