Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We’re not going to have a jobless recovery. We’re going to have a jobless future

buzzmachine.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 270 posts

Re: We’re not going to have a jobless recovery. We’re going to have a jobless future

#61

Post by vaksel »

pg wrote: post #24

"Our new economy is shrinking because technology leads to efficiency over growth." Anyone who wants to make the claim that technology is net killing jobs has to be prepared to answer the question: why now? Technology has been killing (but not net killing) jobs for centuries. It's possible that technology could start to net kill jobs. But why now, when it hasn't in the past?

I think it comes down to logistics.

Up till now, you couldn't really outsource the job cheaply enough. Now, it's cheaper to build something on the other side of the world and ship it here.

Re: We’re not going to have a jobless recovery. We’re going to have a jobless future

#62

Post by Volpe »

scythe wrote: post #21

The argument, then, is that our ability to produce will outstrip our desire to consume, and so a fraction of people will be able to produce enough things for everyone to consume, which will lead to the rest not having jobs. The problem with the argument is that it does not really appear to me that our ability to produce has outstripped our desire to consume. The buying of things is currently rather high, and product…

Australia has record low unemployment, and consistent growth since the GFC. (Largely due to the resources boom driven by china)

N.B Australia's whole economy is worth about the same as the U.S's debt.

Re: We’re not going to have a jobless recovery. We’re going to have a jobless future

#63

Post by achompas »

dxbydt wrote: post #56
pg wrote: post #24

"Our new economy is shrinking because technology leads to efficiency over growth." Anyone who wants to make the claim that technology is net killing jobs has to be prepared to answer the question: why now? Technology has been killing (but not net killing) jobs for centuries. It's possible that technology could start to net kill jobs. But why now, when it hasn't in the past?

>But why now, when it hasn't in the past? One might well ask, why not now ? Given a(t) t, where a(t) = rate of new jobs created per year -b(t) t, where -b(t) = jobs lost due to technology per year Problem is, the function a(t) is stable and predictable over time, because human populations are generally sigmoids ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_growth ) Whereas the function b(t) feeds on itself ( http://en.wiki…

Your question ("why not now?") dodges pg's main point: we've been through this many times before, and the catalysts behind this recession (especially poor financial liquidity) do not suggest a material, structural shift in the type of work available in our economy. The housing market is poor and businesses are hesitant to invest, but robots have not replaced the pimply kid at McDonald's just yet.

Re: We’re not going to have a jobless recovery. We’re going to have a jobless future

#64

Post by achompas »

msluyter wrote: post #57
pg wrote: post #24

"Our new economy is shrinking because technology leads to efficiency over growth." Anyone who wants to make the claim that technology is net killing jobs has to be prepared to answer the question: why now? Technology has been killing (but not net killing) jobs for centuries. It's possible that technology could start to net kill jobs. But why now, when it hasn't in the past?

One answer, and I don't know if this is the right answer, is that unlike in previous revolutions, a new class of jobs has not been created to (fully) replace the jobs that are being displaced. In the industrial revolution, farmers could move to the city and get a job in the factory. In the (first) information revolution, factory workers could become telephone operators. But as Tyler Cowen notes in "The Great Stagnati…

IAAE, so I'll address this: jobs are not being "displaced" or permanently "eliminated" right now. There's a simple, plausible explanation for all of this:

1. Businesses are hesitant to invest in capital.

2. The housing market is terrible right now--especially housing starts.

3. Jobs related to #2 and #3 generally go to lower-skilled workers. They're the ones who are struggling right now (with something like 16% unemployment for men without a HS diploma).

This isn't the end of the American economy, people. Demand is low for goods produced by low-skilled, American-based labor. Things will improve with time.

Re: We’re not going to have a jobless recovery. We’re going to have a jobless future

#65

Post by jonkelly »

pg wrote: post #24

"Our new economy is shrinking because technology leads to efficiency over growth." Anyone who wants to make the claim that technology is net killing jobs has to be prepared to answer the question: why now? Technology has been killing (but not net killing) jobs for centuries. It's possible that technology could start to net kill jobs. But why now, when it hasn't in the past?

Exactly. Whenever I see someone make the "technology destroys jobs" argument, I always think of Kurt Vonnegut's first (and worst) novel, Player Piano. The disruptive change in 1952 looked just as scary to those being disrupted as it does today.

Re: We’re not going to have a jobless recovery. We’re going to have a jobless future

#66

Post by nazgulnarsil »

ChristianMarks wrote: post #10

The OP's post could use some context. Ricardo’s concept of comparative advantage was forged in a world where labor and capital were essentially fixed. England could weave cloth more efficiently than Spain, but Spain could make wine more efficiently than England. Therefore, they would both benefit from trade given that each of these countries had a comparative benefit or efficiency to offer. The assumption under compa…

"substandard conditions"

this needs to stop. you compare the working conditions of the laborer in china with the laborer in the US and bemoan the conditions. instead compare the laborer in china with the country field worker in china.

you can't magic a billion people into the middle class lifestyle that you find the minimum tolerable. the 2000-2010 has been the greatest decade in all of human history in terms of the overall raise in the quality of life for humanity as a whole.

Re: We’re not going to have a jobless recovery. We’re going to have a jobless future

#67

Post by johnohara »

pg wrote: post #24

"Our new economy is shrinking because technology leads to efficiency over growth." Anyone who wants to make the claim that technology is net killing jobs has to be prepared to answer the question: why now? Technology has been killing (but not net killing) jobs for centuries. It's possible that technology could start to net kill jobs. But why now, when it hasn't in the past?

Technology does not necessarily lead to efficiency. In the immediate, it leads to greater productivity. The same people, the same place, doing more, in the same period of time.

True efficiency emerges from high productivity when the technologies employed are thoroughly understood and applied properly. And that takes time.

Disruptive technologies increase productivity too, but stunt the emergence of efficiency by hindering the thorough understanding needed.

The last significant disruptive technology affecting jobs was the adoption of the internet -- circa 1997. Since then, organizations have had a lot of time to understand their technologies and improve upon them. I believe the layoffs we have seen in recent years, both in the office and on the shop floor, reflect that.

Re: We’re not going to have a jobless recovery. We’re going to have a jobless future

#68

Post by dreamdu5t »

jerf wrote: post #48
dreamdu5t wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Downvoted because my post is snarky? My point is factually valid. Public works DO create jobs, it's an empirical fact. Just because the OP hates the idea doesn't mean public works don't create jobs. Maybe he thinks UPS should fill the potholes, but either way, the only way to fill them is to hire people to fill them, whether the government or private business does it doesn't change the fact that someone was hired to…

"Public works DO create jobs, it's an empirical fact." No it's not. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. It's never that simple. Along with the obvious broken window fallacy problems, you have to look at how you are paying for that public work. Taxing a net two median-pay jobs out of existence to create a single public works median-pay job is destroying a job, not creating one.

The definition of "public works" is building things using State money. There is no way to build roads without hiring people. This is an empirical fact.

Unless you know of some way to maintain or build streets without hiring people?

Again, it is an empirical fact that public works create jobs. At least public works that require hiring people. It's not hard to understand. Work needing to be done creates jobs, whether that is financed by the government or private industry doesn't change the fact that the work needing to be done requires employment.

You can debate until the cows come home about whether specific public works are worth the money, but you can't debate whether or not they create jobs. Its a simple observational fact. Especially when the vast majority of public works require manual labor.

Re: We’re not going to have a jobless recovery. We’re going to have a jobless future

#69

Post by dreamdu5t »

ken_railey wrote: post #47
dreamdu5t wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Downvoted because my post is snarky? My point is factually valid. Public works DO create jobs, it's an empirical fact. Just because the OP hates the idea doesn't mean public works don't create jobs. Maybe he thinks UPS should fill the potholes, but either way, the only way to fill them is to hire people to fill them, whether the government or private business does it doesn't change the fact that someone was hired to…

Public works also destroy jobs, since the wealth to fund them has to first be extracted from the public.

Sure. That doesn't change the fact that they create them.

Re: We’re not going to have a jobless recovery. We’re going to have a jobless future

#70

Post by rmason »

I am an optimist. It helps that I have seen this cycle before in the late seventies. People spoke then of the new normal and that's a phrase that is trending once again.

I spent my early youth in the newsroom and the tools I used everyday have become a trip back in a time machine for todays students: http://journoterrorist.com/2011/08/02/paperball2/

Technology and entrepreneurs will bail us out once again. Lots of fortunes have been wagered and lost betting against America.

Post reply on HN