Gioia Part Three

I almost put this post back in the queue because of the political assassinations in Minnesota, but I'll wait till we know all the facts about that before I comment. I've been poking holes in Gioia's essay but please understand I wouldn't bother if I didn't think there was a lot there that's worth thinking about. I just want us to be clear and precise in our thinking so these are intended as constructive criticisms. His part three headline is "(3) The career path for knowledge workers is breaking down—and many only have unpaid student loans to show for their years of training and preparation." 

 

This claim is difficult to evaluate because he gives a single, and in my view highly inapt example:

 

The shift here has been rapid and shocking. Not long ago, students were told “learn to code”—and that three-word phrase summed up the dominant worldview. Hard knowledge and technical skills were priceless, and everything else was worthless, a waste of your tuition dollars. But now “learn to code” sounds like a joke. Knowledge workers are getting fired everywhere. Art history majors now have an easier time finding a job than computer engineers. 

 

First of all, aren't art history majors knowledge workers? As a matter of fact the linked article says that computer science majors have an unemployment rate of 7.5%, and nutritional science majors had an unemployment rare of .04%. So first of all, the vast majority of computer engineers are employed, and other categories of knowledge workers are doing quite well, thank you. Anyway, is coding really "knowledge work"? It's a technical job, sure, but it is incredibly tedious and it requires absolutely no judgment or self-reflection. Coders have no responsibility for the uses to which their work will be put, and the work is no more interesting or intrinsically rewarding than bolting cars together. 

 

There may be a canary in the coal mine phenomenon going on here -- there may be. Computer programming is increasingly automated -- i.e., computers now write computer code. It still needs checking and fixing by humans, but the number of people needed to do that is fewer than when people were drafting all the code in the first place. So computing technology is indeed replacing human labor. Of course word processing long ago displaced most secretaries, and travel agencies have also largely gone the way of the hansom cab driver. The printing press put scribes out of business. Technology has been displacing human brains as well as brawn for a long time. Maybe that process is accelerating but the returns to a college education are still greater than ever. 

 

So no, just because computer programs aren't in as much demand as they were four years ago doesn't mean that the knowledge system is collapsing or that human knowledge and cognitive skills are already obsolete. In and of itself, it doesn't mean much at all.