5 ms·

Throughout the history of innovation, eliminating jobs did not eliminate work. New jobs sprang up. This has happened over and over. If you think that the deprec

by seibelj 11y ago

Throughout the history of innovation, eliminating jobs did not eliminate work. New jobs sprang up. This has happened over and over. If you think that the deprecation of hundreds of thousands of jobs will mean that hundreds of thousands of people can't work anymore, you are sorely mistaken. This is a fallacy intelligent people have fallen into throughout the centuries. Automation and computers have been doing their jobs for decades now, and America is still at 5% unemployment. I'll keep betting on capitalism while others continue to think, "this time is different".

FussyZeus 11y ago
This isn't eliminating jobs. This is making it so people don't need to do the jobs, but the work gets done anyway. That IS unprecedented, historical examples are where machines made the work easier or more efficient but still required people. We're talking about a TON of blue collar work that's not only possible to automate, but that the vast majority of people would WANT automated.
- seibelj 11y ago
  It used to take many people to plow a field. Then the steel plow was invented, and it only took 1 person. The work got done with only 1 person. Now if a robot can do it, that's only 1 additional job eliminated. It is certainly precedented. It used to take a professional to work an elevator. Then it became so easy that we didn't need an elevator man. The work got done without any person.
  - FussyZeus 11y ago
    Except even in the busiest cities, elevator men weren't a load bearing column of the economy. Your comparison is failing to account for the sheer scale of the truck driving business and the importance of those salaries not just to the individuals, but to the communities in which they live.
    - travem 11y ago
      The first example provided addresses that precise point, the changes in agricultural communities have been significant.
      - FussyZeus 11y ago
        Except there were other jobs opening for them to take. This is historically unique because of how quickly the non or less-skilled labor market is shrinking (and even the skilled labor market, to a certain degree).
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
skybrian 11y ago
That's a reasonable bet but so is taking the opposite side of the transaction (at a suitable price). It's not a fallacy to look for reasons why this time might be different. There are some statistics indicating something's going on, like an increase in people taking disability and in long-term unemployment. Also, it's unclear why automation isn't showing up in productivity statistics more.
VLM 11y ago
What is the plausible reaction mechanism such that elimination of jobs automagically creates superior new jobs? If mere elimination of jobs automatically improves the economy, why aren't slums and industrial rust belts absolutely exploding with economic growth? Certainly warfare destroys jobs by physically annihilating workplaces, if job destruction magically created higher standards of living via better jobs, how come the people in literal war zones aren't better off than we are? Insert standard Feynman rant about cargo cult thinking. I'd propose an alternative that increasing per capita energy use always creates more jobs. It seems realistic, that certain jobs inherently have a "must apply this many KWh to participate" floor. This coincidence is superior in that it has an actual plausible reaction mechanism. My pet theory might be totally wrong, but at least this hypothesis has a realistic mechanism for why it works.
- skybrian 11y ago
  Actually, war does increase income for suppliers not in the war zone. As an extreme example, World War 2 ended the Great Depression in the U.S. The mechanism is that there's work to be done and someone is willing to pay for it. As you say, this doesn't happen automatically, but there a lot of people trying to build businesses that increase consumer spending. Sometimes they succeed. Expanding a business often does require more energy use, but this isn't linear. Today's businesses are much less energy-intensive than they used to be. The bad news (sort of) is that they tend to be less labor-intensive as well.
- FussyZeus 11y ago
  From a pure economics perspective, it does create those superior jobs. I.e. the usual tale of the factory worker who was replaced by a robot, then got a new job fixing the robot that replaced him. Unfortunately this makes a few huge assumptions: 1) That the worker in question is able to take on that role, 2) That for some reason the factory would hire 1 person to maintain each robot (not happening), and 3) That the robot's output would be equal to the worker, which is highly unlikely (it would be much more efficient and make fewer mistakes). Plus, in the new modern automation trend, we're not just talking arms that build cars anymore, we're automating entire company departments. Things like accounting, investing, inventory control, etc. are all being heavily automated. White collar workers aren't as safe as they think.
i1568213658 11y ago
Let's say some new technology destroys 10000 jobs and in turn creates 20000 jobs. There is no guarantee that these jobs will pay a similar wage or salary. People may even have to work two jobs or now to pay their bills. Capitalism wins but we still lose.
eximius 11y ago
It did not eliminate work, but it does shift work from unskilled to skilled labor (truck driver to automated car technician, etc).

by seibelj 11y ago

FussyZeus 11y ago

This isn't eliminating jobs. This is making it so people don't need to do the jobs, but the work gets done anyway. That IS unprecedented, historical examples are where machines made the work easier or more efficient but still required people. We're talking about a TON of blue collar work that's not only possible to automate, but that the vast majority of people would WANT automated.

seibelj 11y ago
It used to take many people to plow a field. Then the steel plow was invented, and it only took 1 person. The work got done with only 1 person. Now if a robot can do it, that's only 1 additional job eliminated. It is certainly precedented. It used to take a professional to work an elevator. Then it became so easy that we didn't need an elevator man. The work got done without any person.
- FussyZeus 11y ago
  Except even in the busiest cities, elevator men weren't a load bearing column of the economy. Your comparison is failing to account for the sheer scale of the truck driving business and the importance of those salaries not just to the individuals, but to the communities in which they live.
  - travem 11y ago
    The first example provided addresses that precise point, the changes in agricultural communities have been significant.
    - FussyZeus 11y ago
      Except there were other jobs opening for them to take. This is historically unique because of how quickly the non or less-skilled labor market is shrinking (and even the skilled labor market, to a certain degree).

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

skybrian 11y ago

That's a reasonable bet but so is taking the opposite side of the transaction (at a suitable price). It's not a fallacy to look for reasons why this time might be different. There are some statistics indicating something's going on, like an increase in people taking disability and in long-term unemployment. Also, it's unclear why automation isn't showing up in productivity statistics more.

VLM 11y ago

What is the plausible reaction mechanism such that elimination of jobs automagically creates superior new jobs? If mere elimination of jobs automatically improves the economy, why aren't slums and industrial rust belts absolutely exploding with economic growth? Certainly warfare destroys jobs by physically annihilating workplaces, if job destruction magically created higher standards of living via better jobs, how come the people in literal war zones aren't better off than we are? Insert standard Feynman rant about cargo cult thinking. I'd propose an alternative that increasing per capita energy use always creates more jobs. It seems realistic, that certain jobs inherently have a "must apply this many KWh to participate" floor. This coincidence is superior in that it has an actual plausible reaction mechanism. My pet theory might be totally wrong, but at least this hypothesis has a realistic mechanism for why it works.

skybrian 11y ago
Actually, war does increase income for suppliers not in the war zone. As an extreme example, World War 2 ended the Great Depression in the U.S. The mechanism is that there's work to be done and someone is willing to pay for it. As you say, this doesn't happen automatically, but there a lot of people trying to build businesses that increase consumer spending. Sometimes they succeed. Expanding a business often does require more energy use, but this isn't linear. Today's businesses are much less energy-intensive than they used to be. The bad news (sort of) is that they tend to be less labor-intensive as well.
FussyZeus 11y ago
From a pure economics perspective, it does create those superior jobs. I.e. the usual tale of the factory worker who was replaced by a robot, then got a new job fixing the robot that replaced him. Unfortunately this makes a few huge assumptions: 1) That the worker in question is able to take on that role, 2) That for some reason the factory would hire 1 person to maintain each robot (not happening), and 3) That the robot's output would be equal to the worker, which is highly unlikely (it would be much more efficient and make fewer mistakes). Plus, in the new modern automation trend, we're not just talking arms that build cars anymore, we're automating entire company departments. Things like accounting, investing, inventory control, etc. are all being heavily automated. White collar workers aren't as safe as they think.

i1568213658 11y ago

Let's say some new technology destroys 10000 jobs and in turn creates 20000 jobs. There is no guarantee that these jobs will pay a similar wage or salary. People may even have to work two jobs or now to pay their bills. Capitalism wins but we still lose.

eximius 11y ago

It did not eliminate work, but it does shift work from unskilled to skilled labor (truck driver to automated car technician, etc).