News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Economists are revising their views on robots and jobs by clusterfish on Tuesday January 25, 2022 @06:59PM (#30079884)
Theoretically yes, but in practice the given industry as a whole often does not need much more output even if the per unit cost of the output declines. Like, you don't need significantly more accounting just because you can use spreadsheets now.

And not all automation increases worker productivity, lots of it just eliminates workers from certain jobs altogether, e.g. self driving cars / trucks.

Re:Economists are revising their views on robots and jobs by tialaramex on Tuesday January 25, 2022 @07:08PM (#30079966)
This can indeed cut both ways. Instead of needing huge numbers of manual workers to harvest the wheat, one guy can sit in an air-conditioned combine harvester cab for a few hours listening to tunes, and we get the same food. Humans can (and do) eat slightly more food given it's cheap and readily available, but there's a limit. So, the percentage of workers engaged in agricultural work fell.

On the other hand, turns out that once a shirt is cheap humans will buy not just one extra so there's one to wear and one to wash, but a dozen, or hundreds. And they'll throw it away when it's a little worn not when it falls apart. So while industrialisation of fabric and clothing production made clothes cheap, the result wasn't that fewer people were employed in that work but that we just all bought more clothes.

Re:Economists are revising their views on robots and jobs by bryanlarsen on Tuesday January 25, 2022 @07:23PM (#30080080)
> one guy can sit in an air-conditioned combine harvester cab for a few hours listening to tunes,

I hope he's not listening to tunes. A change in the sound it's making is often the first warning that your $500,000 piece of machinery is about to self destruct.

Re:Economists are revising their views on robots and jobs by worik on Tuesday January 25, 2022 @08:22PM (#30080468)
> A change in the sound it's making is often the first warning that your $500,000 piece of machinery is about to self destruct.

Whose machine?

Re:Economists are revising their views on robots and jobs by Supermancho on Tuesday January 25, 2022 @08:12PM (#30080388)
I see it all the time, from combines to snowplows.
Re:Economists are revising their views on robots and jobs by throwaway0a5e on Tuesday January 25, 2022 @08:55PM (#30080678)
Anything that's got risk of becoming expensive will give you tactile or olfactory feedback.
Re:Economists are revising their views on robots and jobs by dkjaudyeqooe on Wednesday January 26, 2022 @12:30AM (#30082125)
More likely some warning light will illuminate on the dash first.
Re:Economists are revising their views on robots and jobs by mellavora on Wednesday January 26, 2022 @03:00AM (#30082972)
Well, yes you do, because the spreadsheets make it easier for the regulators to add more regulation.

Think: there used to be a theoretical limit to how much regulation could exist, because the regs had to be known by a person (otherwise how are they enforced?).

Now we have regtech. A whole industry built on automating compliance.

How long before each individual needs a regtech software program (or two!) just to function in society? I'm not talking about tax filing, that's just the start.

Re:Economists are revising their views on robots and jobs by jdminhbg on Tuesday January 25, 2022 @07:10PM (#30079991)
I’m not very familiar with accountancy, but there seems to have been a lot of growth in internet-based tax prep for individuals who would previously have done their own. I couldn’t find historical data, but forecasts I found all agreed the number of accountants needed would rise over the coming years.

We don’t even have self-driving cars yet, how can you know what effect they have?