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

131–140 of 270 posts

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

#131

Post by SoftwareMaven »

ippisl wrote: post #120
msluyter wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

As a support for your claim that new classes of jobs are not created , see pages 67-68 in http://www.thelightsinthetunnel.com/LIGHTSTUNNEL.PDF There's a table called "U.S. Occupations with at least one million workers (2006)". Every type of job there has existed since 1948. There are no new job categories created with over a million workers.

But that isn't too surprising. Seventy-five years ago, we had "factory worker", "foreman", and "manager". Compare that to any large company today and see the variety of jobs being done.

Jobs, and therefore people, have specialized more, that's all.

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

#132

Post by jfager »

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 possibility is that previous technological advancements facilitated dispersion of labor, while the current crop facilitates the concentration of it.

Advances in ocean-faring ships led to colonialism. Train travel led to a rapid westward expansion of the United States. New farms get established, and new towns crop up to serve them, needing homes and markets to be built, a local newspaper, a local grocer, a local bank, eventually local radio and television stations. Similar basic economic structures get replicated in many diverse geographic locations. Once one place gets saturated, people move and start up another franchise of the town model.

Skipping ahead fifty years or so, the web means I don't have as great a need for the local bookstore, the local newspaper, the local television or radio station, the local bank, etc. There are plenty of businesses that I still need locally, but they in turn don't have as great a need for the local advertising agency, the local newspaper's classifieds section, the local accountant, the local lawyer, the local travel agent - assuming there's still a local owner, with a local HR department, local management structure, etc.

Of the startups you see, how many are going to end up with a business whose operations need to be replicated in many geographic locations? How many are ever going to be more than an office in the Valley or NYC and maybe a few sales outposts? How many pitches are you getting that require large marginal outlays on labor in order to scale, and how would that requirement affect your investment decision?

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

#133

Post by achompas »

entangld wrote: post #127
achompas wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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% unemp…

Isn't a very large proportion of American labor unskilled? Real unemployment is always worse than the figure they give (when you account for people who stopped looking).

I can't say how many workers have less than a HS degree. A trip to bls.gov would help, but I'm on an iPhone.

I imagine the majority of American workers have a HS degree, at least.

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

#134

Post by SoftwareMaven »

arohner wrote: post #44
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 a better way of putting would be "technology is killing old jobs, and people aren't stepping into the new jobs fast enough". The author is exactly right that the gov't and mainstream are trying to hold onto the old ways. I think the mainstream is surprised by this technology shift, because technology is finally replacing non-tech industries that didn't expect to be replaced. Nobody was surprised when blacksmi…

I bet there was a lot of gnashing going on in the 19th and early 20th centuries, too. People don't like to change, yet technology forces them to.

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

#135

Post by SoftwareMaven »

reinhardt wrote: post #92
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?

It's probably not going to be "now" or any time soon but, barring a global-scale disaster, it's hard to imagine how the future may not be jobless, given enough time. There are only so many levels "higher up the stack" humans can go before most of theirs skills are rendered redundant by the machine. Even if The Singularity doesn't happen and humans continue being exclusively in charge of the thinking, decision making,…

But will it matter? The more automated the production of essentials become, the less expensive they become. As a result, we may get to a point that the world economy is all about trading natural resources that go to providing people with their essentials. People can then build their own wants beyond that in a way similar to bartering.

The problem, of course, is the 10-20 years between "there are too few jobs" and "everything we need is available" and governments need to actively work to support populations through it. Unfortunately, very, very few governments seem to be able to look to the future.

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

#136

Post by troystribling »

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?

You could argue that in the skill level required to transition from destroyed jobs to created has changed. When the economy transitioned from farming to manufacturing a farmer could begin working in a factory with little training. Now automation is beginning to eliminate jobs at some skill levels. For these displaced workers to find new jobs years of training could be required. If the rate that jobs are being eliminated is greater than the rate that workers can train for newly created jobs and reenter the workforce then there could be a larger percentage of unemployed workers than has been seen historically.

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

#137

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]

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

#138

Post by hadronzoo »

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…

It's difficult for me to buy Tyler Cowen's thesis that all of the huge gains in marginal productivity have been tapped. If you're a developer, you tend to see incomprehensible inefficiency everywhere, especially if you consult for larger organizations or work on applications that involve human collaboration. I think a more probable explanation for "The Great Stagflation" is the unprecedented level of market intervention and regulation that did not exist during the industrial revolution.

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

#139

Post by cpeterso »

SoftwareMaven wrote: post #134
arohner wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a better way of putting would be "technology is killing old jobs, and people aren't stepping into the new jobs fast enough". The author is exactly right that the gov't and mainstream are trying to hold onto the old ways. I think the mainstream is surprised by this technology shift, because technology is finally replacing non-tech industries that didn't expect to be replaced. Nobody was surprised when blacksmi…

I bet there was a lot of gnashing going on in the 19th and early 20th centuries, too. People don't like to change, yet technology forces them to.

In the early 19th century, the Luddites protested (and destroyed) automated looms that could be operated by cheap, relatively unskilled labor.

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

#140

Post by raldi »

natmaster wrote: post #122
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 has been killing jobs for a long time. Why do you think it hasn't before? Do you find your self blacksmithing, or does a machine do that for you?

You're confusing job killers with net job killers, a distinction pg clearly makes in his post.
Post reply on HN