Hacker News Reader

>There are two kinds of jobs that robots will have a hard time replacing:

Three - add anything which is primarily social.

I think hairdressing will be one of the most resilient jobs. Not only is there a huge market for it, but it requires a certain basic level of dexterity, and it's primarily social. The talking is at least as important as the hair cutting, and it's going to be a while before robots can replace it.

Makes me happy I learned the trade of barbering in my dad's barbershop as a teenager. There is still a part of me that some day would like to unglue myself from the computer and return to the shop.

I understand your feelings. A part of me wants to unglue from the computer and be a baker.

There's probably a market for very cheap, simple silent haircuts.

There is most definitely a market, and these guys are killing it in East Asia: http://www.qbhouse.com/

A better link is http://www.qbhouse.com/sg/about/ which kind of explains what it is. And as far as I can see it's all about cheap, efficient haircuts. I can't see how this is a thing! Of course, I'm not sure how Krispy Kreme got to be such a phenomena here either, so what do I know. But, the duration of my haircut never struck me as something I really needed to optimize.

Hairdressing may be resilient for some people, but my eyes were opened in Singapore when I went to "K-Cuts" - which is as close to an automated hair-cut as you can get. Full haircut, in 10 minutes for S$10. Nobody speaks english, so talking isn't an option. They use vacuums to collect your hair. I hold up three fingers, point to the top of my head, two fingers, point to the side. That's the sum total of guidance.

And these places are busy - my guess is there will be an automated haircut place in <10 years, and they will pick up 90% of the business within 5 years.

People will always go to custom hair cut places, but I bet there are a lot of people who will be keen to pay a small amount of money to get a reasonable hair cut.

Your anecdote is good to keep in mind, I learned something. While I don't think the US has any auto-cut places (oh the liability!), we certainly have had infomercials selling vacuum haircutting machines for a while[0]. I'm not sure they've made a huge dent in the beauty industry to date.

Beauty is not an industry that a bit of tech pixie dust will magically transform. Haircuts aren't just a utility, they're a personal statement and a piece of one's identity. And as a previous poster indicated, it's also social and cultural. Plus the variety of people's hair and variety of desired cuts make it an incredibly complex and fine motor skill, one that robots will suck at for a very long time. And people rarely know exactly what they want when they go into a hair salon, so there's a service component there too. Beauty just isn't ripe for disruption because people and culture are so involved.

I think this is similar to the soylent discussions. Food-as-utility people think its great, but food has cultural value far beyond calorie intake. So its found its niche among products that already existed (sans tech pixie dust) - the nutritional shake market.

90% is an order of magnitude off in my opinion. But I agree that a place that offers reasonable hair cut for cheap is what many people would want, so I do look forward to your future where that is offered!

[0] http://www.flowbee.com/ http://www.haircut.com/ http://www.aircut.com/

I'm really interested in finding out - at $10/haircut/10 minutes - It's the sort of thing you can do casually every couple weeks without even thinking about it.

Definitely agree that there will be some people who absolutely will want to go to a hair salon - and, honestly, my 90% was just a thumb-in-the-wind estimate. You're probably right that it's high, but, never underestimate the desire for people to get a good deal.

I think your Soylent comparison is excellent - and is exactly the one I would make. People who see food in a utilitarian perspective see the value offered from soylent. Likewise, people who consider haircuts as the process required to rid themselves of the excess hair, will get a lot of value out of an automated hair cut establishment.

I would definitely buy a robot hair cut if it was fast, cheap, and worked well.

> but the Paul Krugmans and David Brooks of the world will be engineered out in the next decade or so by bots that troll the web for stories and generate canned ideologically-loaded commentary based on a smattering of data sources

Characterising a Nobel-winning economist as a content troll says more about you than him.

Krugman is a Nobel-winning economist. He is also a loudmouth ideologue who writes a column, in which he makes authoritative statements that have nothing to do with the research that won him a Nobel. He trades on that prestige, but he's no better than a highly-ideologically-driven professional-economist-but-out-of-his-area-of-specialty in most of what he writes. I have seen him rip Republicans for the same behavior that he lauds Democrats for.

I wouldn't call him a troll. I would call him a shill. And no, that's not not saying more about me. It really is about him.

I doubt you read his column. Whether you agree with him or not he provides tons of economics data for his arguments. His topics are frequently technical. I'd say at least 70% of his topics have to do with what he is a Harvard professor for.

> I doubt you read his column. Whether you agree with him or not he provides tons of economics data for his arguments.

Yeah, that post seems kind of bizarre to me. Is Krugman partisan? Absolutely, and he admits it. Can he be - compared to most of the professional commentariat - abrasive and rude? Yes, and he admits it. [1] At the same time he is a cheerleader for Nate Silver and data-driven analysis. This is definitely reflected in his blog posts though somewhat less so in his columns (which do tend to be fluffier for a popular audience.) Half of his writing since the beginning of the recession has been deriding narrative-based analysis and demonstrating that the data contradicts it.

He does of course sometimes write about subjects outside his expertise - he wrote a lot about the Iraq War, for example - and he sometimes shades his economics with political analysis, but I wouldn't go so far as calling him a shill. Krugman is obviously derisive of most Republicans, but he has been decidedly unhappy about most post-2008 Democratic policies.

Krugman is basically the only mainstream political pundit I read at all, because you can actually learn a lot from what he writes.

I can see machines replacing David Brooks, but it will be a tragic day when we lose such a fitting (though well-intentioned) subject for mockery.

[1] He gives his reasons here: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/wild-words-brain...

I know that this is a useless point to make because of the prevailing political propaganda, but Krugman is a highly trained, accomplished and creative academic economist, he provides exactly the kind of "sophisticated commentary" that you say might last. David Brooks I agree could be replaced by a robot.

I understand your point, but I disagree.

It may take some time, but many of these 'awkward' jobs too will disappear. Once the house is the machine, the problem of maintaining it becomes a lot simpler. In fact, these environments may look nothing like a house (I would expect the first iteration to focus on low-cost functionality over form). Such machines could eliminate the need for independent robots or human labour.

"No way was I going to click on a headline that read like this one"

...why?