The end of middle management?
(BBC) As the US election season gets underway, American politicians are rolling out their usual lines about creating jobs for the middle class. It’s a terrific sentiment, but if they’re talking about the middle class that used to populate middle-management jobs in offices around the country, I’m sorry to report that that train has left the station.
The sad truth is that middle management is on its way to becoming virtually extinct. While there will always be some people supervising the work of other people, changes in technology, business culture and demographics are all conspiring to upend what has long been standard practice in companies.
We should no longer expect traditional job ladders for managers to move up the ranks, or even retaining the notion that middle managers are the glue that connects workers and ensures goal alignment up and down the hierarchy.
This is different.
Replaced by computers
While lauded, technological advances have already taken their toll on lower-level jobs. Office software, including email, enables executive assistants to take on more work. ATMs replace tellers; Amazon eliminates store clerks; automated toll-free numbers have reduced the need for customer service reps. ...................(more)
http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20150624-the-end-of-middle-management
= new reply since forum marked as read
SO eays to talk behind a computer screen. 
Destroying jobs is harm...anyone can see that.
The choice to use these tools or not is entirely up to humans. Screwdrivers are no safer or more dangerous, even though there's no "law" saying screwdrivers should do no harm to humans.
Plus it's the first law of robotics, per Asimov, and not "computers". Computers aren't robots in Asimov's world, all of which (or "whom"
had some form of AI.
Don't know about robots in R.U.R., haven't read much Capek.
"Harm" is an interesting verb, come to think of it. It can mean "do harm" said of the agent or of a tool. If the former, I can still state the tool using the usual function words: "John harmed Jim with a screwdriver." If I promote the tool to subject, I'm in trouble: "The screwdriver harmed Jim _____ John." I'd have to say something like "in the hands of" or "as used by". But if I passivize it, "Jim was harmed by ________" can end with either "screwdriver" or "John." Just another case where grammatical and semantic roles don't match up, I guess.
That one fucked em up good! 
