What Happens When Millions of Jobs Are Lost Because of Automation?

[r9etb]

Capitalism depends upon creative destruction so that low value work is eventually reduced in favor of higher value productive enterprises. By identifying sources of waste and inefficiency and improving business processes, capital is made available for investment in entirely new categories of products and services to serve the changing demands of the marketplace. Technological and scientific advances are also funded by capital investment and propelled by educational and foundational institutions, creating a demand for newer and more high-skilled labor.

All very wonderful, except in all that reduction and "identifying sources of waste and inefficiency and improving business processes" generally means pink slips for a lot of people.

What happens to them, especially if they haven't got the wherewithal to instantly transform themselves to "newer and more high-skilled labor?"

We keep wondering why the left always seems to win.... maybe part of the reason is that we love our high-flown words about the glories of the market, often to the exclusion of recognizing that real people often get caught in the gears of progress.  The left has little difficulty in making the case that the GOP "doesn't care about you." 

Of course, the left generally makes things worse, but as a matter of of politics, "worse" actually helps them because they can blame "the market" for peoples' woes.

So... what arguments can conservatives make, and what policies can we pursue, that acknowledge the real difficulties people face when market transitions occur?

[andy58-in-nh]

All very wonderful, except in all that reduction and "identifying sources of waste and inefficiency and improving business processes" generally means pink slips for a lot of people.

What happens to them, especially if they haven't got the wherewithal to instantly transform themselves to "newer and more high-skilled labor?"

We keep wondering why the left always seems to win.... maybe part of the reason is that we love our high-flown words about the glories of the market, often to the exclusion of recognizing that real people often get caught in the gears of progress.  The left has little difficulty in making the case that the GOP "doesn't care about you." 

Of course, the left generally makes things worse, but as a matter of of politics, "worse" actually helps them because they can blame "the market" for peoples' woes.

So... what arguments can conservatives make, and what policies can we pursue, that acknowledge the real difficulties people face when market transitions occur?

The argument we need to make is that there are millions of jobs and thousands of businesses and entire categories of industries which could have easily absorbed employees of failed businesses. But none of them ever came into being. Instead, they died stillborn, or else were created in other nations, because of Progressivism and its insistence upon the primacy of State power, control, and the punishment of success, effected by an expropriation of wealth from job creators and justified by an exploitation of fear and envy.

"You didn't build that!" = your rights come from government, and other people have a first claim on your rights and property by virtue of their need, which it is the duty of government to satisfy.  "Market failure" is a common complaint on the Left. But in truth, free markets do not fail; they effectively reflect supply and demand, and effect price discovery for products and services by passively distilling billions of daily personal decisions into actionable consumer information.

But when government places its heavy thumb on the scales of market mechanisms, it necessarily causes distortions in supply, demand and prices, and even more so when, as in modern Western nations, credit markets are not free at all, but rather serve as extensions of state-mandated central bank monopolies.  If our schools still taught honest history and economics, a great many more people would understand what is wrong, and how it might be fixed.     

[Hoodat]

Econ 101

The Luddite fallacy is the simple observation that new technology does not lead to higher overall unemployment in the economy. New technology doesn't destroy jobs – it only changes the composition of jobs in the economy. - Alex Tabarrok

Damn right!

As someone who works in the industrial automation field, I can attest that I would not have my skilled job were it not for industrial automation.  I can also attest that industrial automation has made plants safer work places, and has allowed plants to remain competitive (i.e. open) in a global economy.

[andy58-in-nh]

LOL


www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnzzWGcdMqY

Nice scene.

But senseless destruction (casually smashing an otherwise useful object) is not at all the same thing as creative destruction (disassembling an existing product or system and rebuilding it more efficiently and intelligently in the service of consumer demand). I love breaking things that don't work well in business, and designing them better, at lower cost, and with more efficient and useful functionality. Managing such projects is a wonderful thing. Better products, offered at lower prices because of waste elimination, functional improvement and superior durability makes for happy consumers as well as higher profits.   

[The Jackal]

So... what arguments can conservatives make, and what policies can we pursue, that acknowledge the real difficulties people face when market transitions occur?

That's a good question. And one that I don't think can be readily answered. One thing that has always struck me about this discussion, particularly when it comes to analogies to previous market disruption, is what happens when the current market forces are specifically designed to eliminate the human being from labor? It's one thing to say Henry Ford eliminated the need for the buggy whip maker etc., but nobody seems to acknowledge that point of view as historical hindsight into an incidental side effect. It's one thing to say, "this machine will do the job of 10 men," it's quite another to say, "this robot will eliminate the need for human employees."

Now some have brought up SpaceX etc., which I think at least tries to answer that specific question rather than rely on past performance as a future indicator but as you said there is going to be a long period of market transition before commercialization of space can employ millions. And you're right, conservatives will have to come up with something better than, "new markets emerge..."

I've seen some discussion about, "as resource and production costs approach zero...etc." But that's another long-term idea that doesn't address the immediacy of this problem. So what I think will happen is political disruption before the, 'economies of the future' are in place. Ultimately though, I've found that the solution from some is Darwinian in scope. Adapt or die. That's their answer.

[Cripplecreek]

Nice scene.

But senseless destruction (casually smashing an otherwise useful object) is not at all the same thing as creative destruction (disassembling an existing product or system and rebuilding it more efficiently and intelligently in the service of consumer demand). I love breaking things that don't work well in business, and designing them better, at lower cost, and with more efficient and useful functionality. Managing such projects is a wonderful thing. Better products, offered at lower prices because of waste elimination, functional improvement and superior durability makes for happy consumers as well as higher profits.   

It was a great scene. I've always looked at Zorg and the priest together as a near perfect capitalist. Zorg is the driven by his own self interest while the priest is the conscience with an interest in saving mankind.

[Hoodat]

Gary Oldman is the greatest actor ever.