The Long-Term Jobs Killer Is Not China. It’s Automation.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/21/upshot/the-long-term-jobs-killer-is-not-china-its-automation.html?_r=0

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Once robots figure out how to post on forums we will all be doomed. 

[ABX]

Obviously all automation should be banned to MAGA!!!!

[Suppressed]

Reality is, even if we don't automate, our competitors will.

And this is a very real socioeconomic puzzle to tackle.

[Oceander]

Once robots figure out how to post on forums we will all be doomed. 

I think that's been done, at least judging by the bot-like posts you get on some fora that are less picky than this one about their membership. 

[Oceander]

Yes, automation kills off one set of jobs - the ones being automated - but it almost always ends up with additional jobs being created in other ways, oftentimes to handle the increased production generated by the automated positions. Personal computers and MS Word effectively killed off hundreds of thousands of typist, transcription, and stenographer jobs, but you don't see all those former typists, transcribers, or stenographers sitting in the gutters.  Some retired early, some no doubt went on to welfare, but most found other work to do. 

As in finances, single entry bookkeeping presents a false view of the world.  If you're going to count jobs killed off by automation, then you have to account for the jobs elsewhere created by it; otherwise, you're simply lying by statistic.

[HonestJohn]

Once robots figure out how to post on forums we will all be doomed. 

They already do on Facebook and Twitter.  Bots are this year's 'big thing'.

[HonestJohn]

Yes, automation kills off one set of jobs - the ones being automated - but it almost always ends up with additional jobs being created in other ways, oftentimes to handle the increased production generated by the automated positions. Personal computers and MS Word effectively killed off hundreds of thousands of typist, transcription, and stenographer jobs, but you don't see all those former typists, transcribers, or stenographers sitting in the gutters.  Some retired early, some no doubt went on to welfare, but most found other work to do. 

As in finances, single entry bookkeeping presents a false view of the world.  If you're going to count jobs killed off by automation, then you have to account for the jobs elsewhere created by it; otherwise, you're simply lying by statistic.

This is true in the long-term big-picture.

What's lost, though, is what can and should be done to help those displaced transition from their old skills/jobs to whatever emerges.  And how to aid them when the jobs are lost but no new industry has yet emerged.

For in the short-term, people still need shelter, clothing, and food to eat.

And if we're trying to cut/eliminate welfare in the midst of an economic transition, a lot of people will suffer... and then vote about it.

[geronl]

Just like mechannical looms and steam powered factories!

luddites are reborn

[Emjay]

Once robots figure out how to post on forums we will all be doomed. 

I wanted a robot maid until I realized she would turn on me on Day Two.

[Emjay]

Yes, automation kills off one set of jobs - the ones being automated - but it almost always ends up with additional jobs being created in other ways, oftentimes to handle the increased production generated by the automated positions. Personal computers and MS Word effectively killed off hundreds of thousands of typist, transcription, and stenographer jobs, but you don't see all those former typists, transcribers, or stenographers sitting in the gutters.  Some retired early, some no doubt went on to welfare, but most found other work to do. 

As in finances, single entry bookkeeping presents a false view of the world.  If you're going to count jobs killed off by automation, then you have to account for the jobs elsewhere created by it; otherwise, you're simply lying by statistic.

Very true and if we can cut down on some of the government agencies that hurt business in the USA that would be a good thing as well.

[Oceander]

Very true and if we can cut down on some of the government agencies that hurt business in the USA that would be a good thing as well.

That would be a very good thing indeed!

[Cripplecreek]

Witchcraft!!!!

[Cripplecreek]

3 days in a row I've found reason to post my favorite Bender clip.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qBlPa-9v_M

I was having the most wonderful dream. I think you were in it.

[jmyrlefuller]

Yes, automation kills off one set of jobs - the ones being automated - but it almost always ends up with additional jobs being created in other ways, oftentimes to handle the increased production generated by the automated positions. Personal computers and MS Word effectively killed off hundreds of thousands of typist, transcription, and stenographer jobs, but you don't see all those former typists, transcribers, or stenographers sitting in the gutters.  Some retired early, some no doubt went on to welfare, but most found other work to do. 

As in finances, single entry bookkeeping presents a false view of the world.  If you're going to count jobs killed off by automation, then you have to account for the jobs elsewhere created by it; otherwise, you're simply lying by statistic.

That's a corporatist canard. The fact is, we've seen since 2008 that there AREN'T enough professional careers being produced to replace the ones being lost. I can say for a fact that at least one person very close to me, who lost their career path to the PC in the way you describe, hasn't held anything beyond a minimum wage dead-end job since then. On top of that, you have many of these people getting shoved into the college system and taking away opportunities for those already there; hence the chronic underemployment problem facing college graduates.

Take a look at income inequality as the perfect illustration of this. With automation, the wealthiest no longer have to hire labor to get their tasks done, so that money sits in their accounts. If more jobs were being created because of the ongoing trend toward automation, the wealthy would be spending more on those increased jobs—but they're not.

McDonald's is not installing kiosks to free up more demand for more workers. They're doing it to cut jobs and thus their labor costs.

[dfwgator]

Smart people can generally get jobs.  But what happens to all of the folks who don't have the intelligence?   Many jobs used to be manual labor, which you didn't need a lot of brains for.   Those are the jobs that are being automated,  so what are these folks going to do?  Idle hands are the Devil's Workshop. 

[Frank Cannon]

Robots taking over was foretold in an ancient tome....

[The_Reader_David]

Yes, automation kills off one set of jobs - the ones being automated - but it almost always ends up with additional jobs being created in other ways, oftentimes to handle the increased production generated by the automated positions.  . . .

That is how it went when automation was replacing brawn.  The problem is that automation is replacing brains.  The question is what happens when every job that can be reliably and enjoyably done by persons of average intelligence (including picking soft fruit) -- not every job currently extant that fits that description, every job that does -- and a fair number of those requiring above average intelligence (a good AI-supplemented version of LegalZoom could do most of the out-of-courtroom work lawyers currently do, MOOCs replace thousands of professors of physics, mathematics,... with a dozen or so, AI systems can already do better at many tasks radiologists do, and so forth).

Do we go Luddite and have the Butlerian Jihad from Dune?  Or do we figure out how to prevent the benefits of automation from being enjoyed entirely by the managerial class (Not capitalists -- you might notice that CEOs and other top-managers are out to line their own pockets, not defend the interests of the shareholders.  If you doubt that, consider the meaning of the phrase "golden parachute") while those without jobs (or any marketable skills because there are no jobs for those of average intelligence or below) subsist on what?

[Applewood]

Yes, automation kills off one set of jobs - the ones being automated - but it almost always ends up with additional jobs being created in other ways, oftentimes to handle the increased production generated by the automated positions. Personal computers and MS Word effectively killed off hundreds of thousands of typist, transcription, and stenographer jobs, but you don't see all those former typists, transcribers, or stenographers sitting in the gutters.  Some retired early, some no doubt went on to welfare, but most found other work to do. 

As in finances, single entry bookkeeping presents a false view of the world.  If you're going to count jobs killed off by automation, then you have to account for the jobs elsewhere created by it; otherwise, you're simply lying by statistic.

I was a secretary who started out with a manual typewriter, moved on to an electric, then eventually into PCs and other electronic devices.  Every time new technology was introduced, there would always be secretaries who refused to learn it or use it.  Many of those secretaries eventually lost their jobs and without the new skills necessary, couldn't find a new job.  I kept my job because I was willing to learn something new. 

I look at all these protesters at fast food joints demanding $15 an hour.  Here's a thought:  How about learning how to operate the devices that soon will be taking your job away?

[Emjay]

This is nothing but pathetic railing at inevitability.

I was at Safeway in Maui this morning.  I once worked for a labor union that represented grocery store workers.  The union was afraid that the scanners would take away a lot of jobs. 

They didn't.  We still had to wait in line while Safeway had six lanes open instead of the ten that were needed.  But we all lived and I'll bet a dollar there were as many clerks, sackers and carry-out people working as there would have been before computers.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

What's funny is all this talk of automation and not only is the unemployment rate lower than 5% but productivity growth has been shrinking for quite some time now. We've actually hit a wall with automation IMO. That which can be easily automated with computers already has been. Very challenging now to continue this trend.

[geronl]

That's a corporatist canard. The fact is, we've seen since 2008 that there AREN'T enough professional careers being produced to replace the ones being lost. I can say for a fact that at least one person very close to me, who lost their career path to the PC in the way you describe, hasn't held anything beyond a minimum wage dead-end job since then. On top of that, you have many of these people getting shoved into the college system and taking away opportunities for those already there; hence the chronic underemployment problem facing college graduates..

Government is the biggest cost of doing business. They are the problem.

[Suppressed]

Witchcraft!!!!

It's an (Bronze) Age-old problem!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTLyXamRvk4

[Sanguine]

I think we can see some trends that will continue into the future:

1) unskilled labor is less and less popular to do (hence the importation of unskilled laborers, and at least partially because of welfare no one really needs to work),
2) there are fewer and fewer jobs that one can go into right out of high school and make a living at.  Auto factories, coal mines, steel mill, etc.  You've now got to have some additional training and possibly certification, licensure.  And, that also means you have to commit to take a certain path. Goes against the whole "follow your dreams" culture.
3) we see a large, very large percentage of the population now jobless and many of whom will continue to be jobless.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Automation you say?


Worker Productivity Growth Hits New Low – What Can Be Done?


http://www.valuewalk.com/2016/12/worker-productivity-growth-hits-new-low-can-done/