What do you think?
Rate this book
Redback Quarterly #13
Changing Jobs: The Fair Go in the New Machine Age
An essential guide to the future of work in Australia.
For many Australians, rapid progress in artificial intelligence, robotics and automation is a growing anxiety. What will it mean for jobs? What will it mean for their kids’ futures? More broadly, what will it mean for equality in this country?
Jim Chalmers and Mike Quigley believe that bursts in technology need not result in bursts of inequality, that we can combine technological change with the fair go. But first we need to understand what’s happening to work, and what’s likely to happen.
This is a timely, informative and authoritative book about the changing face of work, and how best to approach it – at both a personal and a political level.
For many Australians, rapid progress in artificial intelligence, robotics and automation is a growing anxiety. What will it mean for jobs? What will it mean for their kids’ futures? More broadly, what will it mean for equality in this country?
Jim Chalmers and Mike Quigley believe that bursts in technology need not result in bursts of inequality, that we can combine technological change with the fair go. But first we need to understand what’s happening to work, and what’s likely to happen.
This is a timely, informative and authoritative book about the changing face of work, and how best to approach it – at both a personal and a political level.
208 pages, Paperback
First published September 1, 2017
4 people are currently reading
64 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
May 29, 2018
This book was mostly written as a vehicle for a number of policy recommendations the authors want to place before the public and politicians in relation to the likely and dramatic changing face of work over the next couple of decades. They see these policy suggestions as being in line with the Australian ethos of ‘a fair go’ and believe these may alleviate some of the worst of what is about to come so that it does not result in even greater inequality or in the waste of an ever-growing proportion of the population. I’m not nearly as interested in these policy pronouncements as I was in the rest of the book, not least since I doubt any government likely to come to power in Australia would consider them and also since I doubt they will make the slightest difference even if they were implemented in full.
It’s not that I think the policy advice they offer is all that bad – but I do think most of it is so focused on saving capitalism from itself, it might have been better to have looked a bit more squarely at the apparent direction of current economic development as, say, Bauman does elsewhere (say, in Work, Consumerism and the New Poor), and questioned if ‘work’ – as currently defined – is really the great boon it is taken for granted to be here. Much of the evidence presented at the start of this book suggests that for a large proportion of the population work is simply not going to be an available option and this is likely to occur very soon. While previous shifts in the industrial landscape have destroyed many jobs, they generally have created many more. The current situation is unusual in that new industries barely employ anyone. The quote from this I’ve been reading to people repeatedly over the last couple of days is:
“In 2013, Facebook’s workforce was fewer than 8000 people, compared to IBM with approximately 430,000 and Dell with about 109,000. When Amazon bought video-streaming company Twitch in 2014 for a little under US$1 billion, it had 170 employees. When Instagram was bought by Facebook for US$1 billion in 2012, it employed thirteen people.” Page 83
When billion dollar companies employ 13 people, the hope for a new mass employment industry is going to be hard to find. As they point out earlier in the book, “As of 2010, only half of 1 per cent of all jobs in the US are in industries that came into existence after the year 2000” Page 21. Put simply, new industries are capital intensive, not labour intensive – and if that is the case, then where are the jobs of the future going to come from?
Key to the policy advice presented here is the idea that we need to make people study STEM, or to study subjects that make them more computationally analytical, or more aware of human biases and cognitive errors, or better able to engage with computers on AI on their own terms – and while I don’t think this is terrible advice, I also don’t think it is going to help. There are real problems with this advice that are even acknowledged in the text. One of the problems is that STEM subjects are hard and they are often pursued by people for the wrong reasons – for instance, they are often pursued by people who think it will land them a particularly good job – but as is even acknowledged by the authors here, many more people qualify with STEM degrees than ever end up working in STEM fields. This in itself isn’t a tragedy, as another book I like to quote says, it is easier to turn an engineer into a manager than it is to turn a manager into an engineer. All the same, it isn’t clear why you would want to put someone through a degree learning how to become an engineer if, in the end, there are never going to do work as one. Engineering degrees do not come cheap – few degrees do – and so requiring students to do ‘hard’ degrees to get jobs that do not require them is fuelling what has become one of the key problems of our age – credential inflation.
And this is one of the themes that really isn’t addressed in this book, the exponential increase in ‘credentials’. For instance, when I was finishing my undergraduate degree I got a job in an archive and eventually became an archivist – it was one of the things that I floated into – that kind of ‘floating into jobs’ is much more rare now – to become an archivist today you would be much more likely to require to have a degree qualifying you to be a librarian. One of the main problems is that the middle jobs are all going, as are many of the jobs that people used to do as a way to enter the labour force. Today ‘experience’ is often more important than qualification – lots of young people have qualifications, few young people have experience – and that then becomes the thing that differentiates those seeking employment. And yet too often the advice we give young people is for them to get even more qualifications and become ‘lifelong learners’. Don’t get me wrong, I think this is exactly what we all ought to be all of our lives, but it isn’t clear that such an attitude will actually guarantee you a job.
I’m going to just provide some quotes now from the text:
In a related area, the growing capability of AI to perform medical diagnosis may result in medical training focusing more on communication and accurately establishing symptoms and less on diagnosis. 17
The jobs that are not so easily displaced by robots and / AI are the non-routine jobs that require a high level of physical dexterity, situational awareness or intensive human interaction, or those requiring high levels of creativity, analytical skills or emotional intelligence. 17-18
In the late 1980s, Hans Moravec noted that high-level reasoning requires relatively little computational power, but simulating low-level sensorimotor skills requires considerable computational resources. 19
‘Job polarisation’ has been a trend in labour markets for some time. It is characterised by a reduction in the demand for middle-income jobs and a relative increase in demand for both low-income and high-income jobs. 20
As of 2010, only half of 1 per cent of all jobs in the US are in industries that came into existence after the year 2000. 21
The top 20 per cent of US individuals receive more than the total increase in wealth from 1983 to 2009 because the wealth of the bottom 80 per cent decreased during this period. 22
What Frey and Osborne found is that both salary and educational level are inversely related to the susceptibility to automation and computerisation. 59
Jobs with salaries of less than £30,000 a year are almost five times more likely to be lost to automation than jobs with salaries of more than £100,000 a year. 60
globally, while almost half of the individual activities that make up jobs could be automated using today’s technology, less than 5 per cent of today’s jobs could be fully automated. But that’s not to say they can’t be partially automated; at least 30 per cent of tasks are automatable in more than 60 per cent of jobs. 64
The categories of interpersonal, creative and information synthesis were projected to increase from just under half of all work activity to almost 70 per cent over the thirty years from 2000 to 2030. A corresponding reduction in the other three categories – information analysis, predictable physical and unpredictable physical – was expected too. 65
A recent CSIRO report noted, ‘the information revolution will not be limited to manual jobs. Its impact will lie heavily, if not mostly, within the service sector industries that account for over two-thirds of the Australian economy’. 66
professional jobs in areas such as law, healthcare, consulting and accounting are unlikely to continue in their current state. Major changes to these professions, they say, may in fact be beneficial to society: ‘By and large, our professions are unaffordable, under-exploiting technology, disempowering, ethically challengeable, underperforming, and inscrutable.’ 87
All up, the top 1 per cent is wealthier than the bottom 70 per cent of Australians. 75
This hollowing-out doesn’t mean the middle class are necessarily ending up without work. It means they have ‘cascaded down to compete with those in low-paid jobs’. The end result is an hourglass economy made up of high income and low income earners, with fewer in the middle. 80
In 2013, Facebook’s workforce was fewer than 8000 people, compared to IBM with approximately 430,000 and Dell with about 109,000. When Amazon bought video-streaming company Twitch in 2014 for a little under US$1 billion, it had 170 employees. When Instagram was bought by Facebook for US$1 billion in 2012, it employed thirteen people. 83
This trend supports the Australian Council of Trade Union’s 2013 findings that there has been a significant ‘decoupling’ of wages and productivity since the turn of the century. 84
Tyler Cowen succinctly sums up the stark reality: ‘If you and your skills are a complement to the computer, your wage and labor market prospects likely to be cheery. If your skills do not complement the computer, you may want to address that mismatch. Ever more people are starting to fall on one side of the divide or the other. 89
migrants hold almost all of the full-time jobs created in Australia since 2007. He noted that migrants didn’t display the local-born; they just took the cream of the new positions on offer, most notably in the professions 92
As the famous American mathematician and computer scientist Donald E Knuth puts it: ‘it has often been said that a person does not really understand something until he (sic) teaches it to someone else. Actually a person does not really understand something until he (sic) can teach it to a computer, i.e., express it as an algorithm…’ 111
‘For the foreseeable future, the challenge of ‘cybernation’ is not mass unemployment but the need to educate many more young people for the jobs computers cannot do.’ 114
‘While children learn much of their vocabulary from the home and environment, children learn most of their mathematics in schools, giving schools more leverage in developing students’ mathematics skills’ 115
The shift away from life-long employment has been occurring for some time. Workers are now only staying in jobs, on average, for about 3.3 years. Social research group McCrindle worked out that, on current trends, a school leaver in 2014 would have seventeen different employers and five completely different careers in their lifetime. 133
Another key reason to modernise our statistical base is to help find new ways to monetise people’s contribution to companies that accrue massive profits, while those who actually provide them with their ‘free’ products, like metadata or information, receive targeted advertising and marketing, but no financial compensation. 147
But no government can tackle this challenge alone, solely within its own borders or without the engagement of its citizens. We also require a change of mind at the grassroots; a culture and love of learning, and self-improvement; and a communal appreciation and understanding that we need to reposition ourselves if we are to survive and thrive / in the labour market of the new machine age. 151/152
It’s not that I think the policy advice they offer is all that bad – but I do think most of it is so focused on saving capitalism from itself, it might have been better to have looked a bit more squarely at the apparent direction of current economic development as, say, Bauman does elsewhere (say, in Work, Consumerism and the New Poor), and questioned if ‘work’ – as currently defined – is really the great boon it is taken for granted to be here. Much of the evidence presented at the start of this book suggests that for a large proportion of the population work is simply not going to be an available option and this is likely to occur very soon. While previous shifts in the industrial landscape have destroyed many jobs, they generally have created many more. The current situation is unusual in that new industries barely employ anyone. The quote from this I’ve been reading to people repeatedly over the last couple of days is:
“In 2013, Facebook’s workforce was fewer than 8000 people, compared to IBM with approximately 430,000 and Dell with about 109,000. When Amazon bought video-streaming company Twitch in 2014 for a little under US$1 billion, it had 170 employees. When Instagram was bought by Facebook for US$1 billion in 2012, it employed thirteen people.” Page 83
When billion dollar companies employ 13 people, the hope for a new mass employment industry is going to be hard to find. As they point out earlier in the book, “As of 2010, only half of 1 per cent of all jobs in the US are in industries that came into existence after the year 2000” Page 21. Put simply, new industries are capital intensive, not labour intensive – and if that is the case, then where are the jobs of the future going to come from?
Key to the policy advice presented here is the idea that we need to make people study STEM, or to study subjects that make them more computationally analytical, or more aware of human biases and cognitive errors, or better able to engage with computers on AI on their own terms – and while I don’t think this is terrible advice, I also don’t think it is going to help. There are real problems with this advice that are even acknowledged in the text. One of the problems is that STEM subjects are hard and they are often pursued by people for the wrong reasons – for instance, they are often pursued by people who think it will land them a particularly good job – but as is even acknowledged by the authors here, many more people qualify with STEM degrees than ever end up working in STEM fields. This in itself isn’t a tragedy, as another book I like to quote says, it is easier to turn an engineer into a manager than it is to turn a manager into an engineer. All the same, it isn’t clear why you would want to put someone through a degree learning how to become an engineer if, in the end, there are never going to do work as one. Engineering degrees do not come cheap – few degrees do – and so requiring students to do ‘hard’ degrees to get jobs that do not require them is fuelling what has become one of the key problems of our age – credential inflation.
And this is one of the themes that really isn’t addressed in this book, the exponential increase in ‘credentials’. For instance, when I was finishing my undergraduate degree I got a job in an archive and eventually became an archivist – it was one of the things that I floated into – that kind of ‘floating into jobs’ is much more rare now – to become an archivist today you would be much more likely to require to have a degree qualifying you to be a librarian. One of the main problems is that the middle jobs are all going, as are many of the jobs that people used to do as a way to enter the labour force. Today ‘experience’ is often more important than qualification – lots of young people have qualifications, few young people have experience – and that then becomes the thing that differentiates those seeking employment. And yet too often the advice we give young people is for them to get even more qualifications and become ‘lifelong learners’. Don’t get me wrong, I think this is exactly what we all ought to be all of our lives, but it isn’t clear that such an attitude will actually guarantee you a job.
I’m going to just provide some quotes now from the text:
In a related area, the growing capability of AI to perform medical diagnosis may result in medical training focusing more on communication and accurately establishing symptoms and less on diagnosis. 17
The jobs that are not so easily displaced by robots and / AI are the non-routine jobs that require a high level of physical dexterity, situational awareness or intensive human interaction, or those requiring high levels of creativity, analytical skills or emotional intelligence. 17-18
In the late 1980s, Hans Moravec noted that high-level reasoning requires relatively little computational power, but simulating low-level sensorimotor skills requires considerable computational resources. 19
‘Job polarisation’ has been a trend in labour markets for some time. It is characterised by a reduction in the demand for middle-income jobs and a relative increase in demand for both low-income and high-income jobs. 20
As of 2010, only half of 1 per cent of all jobs in the US are in industries that came into existence after the year 2000. 21
The top 20 per cent of US individuals receive more than the total increase in wealth from 1983 to 2009 because the wealth of the bottom 80 per cent decreased during this period. 22
What Frey and Osborne found is that both salary and educational level are inversely related to the susceptibility to automation and computerisation. 59
Jobs with salaries of less than £30,000 a year are almost five times more likely to be lost to automation than jobs with salaries of more than £100,000 a year. 60
globally, while almost half of the individual activities that make up jobs could be automated using today’s technology, less than 5 per cent of today’s jobs could be fully automated. But that’s not to say they can’t be partially automated; at least 30 per cent of tasks are automatable in more than 60 per cent of jobs. 64
The categories of interpersonal, creative and information synthesis were projected to increase from just under half of all work activity to almost 70 per cent over the thirty years from 2000 to 2030. A corresponding reduction in the other three categories – information analysis, predictable physical and unpredictable physical – was expected too. 65
A recent CSIRO report noted, ‘the information revolution will not be limited to manual jobs. Its impact will lie heavily, if not mostly, within the service sector industries that account for over two-thirds of the Australian economy’. 66
professional jobs in areas such as law, healthcare, consulting and accounting are unlikely to continue in their current state. Major changes to these professions, they say, may in fact be beneficial to society: ‘By and large, our professions are unaffordable, under-exploiting technology, disempowering, ethically challengeable, underperforming, and inscrutable.’ 87
All up, the top 1 per cent is wealthier than the bottom 70 per cent of Australians. 75
This hollowing-out doesn’t mean the middle class are necessarily ending up without work. It means they have ‘cascaded down to compete with those in low-paid jobs’. The end result is an hourglass economy made up of high income and low income earners, with fewer in the middle. 80
In 2013, Facebook’s workforce was fewer than 8000 people, compared to IBM with approximately 430,000 and Dell with about 109,000. When Amazon bought video-streaming company Twitch in 2014 for a little under US$1 billion, it had 170 employees. When Instagram was bought by Facebook for US$1 billion in 2012, it employed thirteen people. 83
This trend supports the Australian Council of Trade Union’s 2013 findings that there has been a significant ‘decoupling’ of wages and productivity since the turn of the century. 84
Tyler Cowen succinctly sums up the stark reality: ‘If you and your skills are a complement to the computer, your wage and labor market prospects likely to be cheery. If your skills do not complement the computer, you may want to address that mismatch. Ever more people are starting to fall on one side of the divide or the other. 89
migrants hold almost all of the full-time jobs created in Australia since 2007. He noted that migrants didn’t display the local-born; they just took the cream of the new positions on offer, most notably in the professions 92
As the famous American mathematician and computer scientist Donald E Knuth puts it: ‘it has often been said that a person does not really understand something until he (sic) teaches it to someone else. Actually a person does not really understand something until he (sic) can teach it to a computer, i.e., express it as an algorithm…’ 111
‘For the foreseeable future, the challenge of ‘cybernation’ is not mass unemployment but the need to educate many more young people for the jobs computers cannot do.’ 114
‘While children learn much of their vocabulary from the home and environment, children learn most of their mathematics in schools, giving schools more leverage in developing students’ mathematics skills’ 115
The shift away from life-long employment has been occurring for some time. Workers are now only staying in jobs, on average, for about 3.3 years. Social research group McCrindle worked out that, on current trends, a school leaver in 2014 would have seventeen different employers and five completely different careers in their lifetime. 133
Another key reason to modernise our statistical base is to help find new ways to monetise people’s contribution to companies that accrue massive profits, while those who actually provide them with their ‘free’ products, like metadata or information, receive targeted advertising and marketing, but no financial compensation. 147
But no government can tackle this challenge alone, solely within its own borders or without the engagement of its citizens. We also require a change of mind at the grassroots; a culture and love of learning, and self-improvement; and a communal appreciation and understanding that we need to reposition ourselves if we are to survive and thrive / in the labour market of the new machine age. 151/152
October 7, 2017
I may do a longer review at some later time, as I'm on my phone now. Some brief thoughts for now:
I had high expectations for this book, being the fourth of the Redback series that I've read, and I've found the others in the series to be excellent.
For the most part it lived up to my expectations. I particularly liked that rather than subscribing to some particular vision of what the future of our workforce will look like, the authors instead look at a range of possibilities and focus on policy suggestions that cope well with the future, whatever the outcome. I'm struggling to find it in the book now but I believe they talk about developing "no regrets" suggestions.
Many of the ideas floated in the book serve mainly as the start of a conversation rather than well developed policy ideas. This is a sort of half criticism. No doubt it's important that we start to have this conversation, and the authors say that for the most part they are talking about changes to be implemented over the coming decades. I do however wish that some of the ideas were fleshed out just that little bit more. Much of the book focuses instead on ambiguous future possibilities, and the skills that are likely to be needed in the future labour market.
I felt that in some areas the authors made some pretty broad claims and assumptions. For example the early assertion that we've "never had it better" than right now. I think this is highly debatable. The regular use of the term "fair go" as a indisputable Australian value also irks me, as does the idea that we are at heart an egalitarian society. Any recent watching of popular mass media might give you a different idea, as does some of the current trends towards populist politics. Shaming the unemployed, our shameful treatment of refugees, welfare cuts etc. are all within cultural/political norms.
I raised an eyebrow at their one page dismissal of the concept of universal basic income as "desperate" but will withhold further judgement until I've done further research. Guy Standings "Universal Basic Income" is on my reading list, and (as mentioned in the book) Finland is trialing the idea. From my limited understanding Finland is one of the most equal, happiest and healthiest societies in the world. This to me indicates that the idea warrants further investigation, certainly more than the instant dismissal it received here.
I guess the book partly led me to feel disappointed for a couple of other reasons. One being that I didn't feel like it gave me any new insights for personal action: I'm already spending considerable time, and money, in self education. This includes catching up on my neglected math skills. I've also seen the possibilities of job opportunities in data collection, analysis, statistics etc. and plan to make these areas a core part of my degree. Luckily for me this is likely to ensure that I'll end up in the privileged group the that technology supplement my work and increase my productivity rather than having a machine replace me.
It was difficult to decide to give the book three or four stars. I settled on four as I think it's a good starting point for an important conversation, and as mentioned earlier I liked the broad introduction to the range of possible outcomes from increasing use of technology in workplaces, and especially that the authors focus on recommendations that should place Australia in good stead regardless of the unpredictable future.
I had high expectations for this book, being the fourth of the Redback series that I've read, and I've found the others in the series to be excellent.
For the most part it lived up to my expectations. I particularly liked that rather than subscribing to some particular vision of what the future of our workforce will look like, the authors instead look at a range of possibilities and focus on policy suggestions that cope well with the future, whatever the outcome. I'm struggling to find it in the book now but I believe they talk about developing "no regrets" suggestions.
Many of the ideas floated in the book serve mainly as the start of a conversation rather than well developed policy ideas. This is a sort of half criticism. No doubt it's important that we start to have this conversation, and the authors say that for the most part they are talking about changes to be implemented over the coming decades. I do however wish that some of the ideas were fleshed out just that little bit more. Much of the book focuses instead on ambiguous future possibilities, and the skills that are likely to be needed in the future labour market.
I felt that in some areas the authors made some pretty broad claims and assumptions. For example the early assertion that we've "never had it better" than right now. I think this is highly debatable. The regular use of the term "fair go" as a indisputable Australian value also irks me, as does the idea that we are at heart an egalitarian society. Any recent watching of popular mass media might give you a different idea, as does some of the current trends towards populist politics. Shaming the unemployed, our shameful treatment of refugees, welfare cuts etc. are all within cultural/political norms.
I raised an eyebrow at their one page dismissal of the concept of universal basic income as "desperate" but will withhold further judgement until I've done further research. Guy Standings "Universal Basic Income" is on my reading list, and (as mentioned in the book) Finland is trialing the idea. From my limited understanding Finland is one of the most equal, happiest and healthiest societies in the world. This to me indicates that the idea warrants further investigation, certainly more than the instant dismissal it received here.
I guess the book partly led me to feel disappointed for a couple of other reasons. One being that I didn't feel like it gave me any new insights for personal action: I'm already spending considerable time, and money, in self education. This includes catching up on my neglected math skills. I've also seen the possibilities of job opportunities in data collection, analysis, statistics etc. and plan to make these areas a core part of my degree. Luckily for me this is likely to ensure that I'll end up in the privileged group the that technology supplement my work and increase my productivity rather than having a machine replace me.
It was difficult to decide to give the book three or four stars. I settled on four as I think it's a good starting point for an important conversation, and as mentioned earlier I liked the broad introduction to the range of possible outcomes from increasing use of technology in workplaces, and especially that the authors focus on recommendations that should place Australia in good stead regardless of the unpredictable future.
October 14, 2025
Reading this only now, it feels like we have already progressed more than this book could have expected in advances in technology. As I write this, it was only months ago that Duolingo replaced their workforce with AI.
Following along the book’s educational recommendations and advice on personal actions, I often agree. Our education system has needed an upheaval and complete restructuring for a long time now. Do I believe politicians will take these suggestions into consideration? No. Unfortunately, the Australian government is failing a lot of our nations most vulnerable. It has for a long time, not just within the education sector. I unfortunately do not see any hope in a party, or multi-party collaboration, in putting forth changes that can encourage our education system, or our social-safety nets, in this direction. We can’t even agree on housing developments, a necessity that is key to guaranteeing life enrichment.
I appreciate this books intention at heart. To want to secure safety and enrichment for all Australians. I wish I had this optimism in a system that only see for its instabilities and lack of equality for those in our society.
Generally, I would say this book fails to address the driving force in growing worker inequality. Capitalism. Hardly daring to suggest higher tax rates for these tech-billionaires they mention so frequently. Even going to the extent of suggesting an idea by Arun Sundararajan, “…a decentralised form of capital - crowd-based capitalism.”. I audibly laughed.
They scarcely attempt to level this growing disparity between workers and capital owners through a direct confrontation of an inherently exploitative systems. Rather they re-emphasise the power that capital wields within this structure, by suggesting workers own capital too. Collective ownership, a worker-led industry/business, will place more power with the workers. But expecting this be welcomed (at its most dramatic) by capital owners is a bit out of touch.
And to assume that there is an independent body that could be created with “…access to private data, as long as it was used for the public good.”………I mean come on. Am I just pessimistic? I do not feel comfortable with such a suggestion being taken on.
One of the quotes I really enjoyed from this book inspires more wonder for the studies of mathematics. Which you can hear the passion and devotion for throughout this book. “…one does not have to be a proficient scientist or mathematician to appreciate the beauty inherent in science and mathematics.”. I agree with an encouragement of intrigue in the gorgeous workings of our world I just fail to see these suggestions making change in a system that does not prioritise ‘a fair go’.
Following along the book’s educational recommendations and advice on personal actions, I often agree. Our education system has needed an upheaval and complete restructuring for a long time now. Do I believe politicians will take these suggestions into consideration? No. Unfortunately, the Australian government is failing a lot of our nations most vulnerable. It has for a long time, not just within the education sector. I unfortunately do not see any hope in a party, or multi-party collaboration, in putting forth changes that can encourage our education system, or our social-safety nets, in this direction. We can’t even agree on housing developments, a necessity that is key to guaranteeing life enrichment.
I appreciate this books intention at heart. To want to secure safety and enrichment for all Australians. I wish I had this optimism in a system that only see for its instabilities and lack of equality for those in our society.
Generally, I would say this book fails to address the driving force in growing worker inequality. Capitalism. Hardly daring to suggest higher tax rates for these tech-billionaires they mention so frequently. Even going to the extent of suggesting an idea by Arun Sundararajan, “…a decentralised form of capital - crowd-based capitalism.”. I audibly laughed.
They scarcely attempt to level this growing disparity between workers and capital owners through a direct confrontation of an inherently exploitative systems. Rather they re-emphasise the power that capital wields within this structure, by suggesting workers own capital too. Collective ownership, a worker-led industry/business, will place more power with the workers. But expecting this be welcomed (at its most dramatic) by capital owners is a bit out of touch.
And to assume that there is an independent body that could be created with “…access to private data, as long as it was used for the public good.”………I mean come on. Am I just pessimistic? I do not feel comfortable with such a suggestion being taken on.
One of the quotes I really enjoyed from this book inspires more wonder for the studies of mathematics. Which you can hear the passion and devotion for throughout this book. “…one does not have to be a proficient scientist or mathematician to appreciate the beauty inherent in science and mathematics.”. I agree with an encouragement of intrigue in the gorgeous workings of our world I just fail to see these suggestions making change in a system that does not prioritise ‘a fair go’.
October 29, 2017
Disclaimer: I skimmed this book.
Reclaimer: Which was about right.
The first few chapters of the book sets out a view of the world, and the future, without much in the way of enumerating alternative views, or rigorous argument for the one presented.
In Chapter 4, paragraph 3, they say: "The rise of populism, here and overseas, is fed by a dominant grievance: that the link between hard work and reward has been severed because the rules of the economy are written to benefit someone else."
This is stated without argument and without references. And the next paragraph begins with "We believe that...". I rest my case.
Chapter 5 is strongly based on the current Australian situation and suggested policies. The positive reviews of past policy achievements reflect mainly on one side of politics.
The rest of the book trots out a laundry list of ideas with more enthusiasm than rigour.
One of the authors is a current middle-ranking politician. One assumes the content of the book is in harmony with a broader agenda.
Still, the first few chapters are an easy-reading primer on the impact of new technologies on jobs and well-being over the ages. There are some quotes, facts and references scattered throughout.
Reclaimer: Which was about right.
The first few chapters of the book sets out a view of the world, and the future, without much in the way of enumerating alternative views, or rigorous argument for the one presented.
In Chapter 4, paragraph 3, they say: "The rise of populism, here and overseas, is fed by a dominant grievance: that the link between hard work and reward has been severed because the rules of the economy are written to benefit someone else."
This is stated without argument and without references. And the next paragraph begins with "We believe that...". I rest my case.
Chapter 5 is strongly based on the current Australian situation and suggested policies. The positive reviews of past policy achievements reflect mainly on one side of politics.
The rest of the book trots out a laundry list of ideas with more enthusiasm than rigour.
One of the authors is a current middle-ranking politician. One assumes the content of the book is in harmony with a broader agenda.
Still, the first few chapters are an easy-reading primer on the impact of new technologies on jobs and well-being over the ages. There are some quotes, facts and references scattered throughout.
January 8, 2020
Good short primer (finished in one evening) with a solid coverage of key issues and a raft of policy ideas. Nothing particularly novel but as we aren’t even doing the obvious basics yet, we probably shouldn’t be thinking about the novel solutions. Emphasis on “computational thinking” is key I think, more so than hard maths. We need many more people who can competently engage with more difficult technologies than their smartphones, rather than people who can actually write ML systems.
November 3, 2017
An amazing book on the contemporary challenges that technology pose in Australia. While some of the policy positions were a little too state heavy for my liking, none the less there was plenty there was plenty of meat on the bone.
September 24, 2017
I was hopeful as it’s rare to have something focused on AU, but in the end it was just more of the usual stuff and no new insight
October 30, 2017
I was surprised how well researched and thought out the authors made this book.
March 15, 2023
Very interesting. Written six years ago but still very relevant. We can't stop the progress of technology but we can prepare society for it and try to make sure that society doesn't become more unequal in the process. The authors discuss the issues and offer several solutions. I like the fact that they list many small things that can be done rather than come up with a single silver bullet.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews