interestingly, the most intense clusters of robots are in Michigan, Delaware and Texas. by contrast, there's not so much robotic clustering in California. also, this optimistic note: Some of the sectors with the biggest job losses were ones that didn't automate intensively, like textiles and paper products. That goes to show that keeping out robots won't necessarily protect your job.
More Robots, Fewer Jobs: capital vs. labor in production
51–60 of 126 posts
Re: More Robots, Fewer Jobs: capital vs. labor in production
#52Detroit lost so many jobs, not because of robots, but due to the decline of the domestic auto manufacturing industry. The modern auto assembly line, which uses human-assisted robots, existed a couple decades before Detroit's precipitous decline. The Detroit riots during the 60's and 'capital flight' also didn't help. The argument of robots destroying jobs, imho, has a lot of holes ..the hysteria seems overblown http:…
Many people (including me) believe the problem isn't overblown. A common counterargument to your point is that humans have always had the ability to do work at higher abstraction levels than the machines replacing them. Scribes become unemployed but can retrain as typographers, press operators, digital layout artists and so on. The problem comes when robots begin to perform these higher order tasks. What happens to i…
That hasn't happened though. We have no indication that such a question is more relevant now than it was 200 years ago. And it's worth pointing out that we're currently in a period of fairly low productivity growth.
Re: More Robots, Fewer Jobs: capital vs. labor in production
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
The jobs are mostly temp jobs not full time jobs. Bush changed how jobs are defined obama continued that with the result that 95% of jobs created since the financial cricis are temp jobs. This is a big deal in the us as it cuts of access to ex healthcare. Its very grim whats going on.
Jobs are still jobs, though. If people are still employed then that means that there are still jobs for people to do.
I'm just not interested in paying them a living wage.
Most of those temp jobs do not pay a living wage. They exist because of the largess of either government subsidies for the working poor, the largess of relatives of the working poor, or because said working poor are burning the furniture to keep warm. (And the government will have to bail them out when they reach retirement age.)
A job that doesn't, or can't pay a living wage is a net drain on the economy. It expects somebody else to subsidize the person working it.
Re: More Robots, Fewer Jobs: capital vs. labor in production
#54Wasn't there an article the other day on HN[1] regarding how we're nearing "Full Employment"? How does that comport with the notion that somehow our increased automation is eliminating jobs? Shouldn't we see a trend of higher unemployment as we continue to automate? The Bloomberg article seems to focus more on the impact in localized areas, but at the national level, there are reallocations of jobs to new industries.…
The jobs are mostly temp jobs not full time jobs. Bush changed how jobs are defined obama continued that with the result that 95% of jobs created since the financial cricis are temp jobs. This is a big deal in the us as it cuts of access to ex healthcare. Its very grim whats going on.
Re: More Robots, Fewer Jobs: capital vs. labor in production
#55interestingly, the most intense clusters of robots are in Michigan, Delaware and Texas. by contrast, there's not so much robotic clustering in California. also, this optimistic note: Some of the sectors with the biggest job losses were ones that didn't automate intensively, like textiles and paper products. That goes to show that keeping out robots won't necessarily protect your job.
Software is more profitable. Why get into a worse business when you dominate a better one?
Re: More Robots, Fewer Jobs: capital vs. labor in production
#56I live in the Wilmington, Delaware, area which, according to this article, is the East Coast hotbed of robots-replacing-workers. Our liabilities, in terms of industries ripe for automation, include the chemicals sector (DuPont is headquartered here and is our largest for-profit employer) and the pharmaceuticals sector (AstraZeneca is our third largest for-profit employer). We also used to have several large auto manu…
Re: More Robots, Fewer Jobs: capital vs. labor in production
#57While the scope of the article is confined to manufacturing, which impacts less-specialized labor, I felt a sense of dread reading it for what it means for people losing their jobs to software. Fresh out of college in the late 1990s, one of my first "high tech" jobs was manually building HTML pages for job listings, copying-and-pasting advertisements from word documents all day long. One day, I recommended the compan…
I absolutely despise this argument, because it usually forgets that you can have all the time in the world, and it won't matter if you can't pay your rent or buy food.
Re: More Robots, Fewer Jobs: capital vs. labor in production
#58While the scope of the article is confined to manufacturing, which impacts less-specialized labor, I felt a sense of dread reading it for what it means for people losing their jobs to software. Fresh out of college in the late 1990s, one of my first "high tech" jobs was manually building HTML pages for job listings, copying-and-pasting advertisements from word documents all day long. One day, I recommended the compan…
"Over the years I've watched various professions devalued to search engines and spreadsheets, from paralegals to accountants. I don't think it's a bad thing. It's progress and it's freeing up time." I absolutely despise this argument, because it usually forgets that you can have all the time in the world, and it won't matter if you can't pay your rent or buy food.
Re: More Robots, Fewer Jobs: capital vs. labor in production
#59While the scope of the article is confined to manufacturing, which impacts less-specialized labor, I felt a sense of dread reading it for what it means for people losing their jobs to software. Fresh out of college in the late 1990s, one of my first "high tech" jobs was manually building HTML pages for job listings, copying-and-pasting advertisements from word documents all day long. One day, I recommended the compan…
> Automation isn't the problem, living is a culture incapable of valuing leisure time is what needs to change Leave North America, it's a whole new world(TM) I recently read "A Year of Living Danishly"[1] - an amazing account of two early-30s brits who move to Denmark and learn how life works there. After an adjustment period, they are floored , and I mean absolutely floored how good the work/life balance is. They ar…
The real issue is why doesn't later stages capitalism just create wealth for all? Why does my boss's ideas of work, which he learned from his boss, eventually trickle down to my idea of work and when I push back I open myself up to punishment? Why does his greed normalize work life?
I imagine a maximum income/net wealth cap on individuals would stop that but short of a revolution I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Re: More Robots, Fewer Jobs: capital vs. labor in production
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many people (including me) believe the problem isn't overblown. A common counterargument to your point is that humans have always had the ability to do work at higher abstraction levels than the machines replacing them. Scribes become unemployed but can retrain as typographers, press operators, digital layout artists and so on. The problem comes when robots begin to perform these higher order tasks. What happens to i…
Jobs are not zero sum - the demand for labor is a function of supply. People will begin to fill more niche and variable-demand jobs where capital investments don't make sense, i.e. a shift towards a consultant economy. Keep in mind that the specifics of this is very hard to predict. A large number of the jobs we have today would have seemed absurd 20-40 years ago, but to us they feel like they were inevitable.