"Ball State University found that job loss in the 2000s due to automation"

On the aggregate jobs are not being destroyed.

Obviously - many are put out of work because of automation, but it seems that jobs are created somewhere else.

The historical unemployment rate attests to this.

It's a paradox that cannot be ignored, because it likely helps us understand the nature of employment.

Are the jobs that are created, in aggregate, as good as the jobs that are replaced?

If we lose 10,000 jobs at $25 an hour, and replace them with 12,000 jobs at $9 an hour, is that trend sustainable?

Other factors need to be taken into consideration. Did the original jobs provide health care, childcare and other benefits, while the new jobs do not? Did the original jobs provide ample overtime opportunities, while the new jobs are barely considered full time?

Are the new jobs created concentrated geographically, requiring a major redistribution of the population into cities with much higher costs of living (a double whammy if the new jobs are much lower paying).

And most importantly, if we're talking about AI, are the new jobs low hanging fruit for future AI and robotics advancements, creating a cycle of disruption and precarity in semi- and low-skilled workers?

"Are the jobs that are created, in aggregate, as good as the jobs that are replaced?"

Are you living at a higher material standard than people at the dawn of the industrial revolution?

Are you living at a higher material standard than the people in the 1980's?

If 'yes' - then wages (as defined by their purchasing power) have increased.

The problem is that there are large portions of the country that answer no to: "Are you living at a higher material standard than the people in the 1980's?".

Yea, it's a difficult topic for an internet forum. (Probably better suited for think-tank roundtable disscussions.) If a job is eliminated, and a new job was created, (to me) the original job was still eliminated. It's a different job. That new job may have different hours, different qualifications, and be in a different location.

As productivity increases with more automation, the economy will do very well. Poor, uneducated individuals in rural areas will see jobs disappear. I don't think it is comprehensive to look at job loss and disregard it, since at the macro-level employment may be zero-sum. I think that would be a disservice to the individuals that will be affected.

fullshark was probably more concise and eloquent with how he stated my thoughts in another comment on this thread.

Title of the study: "The Myth and Reality of Manufacturing in America"

As I said in my other comment, there is absolutely no guarantee that technology won't completely shift jobs from one nation to another. Just as individuals don't have a god given right to a job, nations don't have a god given right to an industry. In both cases, you have to work for it. That's the actual reality. Here in America we don't like either of these realities, we prefer myths. We've been ignoring them on the individual level for as long as we possible can trying to pass laws to escape them. Now we have to face the reality on a national scale where it's a lot harder to impose our mythical views on the world.

As a completely practical matter, a country is entitled to do what it wants to protect an industry. I'd agree that it is usually a bad idea, but every country does it to some degree. If France decides it has a right (god given, or lawfully given) to a wine industry then it can ban all wine imports. I'm not sure why you'd call out America for this, it has been far more open to trade than most countries, and benefitted from it. UNfortunately it has left some people behind and caused a backlash.

What exactly are you arguing?

It's easy to see and I've said this here before. As a business owner doing manufacturing (for example) replacing manual labor with automation costs less. That's less in terms of TCO, so that includes setup, operation, energy, and maintenance. The idea that the low-skilled assembly jobs are just replaced by high-skilled jobs is untrue. Those high-skilled jobs pay more - perhaps 2-5x more, and if the TCO is actually less that means significantly fewer man-hours due to the higher hourly rate.

The notion of replacing low-skilled jobs with high-skilled, better paying ones is true. However since the TCO to the one purchasing the automation is LOWER it says a lot about the total number of people to maintain the system.

This of course neglects any secondary effects where lower costs may increase volume and wider use of the product. But to a first approximation automation destroys jobs. Obviously.

I think you are engaging a straw man here. Obviously, given a fixed amount of output, automation will reduce the man-hours required. That's the whole point. And yes, that will, by itself, reduce the amount of work available. Who do you think is saying otherwise?.

The question isn't whether automation decreases the amount of work neccessary to produce the same output, obviously it does. The question is whether we can reallocate workers somewhere in the economy so that we can produce even more output with the same input.

Exactly; the economy is not zero-sum; it's not a pie we have to split. The pie grows by the addition of more labor, more capital, or greater efficiency.

For example, in the U.S. starting from 1917, the great majority of jobs have disappeared, the population (and thus the workforce) has tripled, and yet unemployment is less than 5%.

If you find a way to do something more efficiently, then that creates more wealth for buying things from the former employee's next job. (The problem, not to be overlooked, is that while the economy as a whole benefits, individuals can suffer greatly.)

Exactly; the economy is not zero-sum; it's not a pie we have to split.

Yes it is. The amount of consumption (goods and services) a given person can indulge in has an upper limit. In the past, people who were freed from some tasks were simply reallocated to others and more stuff was produced which there was demand for.

> The amount of consumption (goods and services) a given person can indulge in has an upper limit

Why? What is the limit? The amount can grow, and the evidence that it does is overwhelming.

> In the past, people who were freed from some tasks were simply reallocated to others and more stuff was produced which there was demand for.

Why would that only be 'in the past' and not today and tomorrow?

>> The question is whether we can reallocate workers somewhere in the economy so that we can produce even more output with the same input.

I alluded to that in my last sentence. You can only reallocate workers to something else if there is demand for that something else. As I said to another poster, there is an upper limit to consumption so at some point there just won't be anything else for people to do/produce. Consumers have an upper bound on their consumption based on the number of hours in a day.

Yes, your last sentence alluded to that. But your whole post was still engaging a strawman.

But pointing out a limit in the amount a single person can consume doesn't change the essential situation. It simply means that instead of reallocating worker time to different production, people's time is reallocated to consumption.

If those who have jobs have enough money to hit the limit on what they can (or choose to) consume, they will cease working, leaving those jobs to others.

>> It simply means that instead of reallocating worker time to different production, people's time is reallocated to consumption.

Well, people out of work can't really allocate their time to consumption. This is the basis for an argument that we need a shorter work week and a need to enforce it (high Europe, screw you US tech industry). When we are efficient enough to provide everything people want to consume in their 24 hour day and have leftover people without work, we need to make them work less so it will require more people to do all the work. I think there are limits to that as well.

These problem all lie on a path to a possible utopia where the machines take care of the people and we're free to do whatever we want. I'm not sure how you get there from here or what that would even look like.

You have pretty much agreed to my point. Its not a matter of running out of work, its a matter of reallocating the work.

However, I do not think we will have to force people to work less. If someone has hit the limit of what they want to consume, why are they still working? If there is really nothing more that money can buy, why would they be trying to earn more money?

> But to a first approximation automation destroys jobs.

Automation transfers an increasing share of returns of economic activity to the capitalist owning the automated tool from labor; "destroys jobs" may be a result, but increasing (in the absence of some compensatory mechanism) economic inequality is a more certain result.

If there is a lot of competition, the capitalist will have to lower prices to compete. Without competition he may just enjoy the increased profits. Either way I think job destruction is the more certain result, but you are right in that it is done with the intent of increasing inequality whether that happens or not.

To add to it.

I think where we are going is this: early days:

Twenty first level, ten second level, maybe five third level.

Future with AI and smart bots: maybe one first,none second, one extreme highly paid third level.

What do you do with the rest?

automation creates jobs when there's aggregate demand for more products and services. When people reach their finite limit of consumption (Example: boredom is obsoleted by digital media tech), and wages are depressed to subsistence by laissez faire capitalism, you've got a bunch of unemployed people with nothing to do for the poor people who would like to pay them for stuff

This study is unmitigated bullshit. They intentionally conflate the effect of robots with the trade deficit in their model. A $5 million California house bought every year by a Chinese oligarch is considered equivalent to 20 $50k/year jobs and Foxconn's 1.2 million employees are considered mathematical robots.

They effectively build an assumption into their model that offshoring only causes jobs if the offshored labor costs the same as American labor.

>There is tons of other research

None of it is good.