Economy
Related: About this forumAutomation Can Actually Create More Jobs
Last edited Thu Dec 15, 2016, 10:29 AM - Edit history (4)
Pay per view. I'll add more text when I can.
ETA, Wednesday night: hat tip to eLibrary, my public library's database, which had the article.
Evidence shows increased productivity leads to more wealth, cheaper goods, greater spending power and ultimately, more jobs
By Christopher Mims
christopher.mims@wsj.com
@mims
Dec. 11, 2016 1:16 p.m. ET
Since the 1970s, when automated teller machines arrived, the number of bank tellers in America has more than doubled. James Bessen, an economist who teaches at Boston University School of Law, points to that seeming paradox amid new concerns that automation is stealing human jobs. To the contrary, he says, jobs and automation often grow hand in hand.
....
Sometimes, of course, machines really do replace humans, as in agriculture and manufacturing, says Massachusetts Institute of Technology labor economist David Autor in a succinct and illuminating TED talk, which could have served as the headline for this column. Across an entire economy, however, Dr. Autor says that's never happened.
The threat that machines pose to workers is in the news again, after an election that turned on the frustration of working-class voters. Last week, Amazon.com Inc. introduced Amazon Go, a store without cashiers. ... Three days later, President-elect Donald Trump nominated Andy Puzder, chief executive of CKE Restaurants Holdings Inc., the parent company of Hardee's and Carl's Jr. chains, to be secretary of labor. Mr. Puzder has said that self-serve ordering kiosks, like those recently unveiled by McDonald's Corp., will help his company eliminate workers .
Such developments are worrying. But a long trail of empirical evidence shows that the increased productivity brought about by automation and invention ultimately leads to more wealth, cheaper goods, increased consumer spending power and ultimately, more jobs. .... Some individuals are uprooted and suffer. In 1900, 40% of U.S. workers toiled in agriculture; today, that figure is less than 2%. Manufacturing employment in industrialized countries has declined in recent decades, as fewer people make more goods. But society, on the whole, has come out ahead.
golfguru
(4,987 posts)First, the automation equipment and robots require high tech engineering, and manufacturing done by humans. Then it requires people to program various tasks for them and lastly, more people to maintain and repair them.
But the best benfit of automation is, as you point out, higher productivity which equates to higher wealth.
Warpy
(111,367 posts)Nothing for the labor which has been replaced. Not everybody has the talent or inclination to repair robotic workers.
golfguru
(4,987 posts)Automation REQUIRES a slew of highly skilled workers to design, manufacture, program and maintain the automation equipment. Those are ALL HIGH WAGE JOBS. What it means is if you wish to earn good wages, learn the skills. Every individual has the opportunity to acquire skills. Doing routine assembly work manually in a factory is not going to hand anyone high wages in today's global competitive world. Those days of American hegemony on manufacturing are long gone.
Warpy
(111,367 posts)You are so focused on the machinery you're missing people who once supported the workers that machinery replaced, from payroll clerks to the people who once ran a company cafeteria. For every worker replaced by a machine, there is a ripple effect that costs many more workers their jobs. You're also missing the point that not everyone is mechanically inclined and would be unsuited to spending their lives building and servicing machines. You also vastly overestimate the number of people needed to service a machine based manufacturing economy.
I know your point and it's the point of someone who has learned about widgets in Econ 101 but has completely missed the lessons of history. The truth is that a fully mechanized economy is going to need another paradigm besides capitalism. Leaving out 90% of humanity while machines do the work and only the owners and a few service people get paid is not going to work, mostly because there will then be no people around able to buy those nice, cheap machine made widgets.
golfguru
(4,987 posts)airplanes replaced railroad travel, and computers replace manual clerks....
Now the fear is being spread about robots replacing SIMPLE, REPEATABLE, TEDIOUS manual labor.
Take it from me who actually worked in designing and manufacturing automation equipment. That type of equipment/machinery WILL NEVER REPLACE skilled labor which is NOT REPETITIVE. You will never see robots assembling Boeing 747's, aircraft carrier ships, or build automation machines which I used to help build. We had chronic shortages of skilled engineers and skilled machinists. Because every machine was different, custom designed for the customer who wanted to perform specific tasks.
But you are right, routine and repetitive tasks such as machining and assembly of mass produced items will be replaced by robots. No more making big bucks for routine work. Those days are history.
Warpy
(111,367 posts)Buggy whip makers? How many saddle makers are there in your town? How about stables? Blacksmiths? Street cleaners? Hell, how many horses are being employed as basic transportation?
What call is there for railroad porters? Conductors?
Again, automation costs jobs. Period.
You are focusing only on highly skilled labor. Most people do not fall into that category. Very few do, statistically speaking.
Thinking everyone else is just like you is myopic at the very least.
FogerRox
(13,211 posts)Today about 140 million.
Cars in 2017 are way better. Office buildings are bigger and higher.
Warpy
(111,367 posts)While line workers are replaced by machinery, don't forget that other workers like payroll workers are also getting the axe right along with them. And at some point, it doesn't matter how cheaply you make and sell those widgets, you're going to go out of business when no one has any money to buy them. After all, food and water are necessities. Widgets are not.
Either another economic scheme is going to have to be devised to replace capitalism so that goods and services being produced by machines can be distributed to people who want them or the whole mechanized enterprise is going to be halted and rust solid while the captains of industry wonder what went wrong.
sab390
(185 posts)The Journal is not a great source for articles on the economy of the people. It is a business journal that has a bias. And it is owned by Rupert Murdoch. If the economy were producing jobs losing them would not be a bad thing. But we are not rebuilding the infrastructure, we are not investing in education, we are not doing the things that should to prepare us for the future. This is hurting us but not because it is bad, it is inevitable, but because we are not doing what we need to do to make it work.
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,652 posts)It has an editorial side and a news side. The two operate independently. Their opinion or analysis articles are clearly labeled as such. To no one's surprise, their editorials skew to the right. One is free to turn past them and go straight to the news.
If TWSJ. is so lousy, then how come so many news repackaging operations - I'm looking at you, Mother Jones and Huffington Post - eagerly repackage articles from TWSJ. and put them on their own sites?
Also, welcome to DU.
sab390
(185 posts)They did write an article about how CEOs were claiming dividend tax rates on stock they did not own. They've done some good work. But overall and now with Murdoch in charge?