Re:Why Are There Still So Many Jobs? The History and Future ...
by netcan on Monday August 03, 2015 @05:52PM
(#10000158)
Automation and labour is a question we have a history of being repetitively wrong about. So, its worth treading lightly.
First of all, we use the word “automation” which already implies replicating people. We could just as easily use “tools.” There is a lot of grey area between automation and tools and economically the two are fungible anyway. If we think of new tools being invented, we think of people’s productive capacities being enhanced rather than replaced. Is a combine harvester a tool or automation?
“There is no fundamental economic law that guarantees every adult will be able to earn a living solely on the basis of sound mind and good character.”
I think this is a good thing to be pondering. Our modern economy, our political philosophies and I think most of our ideas of how society works kind of assume that every adult with decent character is be able to earn a living. This is why living wage debates get people so fired up. The rug gets pulled out from under all our political ideas if this doesn’t hold more or less true.
Overall, I think this paper goes down the right track. Historically, demand for stuff has been remarkably elastic. We can consume a lot of stuff. Automation is essentially tools for producing more. We have good historical examples of the workforce becoming more sophisticated to take advantage of these tools and continue being useful.
I do think it could be dangerous relying on the historical analogy, because as the quote above suggests the is no rule in economics that makes this necessary.
I do see a couple of avenues to worry about.
(1) One is the vaguely Marxist one: labour & capital. Automation is capital. It accumulates in ways that concentrate wealth. If the 99% thing we are seeing now is indicative of a long term trend dictated by technological progress… Marxist conflict dynamics may well play out in some way. Growing wealth gaps create social-political instability that’s hard to avoid.
(2) The pace of change. Technological progression’s effect on everyday life is moving very fast. The digital divide thing is real, way more than it was ten years ago. I recently spoke to a woman (about 40) who has never really had a computer that couldn’t get up to speed in hospitality work because she couldn’t leaner the software and its quirks fast enough. Workforce skills keeping up with technological progress is part of the process. But historically, this has been something schools could lead because the pace of change was generational. These days the rate of change is revolutionizing occupations much quicker. That could leave a lot of people behind.
I think demand elasticity will hold We can keep consuming more. I think the problem is in the workforce’s ability to keep up. There are plenty of potential jobs today, if the skills were available. I think if we got a 100% increase in the number of skilled programmers of the caliber that Google and FB are fighting over, the economy would absorb them pretty easily. Same for a lot of professions. The problem is that the skill sets required keep getting more sophisticated. That means inflexible labour markets.
First of all, we use the word “automation” which already implies replicating people. We could just as easily use “tools.” There is a lot of grey area between automation and tools and economically the two are fungible anyway. If we think of new tools being invented, we think of people’s productive capacities being enhanced rather than replaced. Is a combine harvester a tool or automation?
“There is no fundamental economic law that guarantees every adult will be able to earn a living solely on the basis of sound mind and good character.”
I think this is a good thing to be pondering. Our modern economy, our political philosophies and I think most of our ideas of how society works kind of assume that every adult with decent character is be able to earn a living. This is why living wage debates get people so fired up. The rug gets pulled out from under all our political ideas if this doesn’t hold more or less true.
Overall, I think this paper goes down the right track. Historically, demand for stuff has been remarkably elastic. We can consume a lot of stuff. Automation is essentially tools for producing more. We have good historical examples of the workforce becoming more sophisticated to take advantage of these tools and continue being useful.
I do think it could be dangerous relying on the historical analogy, because as the quote above suggests the is no rule in economics that makes this necessary.
I do see a couple of avenues to worry about.
(1) One is the vaguely Marxist one: labour & capital. Automation is capital. It accumulates in ways that concentrate wealth. If the 99% thing we are seeing now is indicative of a long term trend dictated by technological progress… Marxist conflict dynamics may well play out in some way. Growing wealth gaps create social-political instability that’s hard to avoid.
(2) The pace of change. Technological progression’s effect on everyday life is moving very fast. The digital divide thing is real, way more than it was ten years ago. I recently spoke to a woman (about 40) who has never really had a computer that couldn’t get up to speed in hospitality work because she couldn’t leaner the software and its quirks fast enough. Workforce skills keeping up with technological progress is part of the process. But historically, this has been something schools could lead because the pace of change was generational. These days the rate of change is revolutionizing occupations much quicker. That could leave a lot of people behind.
I think demand elasticity will hold We can keep consuming more. I think the problem is in the workforce’s ability to keep up. There are plenty of potential jobs today, if the skills were available. I think if we got a 100% increase in the number of skilled programmers of the caliber that Google and FB are fighting over, the economy would absorb them pretty easily. Same for a lot of professions. The problem is that the skill sets required keep getting more sophisticated. That means inflexible labour markets.