El fin del trabajo

[muyuu]

¿Un pelín exagerado?: http://io9.com/the-third-machine-age-could-destroy-us-1609185756

There have been one and a half machine ages already. The first began in the nineteenth century, with machines taking over manual labor. Then in the twentieth century machines began taking over mental labor (they still are). When the third age comes, says one sociologist, we're doomed.



Sociologist Zeynep Tufekci has written an interesting article in response to the idea that we need robots to do "emotional labor" like caring for children and the elderly. She identifies the third machine age as one where machines take over the realm of emotional labor, whether that's teaching Kindergarten or working as a nurse. Basically, she's using emotional labor as shorthand to describe a broad range of caretaking professions, especially in heath and medicine, that are currently booming.

Though she worries about handing over this deeply human kind of work to machines, she makes a deeper point about why this third machine age may be the last. Because it continues in the tradition of our previous machine ages, which have all eliminated jobs and created massive unemployment and social unrest.

Writes Tufekci:

What's left is deep emotional labor: taking care of each other.

And emotional labor is already greatly devalued: notice how most of it is so little paid: health-aides and pre-school teachers are among the lowest paid jobs even though the the work is difficult and requires significant skill and emotional labor. It's also crucial work: economists estimate a good kindergarten teacher is worth about $320,000 a year, when measured as adult outcomes of those children she teaches. (And yes, devalued emotional labor is mostly a female job around the world—and the gendered nature of this reality is a whole other post).

And the argument, now is that we should turn care over to machines as well, because, there is a "shortage of humans".

What are seven billion people supposed to do? Scour Task Rabbit hoping that the few percent who will have money to purchase services have some desires that still require a human?

Turning emotional labor to machines isn't just economically destructive; it's the very description of inhuman.

In my view, warehousing elderly and children—especially children with disabilities—in rooms with machines that keep them busy, when large numbers of humans beings around the world are desperate for jobs that pay a living wage is worse than the Dickensian nightmares of mechanical industrialization, it's worse than the cold, alienated workplaces depicted by Kafka.

It's an abdication of a desire to remain human, to be connected to each other through care, and to take care of each other.

Essentially she's asking why we should replace this kind of work with robots when there are many humans who are desperate to do it. Though experts say these robots are coming in because there is a "labor shortage," Tufekci points out:

Of course we have enough human caregivers for the elderly. The world ... is awash in underemployment and unemployment, and many people find caregiving to be a fulfilling and desirable profession. The only problem is that we – as a society – don't want to pay caregivers well and don't value their labor...

Modern shortages of "labor" are almost always a shortage of willingness to pay well, or a desire to avoid hiring the "wrong" kind of people.

And there's the problem. It's not that there's a labor shortage and we need caretaker robots. It's that many people would rather buy robots than hire immigrants or the poor. The third machine age, as Tufekci sees it, may be the first act in a class war that won't end with a robot uprising — it could end with a human uprising that's far more tragic in the long run.

Otro aspecto humano, más allá de la pérdida de referentes sociales y aislamiento que pueda tener la gente permanentemente desempleada.

[muyuu]

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/529021/ibm-aims-to-make-medical-expertise-a-commodity/

IBM Aims to Make Medical Expertise a Commodity
Big Blue thinks its Jeopardy! champion Watson can make money by offering health-care providers new expertise without hiring new staff.

By Tom Simonite on July 21, 2014

U.S. cancer care is headed for a crisis, warned the American Society of Clinical Oncology in March. Cancer cases are projected to soar 42 percent by 2025 as America’s population ages, but the number of oncologists trained to treat them will grow by only 28 percent. That mismatch is likely to exacerbate existing inequalities in care between the fraction of patients treated by specialists at major academic centers and the many more who get care at community clinics or hospitals, mainly from general oncologists.

Enter a game show champion to save the day.

An attempt to transform cancer care is a major part of IBM’s efforts to make money from its Jeopardy!-winning Watson software. The company aims to offer health-care organizations a cheaper way to improve care by turning oncology expertise into a commodity.

This effort to break humans’ monopoly on cancer expertise is the advance guard of a model that IBM hopes it can eventually roll out across many areas of medicine. It is also the first real test of the company’s claims that Watson can move beyond Jeopardy! and earn money.

Whether Watson passes the test could be critical to IBM. The company’s revenue has declined for two years as technology’s shift to the cloud has left some of its core products behind. CEO Ginny Rometty’s promise to spend $1 billion on a new business group dedicated to commercializing Watson is just about the only turnaround prospect in sight.

IBM and collaborators are building two versions of Watson trained in oncology. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, in New York, is beta-testing a version for lung, colorectal, and breast cancer. The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, in Houston, will use one this summer that advises its new fellows on treatments for leukemia. Both help oncologists decide on a treatment plan by ingesting the patient’s medical records and pairing that information with knowledge from medical journals, textbooks, and treatment guidelines.

“Physicians are too burdened on paperwork and squeezed on revenue to keep up with the latest literature.”

Lynda Chin, a professor of genomic medicine at MD Anderson and a leader of the center’s Watson project, anticipates that in the future that kind of product will be highly valued by general oncologists and regional cancer practices. “Physicians are too burdened on paperwork and squeezed on revenue to keep up with the latest literature,” she says. That limits the care physicians can deliver, and it has financial consequences: “If you can’t make a decision based on your own knowledge, you have to refer the patient out, and that’s going to hurt your bottom line.”

A version of Watson to be tested this year with brain tumor patients from the New York Genome Center aims to provide oncologists with deep expertise in the new field of genomic medicine that would otherwise be expensive to obtain. This incarnation of Watson suggests treatment options based on details of the mutations detected in a person’s tumor by genomic sequencing. Using genome sequencing to direct cancer treatment is just becoming feasible thanks to the plummeting cost of the technology (see “Cancer Genomics”). But in practice, the challenges of interpreting genomic data keep it beyond the reach of most oncologists and clinics.

“It requires a heroic level of expertise and is entirely manual,” says Ajay Royyuru, director of the computational biology center at IBM’s Yorktown Heights lab. Doctors must chase down relevant research papers for the mutations they find in a patient’s tumor, try to understand how the mutations change the cancer cells’ physiology, and then work out which treatments could target the malfunctioning processes. Getting from a genome sequence to a treatment decision can take five to 10 months says Royyuru—time that cancer patients can ill afford.

Using Watson, it takes minutes. Doctors need only load in the genomic data. A schematic is then generated showing which of the molecular processes inside a cell have been altered. An oncologist can explore those findings and click a button to see a list of possible treatments that would target the problem pathways.

Though technologically impressive, none of the Watson cancer projects are yet contributing materially to IBM shareholders or helping many cancer patients. Although the deals with medical centers are intended to lead to marketable products, they are for now R&D investments, says Michael Karasick, who leads R&D for the Watson group and was previously director of the company’s research lab in Almaden, California. “Revenue comes when the product hits the market,” he says.

Some already have. For example, a Watson-based system for the medical insurer Wellpoint helps preauthorize requests for medical procedures. But Watson–based medical products haven’t been hitting the market at the rate IBM seems to have expected. A document leaked to the Wall Street Journal in January said that the Watson unit was falling behind on a projection that it would bring in $1 billion in revenue by 2018.

One problem is that Watson has struggled to accurately understand technical information (see “IBM Expands Plans for Watson”). It’s been flummoxed by medical jargon, the different ways researchers refer to the same thing in journal articles, and sloppy grammar in doctors’ jottings on patient files. Clinicians have had to spend more time than anticipated teaming up with IBM software developers to chase down the misunderstood acronyms or wrongly parsed sentences that caused Watson to misinterpret medical records or suggest incorrect treatments.

Michael Witbrock, vice president of research at the artificial-intelligence company Cycorp, says that IBM’s Jeopardy! winner was always going to need significant engineering to become an expert in any specific area. The game show calls for a mastery of general knowledge at a shallow level, not the kind of deep, layered expertise needed to treat cancer. “They went after industrial scope, not industrial depth,” says Witbrock.

Eric Brown, director of Watson technologies at IBM’s Yorktown Heights lab, says major changes to Watson, informed in part by feedback from the cancer projects, have helped it adjust to its new work. Although there is still a human training process, improved machine learning means Watson now requires less training to get good results, he says.

A company getting started with Watson today can make use of interfaces including one that involves clicking thumbs up or down next to its answers to test questions. In addition, a new team within IBM’s technical assistance group is dedicated to helping customers prepare data and use it to train Watson. Late last year the company launched a cloud-based platform where products can be built without having to bring IBM technology on site.

One thing those technical improvements haven’t done is shed any more light on whether renting out software that acts like a medical specialist can be a big business. Some people in the health-care industry are unsure.

The most successful products built on advanced data processing historically have been focused on managing costs and efficiency in populations of many patients, not improving what doctors do with individuals, says Russell Richmond, a board member for the health-care data company Explorys and previously CEO of McKinsey’s health-care division, Objective Health.

That kind of product speaks directly to profit margins and is in fact explicitly encouraged by the Affordable Care Act, which is reshaping the U.S. health-care industry. How products like the Watson-powered cancer advisors will provide that is less clear. As Richmond puts it: “Helping a cancer patient get the best treatment is really good for humankind, but it may not generate a lot of profit.”

[muyuu]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/23/upshot/how-technology-aided-by-recession-is-transforming-the-work-world.html

Technology, Aided by Recession, Is Polarizing the Work World
JULY 22, 2014

The American work force has been growing polarized for decades. On one end, there are highly skilled jobs like writing software or performing surgery, and on the other are service jobs like child care and cutting hair. The jobs in the middle, meanwhile, such as factory work, sales and bookkeeping, are shrinking — one of the reasons for the economy’s slow climb out of the recession.

Where did those jobs go? Part of the answer lies in Silicon Valley. It is no coincidence that many of those jobs entail the same repetitive tasks that computers, robots and other machines are uniquely suited to perform, from robots loading conveyor belts in factories to Kayak.com selling airline tickets.

A new working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research shows how the recession accelerated the displacement of these midwage jobs. As technology now encroaches on jobs that people assumed would always belong to humans, it is useful to consider those most affected by the job displacement so far: the young, the less educated and men.

A lot of economic research has focused on the polarization of jobs, notably by David Autor of M.I.T. He differentiates between routine tasks that follow well-defined procedures — the kind of midwage jobs that computers have become so good at — and nonroutine ones that require flexibility, problem-solving and human interaction.

Photo

The trading floor of the New York Stock Exchange in July 2013. Stock trading is still done by humans, to some extent, but much more by computers than in past decades. Credit Spencer Platt/Getty Images
The new study, which analyzed data from the Current Population Survey from 1976 to 2012, illustrates that the recession had a disproportionately large effect on routine jobs, and greatly sped up their loss. That is probably because even if a new technology is cheaper and more efficient than a human laborer, bosses are unlikely to fire employees and replace them with computers when times are good. The recession, however, gave them a motive. And the people who lost those jobs are generally unable to find new ones, said Henry E. Siu, an associate professor at the University of British Columbia and an author of the study.

Young people and those with only a high school diploma are much more likely to be unemployed and replaced by a machine, he said. And to the authors’ surprise, men are more vulnerable than women.

“When you look at data, women who would otherwise be finding middle-paying routine jobs tend to be moving up the job ladder to these higher-paying brain jobs, whereas men are much more likely to just be moving from blue-collar jobs into not finding a job,” said Mr. Siu, who wrote the study with Guido Matias Cortes of the University of Manchester, Nir Jaimovich of Duke University and Christopher J. Nekarda of the Federal Reserve in Washington.

The changing demographics in the United States play a small role in the loss of midwage jobs, as do policies related to offshoring, unions and the minimum wage. But the study found that two-thirds of the decline in routine jobs is explained by a drop in the number of unemployed people who can get these jobs, and an increase in the number of people who had these jobs and lost them.

And the driver behind those shifts is technology.

“Over the very long run, technological progress is good for everybody, but over shorter time horizons, it’s not that everybody’s a winner,” Mr. Siu said. “Certain demographic groups like the young and less educated in another world would be doing fine, but in today’s world are not.”


The line between jobs that are considered routine and able to be done by a machine and those that require a human brain is a blurry one and becoming blurrier, said Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee of M.I.T., authors of “The Second Machine Age.”

“There are examples up and down the spectrum,” Mr. Brynjolfsson said. “It’s a process of scientific discovery. It’s not like we know exactly which task will be next to automate.”

Already, machines are learning to do certain jobs that once seemed confined to humans, from elder care to wealth management to art. The question is what will happen if these jobs also disappear.

Correction: July 22, 2014
An earlier version of this article misspelled the surname of an associate professor at the University of British Columbia. It is Siu, not Sui.

[saturno]

[irony-ON]

Conviene observar que el debate sobre la capacidad de las máquinas para sustituir a los humanos está sesgado.

Pensamos que no será posible que una máquina alcance la capacidad de un humano, y por eso nos despreocupamos

En realidad, lo que pasará es que quienes fabriquen las máquinas. a partir de un cierto grado de desarrollo humanoide, empezarán a eliminar a aquellos humanos que no puedan ser sustituidos por sus máquinas-

Eso ya ocurre por ejemplo en medicina moderna, con los "protocolos" médicos diseñados por laboratorios siguiendo métodos estadísticos. Los pacientes que se mueren se toman en cuenta, pero como ya han muerto, ya no sirven como prueba para demostrar la incompatibilidad del "protocolo" con ciertos rasgos humanos. De tal forma que eliminando esos residuos estadísticos la ciencia moderna concluye a la validez estadística del tratamiento.

Es así como poco a poco, se van eliminando lo pacientes que no responden al tratamiento diseñado por los laboratorios. Son muchos los escándalos que se fundamentan sobre la aplicación de ese proceder científico. por otra parte intachable, según consenso de la ciencia. Y se van a multiplicar.


Pues lo mismo ocurrirá simplemente con los humanoides. Se irán eliminando los humanos incompatibles mediante un mero proceso estadístico de incompatibilidad, guiado por la búsqueda del mayor bienestar para los humanos.

Y llegará un dia en que un Doctor concluya: -- "Está estadisticamente demostrado que un humanoide ha alcanzado el nivel de su modelo".

Y se pegará un tiro en directo, delante de la mirada vacía de millones de humanos atendidos por humanoides.

[irony-OFF]

[wanderer]

In praise of idleness^* 2.0:

ANDREW J. SMART Y LA CIENCIA DE NO HACER NADA
Elogio de la holgazanería: por qué el mundo iría mejor si fuésemos bastante más vagos
 
http://bit.ly/WO7Hw7

^*: Obra más que recomendable de Bertrand Russell

[muyuu]

http://www.engadget.com/2014/07/23/technology-and-recession-are-cutting-into-blue-collar-jobs/

Technology and recession are cutting into blue collar jobs

(Con cita a lo de ayer)

The National Bureau of Economic Research just published a paper that confirms what you might have been thinking for a long time now: recession and technology have been putting people out of work. Since we've yet to design a self-aware robot or AI that can do anything, machines have mostly been taking over routine jobs that entail repetitive tasks, like factory work and sales. Sure, humans are perfectly capable of doing those, but the recession has been forcing companies to downsize and delegate those tasks to computers and machineries instead. Those most affected by this shift are the young and less educated -- high school graduates, for one, are the first in line for unemployment. Men are also more in danger of being replaced by machines than women, who tend to climb up from blue-collar jobs to higher-paying ones over time.

Surprisingly, changing demographics and outsourcing to other countries apparently aren't huge factors in the loss of jobs in the US, according to the study. It's really the combination of technology and recession that's to blame. And, as we're bound to develop more advanced computers and robots, the roster of "routine jobs" that can be handled by machines can only grow. As study author and University of British Columbia professor Henry E. Siu says:

Over the very long run, technological progress is good for everybody, but over shorter time horizons, it's not that everybody's a winner.

[Marv]

[irony-ON]

Conviene observar que el debate sobre la capacidad de las máquinas para sustituir a los humanos está sesgado.

Pensamos que no será posible que una máquina alcance la capacidad de un humano, y por eso nos despreocupamos

En realidad, lo que pasará es que quienes fabriquen las máquinas. a partir de un cierto grado de desarrollo humanoide, empezarán a eliminar a aquellos humanos que no puedan ser sustituidos por sus máquinas-

Eso ya ocurre por ejemplo en medicina moderna, con los "protocolos" médicos diseñados por laboratorios siguiendo métodos estadísticos. Los pacientes que se mueren se toman en cuenta, pero como ya han muerto, ya no sirven como prueba para demostrar la incompatibilidad del "protocolo" con ciertos rasgos humanos. De tal forma que eliminando esos residuos estadísticos la ciencia moderna concluye a la validez estadística del tratamiento.

Es así como poco a poco, se van eliminando lo pacientes que no responden al tratamiento diseñado por los laboratorios. Son muchos los escándalos que se fundamentan sobre la aplicación de ese proceder científico. por otra parte intachable, según consenso de la ciencia. Y se van a multiplicar.


Pues lo mismo ocurrirá simplemente con los humanoides. Se irán eliminando los humanos incompatibles mediante un mero proceso estadístico de incompatibilidad, guiado por la búsqueda del mayor bienestar para los humanos.

Y llegará un dia en que un Doctor concluya: -- "Está estadisticamente demostrado que un humanoide ha alcanzado el nivel de su modelo".

Y se pegará un tiro en directo, delante de la mirada vacía de millones de humanos atendidos por humanoides.

[irony-OFF]

Cojonudo, Saturno, de verdad.

Además no es que esto pudiera ocurrir en el futuro, es que precisamente lo que comentas es el presente, solo que aún no están los "humanoides", pero... ¿Qué es un proceso formalizado, incluso cuando no es industrial ni automático? ¿Qué es un procedimiento?

Todo eso son algoritmos con implementación no-automátizada.

Y eso es lo que ya, hace muuuchos años, está echando a la gente al paro. Y es lo que ya, hace muchos años se carga la autoridad/discrecionalidad del funcionario (un sistema de incentivos es otro algoritmo), y es lo que está haciendo que los sistemas cada vez estén menos en manos de personas, con juicio, con voluntad, con criterio de decisión.

Y el triunfo actual que vende la empresa posmoderna es básicamente ese, que da igual gestionar una siderurgia que un servicio de comidas, porque todo son procesos, procedimientos, normas, formatos, estandarizaciones....

O sea que el problema del fin del trabajo, sólo se agudiza con la automatización, pero ésta no es el desencadenante, sino el acelerador.

Recientemente he visto con claridad un ejemplo demasiado cercano, desafortunadamente. Una persona valiosísima por su conocimiento y valor profesional, descartada en un proceso de regulación de empleo porque no encajaba en el modelo de negocio que se quiere implantar. Y es que se trata de una persona con criterio, que es capaz de decir no a quien sea, cuando hay que decirlo. Pero sobre todo, porque estaba en contra del modelo (no muerto sino favelizador) en el que pretenden insistir.

Unas pocas tandas de despidos más, y la empresa será exactamente lo que los procedimientos han terminado por moldear. Una vez la tecnología esté depurada, sustituir a todo el personal por máquinas será casi trivial. Sólo arriba se mantiene una cantidad de poder real, lamentablemente, como sabemos por el CEOismo, casi siempre para mal.

La dirección corporativa profesionalizada es un rentismo no sólo de sueldo, sino también de poder (entendido como capacidad de decisión y discrecionalidad). Es el único sitio donde se decide; incluso los dueños (accionistas) no deciden una mierda muchas veces.

[Mad Men]

Que opináis de reducir la jornada laboral?

Puede ser una buena opción.Reduciría el paro, disminuiría el estrés de los trabajadores,aumentaría la productividad, dejaría tiempo libre para estar con la familia o amigos....

Es viable?

[Marv]

Repartir el trabajo no es la solución. Lo que hay que repartir es la renta, y desvincular la renta del empleo.

Pero puestos a analizarlo como medida transitoria o parche, repartir el trabajo me parece algo tan problemático como bajar el precio de la vivienda. ¿Como vas a convencer a los empleadores de que pongan a dos personas durante cuatro horas si pueden poner a una durante doce (sólo ocho oficiales)? ¿Los convencemos con razones transicionistas, repitiendo el éxito cosechado entre los propietarios de pisitos para que rebajen a la mitad de precio ?

El fin del trabajo implica, entre otras cosas, que si mantienes el modelo de reparto de renta a través de los salarios, vas a la favelación sin solución de continuidad, porque cada vez hay más gente dispuesta a más sacrificios para obtener el codiciado "puesto de trabajo", que sólo es un espejismo, hasta la siguiente ola destructiva.

Sólo se podría intentar -que no hacer- un reparto del trabajo por la coacción más pura regulatoriamente hablando, con lo que la reacción automáica ya sabemos cuál sería probablemente: más actividad en negro o más chanchullismo.

Además lo de repartir el trabajo no debe de funcionar muy bien entre la población cuando no lo ha intentado ya el falso-socialismo.

Yo de rojo tengo muy poco, pero si vamos a dirigir/controlar la economía hasta el nivel más extremo -o engañarnos con que puede hacerse sin consecuencias-, entonces directamente volvamos sobre la utopía socialista y dejémonos de apaños. O montamos una China versión española y terminamos antes. Los salarios chungos ya los tenemos.

[Mad Men]

Repartir el trabajo no es la solución. Lo que hay que repartir es la renta, y desvincular la renta del empleo.

Pero puestos a analizarlo como medida transitoria o parche, repartir el trabajo me parece algo tan problemático como bajar el precio de la vivienda. ¿Como vas a convencer a los empleadores de que pongan a dos personas durante cuatro horas si pueden poner a una durante doce (sólo ocho oficiales)? ¿Los convencemos con razones transicionistas, repitiendo el éxito cosechado entre los propietarios de pisitos para que rebajen a la mitad de precio ?

El fin del trabajo implica, entre otras cosas, que si mantienes el modelo de reparto de renta a través de los salarios, vas a la favelación sin solución de continuidad, porque cada vez hay más gente dispuesta a más sacrificios para obtener el codiciado "puesto de trabajo", que sólo es un espejismo, hasta la siguiente ola destructiva.

Sólo se podría intentar -que no hacer- un reparto del trabajo por la coacción más pura regulatoriamente hablando, con lo que la reacción automáica ya sabemos cuál sería probablemente: más actividad en negro o más chanchullismo.

Además lo de repartir el trabajo no debe de funcionar muy bien entre la población cuando no lo ha intentado ya el falso-socialismo.

Yo de rojo tengo muy poco, pero si vamos a dirigir/controlar la economía hasta el nivel más extremo -o engañarnos con que puede hacerse sin consecuencias-, entonces directamente volvamos sobre la utopía socialista y dejémonos de apaños. O montamos una China versión española y terminamos antes. Los salarios chungos ya los tenemos.

No se que decirte. En Suecia han experimentado en ciertas fábricas reducir la jornada laboral a 6 horas y por lo que parece funciona y muy bien, la rentabilidad por hora es mejor, menos bajas, menos problemas de estrés, cansancio.... También creo que en Ohio han instaurado una jornada laboral de tres días en ciertos sectores del funcionariado y de fábula, reducción de costes y aumento de productividad.

Que en España somos unos negreros? Sin duda, muchos colegas curran hasta 60 horas semanales sin ser cobradas, y algunos con contratos de media jornada. Pero creo que eso es un problema legal, más inspectores y sanciones más severas.

Vamos que yo no lo veo descabellado y lo veo mejor que la RBU, así todo el mundo participa y se siente útil.

Hay muchos estudios serios que lo plantean como una muy buena opción.

[Marv]

A ver, que funciona lo sabemos todos.

Precisamente lo que he dicho es que, funcionando o no, vayas tú y se lo digas al cortijero del polígano. Llégate en un momentillo y le dices que con 35 horas, la productividad aumenta a medio plazo, y en el largo plazo se hace mucho más sostenible por la satisfacción general de la plantilla... 

Y otra cosa. Si tú dices que se han hecho experimentos, cosa que no dudo de entrada, ¿están adoptando esas políticas las empresas cool, modennas y bienpensantes del planeta, como Google o Apple por decir unas? ¿O por el contrario sus cerebritos -que lo son- no pegan ojo currando 14 horas full-connected, aunque dicen que lo hacen porque es un 'desafío profesional'?

[Mad Men]

A ver, que funciona lo sabemos todos.

Precisamente lo que he dicho es que, funcionando o no, vayas tú y se lo digas al cortijero del polígano. Llégate en un momentillo y le dices que con 35 horas, la productividad aumenta a medio plazo, y en el largo plazo se hace mucho más sostenible por la satisfacción general de la plantilla... 

Y otra cosa. Si tú dices que se han hecho experimentos, cosa que no dudo de entrada, ¿están adoptando esas políticas las empresas cool, modennas y bienpensantes del planeta, como Google o Apple por decir unas? ¿O por el contrario sus cerebritos -que lo son- no pegan ojo currando 14 horas full-connected, aunque dicen que lo hacen porque es un 'desafío profesional'?

Ese es el principal obstáculo, las empresas. Al concentrar el trabajo, pueden esclavizar al trabajador amenazándolo de que hay mucha gente en la cola para conseguir su puesto.

[muyuu]

Ese asunto es muchísimo más complejo de lo que me parece que das a entender, Mad Men.

[Datum]

Ese asunto es muchísimo más complejo de lo que me parece que das a entender, Mad Men.

Hablando de esclavos.

Un empresario que automatiza y robotiza su empresa al máximo es totalmente  dependiente y esclavo de  la empresa de robotica  y automatismos.

[Zelig]

Se está repartiendo el trabajo ahora mismo en España. Curra dos semanas al mes uno otras dos semanas otro. La cifras de paro dan para una rueda de prensa del plasma, la realidad sigue otro camino.
Vuelvo al eterno ya. Se reparte el trabajo, pero no el consumo, así que de nuevo a dar vueltas al molino sin echar trigo para hacer harina. El resultado es el mismo, no funciona.