Andrew Yang's ideas on automation and mass unemployment are not based in reality
1–10 of 115 posts
Re: Andrew Yang's ideas on automation and mass unemployment are not based in reality
#2I read the whole thing. It’s not so much that Yang is wrong but that the automation-is-taking-all-the-jobs mantra is incomplete and that outsourcing to places like China is a substantial part of it. From what I can tell from Yang-like arguments outsourcing could be seen as a form of automation. The general idea is that companies are incentivized to reduce labor costs so whether it’s outsourcing or automation the end result is the same. Presumably if we restrict outsourcing then just more investment into automation will take place. It’s inevitable.
Re: Andrew Yang's ideas on automation and mass unemployment are not based in reality
#3In a 2018 paper, UC–Berkeley sociologist Steve Viscelli suggested that in the most likely scenario, long-haul truckers, who tend to make middle-class wages, will be replaced by poorly paid drivers tasked with steering autonomous vehicles through tricky city streets, which onboard navigation systems handle less well than highways. That’s not all jobs disappearing. It’s jobs changing.
I'm not sure if the author is claiming that the job displacement will be 1:1. Does anyone honestly think it would be 1:1? I don't think so. And if more jobs are disappearing than are being created, there is a net job loss; also the author agrees that the new jobs would be lower pay. Whether jobs will be created in entirely and unpredictably new industries is besides the point. Yang's point is that everyday people are inadequately prepared to make that transition to new jobs. He frequently cites data that the US federal government sucks at job retraining.
IF various tech companies are successful in their endeavors (and yes, that's a big if), it will be true that a lot of people will need to transition to something new. And given recent demos by various tech companies for voice AI tech (yeah, Google's really was impressive when it came out, and it will probably get better until it's commercialized one day), self-driving tech (I'm a skeptic for the short-term, but it will probably happen in the long-term), and etc, I think the subject is ignored at the working population's peril. Never mind self-checkout, which is already a reality and steadily gaining ground.
Re: Andrew Yang's ideas on automation and mass unemployment are not based in reality
#4> Following the debate, a “fact check” by the AP claimed that Yang was right... “Economists mostly blame [manufacturing] job losses on automation and robots, not trade deals,” it stated. But this was incorrect. No such consensus exists
So they claim AP and Yang are incorrect but also state there is no consensus. This piece seems more like it is trying to justify the warren gaffe in the last debate by muddying the waters. The truth is be it automation or outsourcing our economy is changing and we need to be prepared for it.
Re: Andrew Yang's ideas on automation and mass unemployment are not based in reality
#5I stopped reading after the author mentioned that Yang thinks that Ubi will solve issues. Have you actually read into some of the things he said, Ying explicitly says he does not think it will solve everything. Rather it gives people a bit of leeway in the short-term to focus on other things. With the hope that it will lead to more entrepreneurial things, but knows more likely it will go towards random things in each individual's life
Re: Andrew Yang's ideas on automation and mass unemployment are not based in reality
#6Even in China labor is getting more and more expensive. So sure there was some loss of manufacturing jobs to China in the 2000s but now even China is losing it to automation and outsourcing as labor rates go up.
Re: Andrew Yang's ideas on automation and mass unemployment are not based in reality
#7I'm not a Yang supporter but this article is total garbage. Slate has been very disappointing lately.
The key takeaway seems to be while Yang says automation has displaced jobs there's a lack of academic consensus on the weight placed between trade policy and technology improvements; but everyone agrees both have had a significant effect.
Ok... so we shouldn't be coming up with a plan for how to address economic changes due to technology based on "it's historic effect has possibly been outweighed by other factors" even though we all agree it will continue to have an effect in the future?
Also just want to point out that anyone using the reported federal unemployment rate as a measure of overall employment health has already lost all credibility to write on the topic.
Re: Andrew Yang's ideas on automation and mass unemployment are not based in reality
#8"[...] Long-haul truckers, who tend to make middle-class wages, will be replaced by poorly paid drivers tasked with steering autonomous vehicles through tricky city streets, which onboard navigation systems handle less well than highways. That’s not all jobs disappearing. It’s jobs changing."
Uhm, that's halfway decent careers turning into far fewer and shittier jobs. That's jobs disappearing. And it ignores that eventually someone will automate even that part away, it'll just take a bit longer.
The article just seems to just be a series of quibbles that don't show Yang to be wrong in any meaningful sense.
Re: Andrew Yang's ideas on automation and mass unemployment are not based in reality
#9I don't think Yang is claiming the _only_ thing causing job loss is automation. It's just one major factor, which will continue to rise into the future.
I also don't think he believes it will put everyone in those industries out of a job. I can see how the sound bites from the debate sound that way, but unfortunately he probably has to use the worse-case scenario type examples.
Re: Andrew Yang's ideas on automation and mass unemployment are not based in reality
#10I read the whole thing. It’s not so much that Yang is wrong but that the automation-is-taking-all-the-jobs mantra is incomplete and that outsourcing to places like China is a substantial part of it. From what I can tell from Yang-like arguments outsourcing could be seen as a form of automation. The general idea is that companies are incentivized to reduce labor costs so whether it’s outsourcing or automation the end…
The most charitable way of looking at this is that yang wasn’t wrong, but he wasn’t right either. He made explicit claims like “this isn’t a rules problem” in response to trade policy; actually, there’s a lot of evidence that there _is_ a trade policy problem.