3 ms·
What is the plausible reaction mechanism such that elimination of jobs automagically creates superior new jobs? If mere elimination of jobs automatically impro
by 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 agoActually, 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 agoFrom 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.