4 ms·

The invention of the car has almost certainly led to more jobs, even if you were to include the jobs lost by horses. In part because there were exponentially mo

The invention of the car has almost certainly led to more jobs, even if you were to include the jobs lost by horses. In part because there were exponentially more cars that needed manufacturing, maintenance, roads to drive on etc. Heck, I'd be interested in seeing the ratio between total employment numbers before the advent of the car in the late 1800s and automobile-related jobs at their peak (US only).

vkou 10y ago
Which jobs has the invention of car manufacturing robots created? Was it anywhere near as many jobs as were lost in Detroit? We still manufacture roughly the same amount of cars per capita, so these robots didn't enable any new industries. The only reason to automate, is because buying robots is cheaper then paying employees, for the same amount of output produced. Since those robots were built by people, who had to get paid... Clearly, at the end of the day, you are employing fewer people. New jobs get created when the amount of produced goods grows, as happened in the industrial revolution. Unfortunately, we are currently in a supply glut - we are demand-limited.
- daniel_levine 10y ago
  Robotics production, tooling, software engineering, and the jobs associated with whole new industries that are enabled by robotic manufacturing. Also, the jobs associated with more cars being on the road and being more reliable. I think it's fair to say that there are instances of technology causing variable effects on the labor market over time (particularly variable effects on different parts). That's not a particularly interesting result though :) More broadly, economists overwhelmingly think that increases in productivity lead to improvements in quality of life of people over time. Either by improving their labor situation (better, safer jobs) or their consumer situation (cheaper goods, more choice etc). The logical counterexample would be technology we wish we would not have created, of which I can come up with a few examples, but far fewer than the reverse.
  - vkou 10y ago
    > Robotics production, tooling, software engineering, and the jobs associated with whole new industries that are enabled by robotic manufacturing. All of which employ far fewer people (And collectively pay them far less in wages) then the assembly lines did. If they didn't, the robots would be more expensive then assembly line workers. > Also, the jobs associated with more cars being on the road and being more reliable. More reliable cars arguably produce fewer jobs. More importantly, per-capita car ownership hasn't changed in the US in the past 35 years. > More broadly, economists overwhelmingly think that increases in productivity lead to improvements in quality of life of people over time. Either by improving their labor situation (better, safer jobs) or their consumer situation (cheaper goods, more choice etc). Have these economists ever considered that automation scales non-linearly? In the industrial revolution, if you wanted to double the amount of widgets you made, you needed to double your workforce. If you want to double the number of widgets you make today, you buy more robots - this does not double your costs. If we take automation to its logical conclusion (Wherein robots can build other robots), then its clear that that claim is nonesense. Yes, the labor situation is improved (All jobs are safe, because no jobs are left), and yes, the consumer situation is improved (All goods are now made by robots, all robots are now made by robots). Yet, it's a complete disaster - as with no employees, nobody has the money to buy all these cheap goods. For a capitalist, the best state of affairs is when he doesn't have to employ anyone to produce products. If automation is adopted, it's because it gets a factory closer to that point. (And let's not forget that exponential growth in the production of goods will bring about an unmitigated ecological disaster... We need to produce fewer things - not more.)
    - daniel_levine 10y ago
      Per non-adjusted output manufacturing employs fewer than Farming, and farming employs fewer people than hunting and gathering. I'm not totally disagreeing with you. I just think this a turtles all the way down situation. "Reliable cars" have built in positives for the consumers productivity (they're reliable). Yes, the majority of economists have considered that and it's why they love automation so much! As costs to produce goods come down, competition (in a competitive market) forces the end price down. Then the end consumer saves money! In your example if the costs hit zero while the consumers still have money then it's a complete miracle! For a capitalist, the best state of affairs is when everyone can consume her products with enough margin to beat other possible places to invest capital! If automation is adopted, it's because it gets a factory closer to that point.
JoeAltmaier 10y ago
I don't know; there were a hell of a lot of horses. Cars took generations to get up to that number. Not a good example? And cars were preferable precisely because they took less effort/expense. It was actually cheaper to build a car than raise equivalent horse(s).
- daniel_levine 10y ago
  I'm speaking to not just the cars themselves, but all the jobs that are a derivative effect. As a quick example, horses were quite good on variable terrain. Whereas, we decided to dramatically increase spend on roads with the advent and popularization of the car.
pault 10y ago
I think you're missing the point in GP's analogy. _We are the horses._

vkou 10y ago

Which jobs has the invention of car manufacturing robots created? Was it anywhere near as many jobs as were lost in Detroit? We still manufacture roughly the same amount of cars per capita, so these robots didn't enable any new industries. The only reason to automate, is because buying robots is cheaper then paying employees, for the same amount of output produced. Since those robots were built by people, who had to get paid... Clearly, at the end of the day, you are employing fewer people. New jobs get created when the amount of produced goods grows, as happened in the industrial revolution. Unfortunately, we are currently in a supply glut - we are demand-limited.

daniel_levine 10y ago
Robotics production, tooling, software engineering, and the jobs associated with whole new industries that are enabled by robotic manufacturing. Also, the jobs associated with more cars being on the road and being more reliable. I think it's fair to say that there are instances of technology causing variable effects on the labor market over time (particularly variable effects on different parts). That's not a particularly interesting result though :) More broadly, economists overwhelmingly think that increases in productivity lead to improvements in quality of life of people over time. Either by improving their labor situation (better, safer jobs) or their consumer situation (cheaper goods, more choice etc). The logical counterexample would be technology we wish we would not have created, of which I can come up with a few examples, but far fewer than the reverse.
- vkou 10y ago
  > Robotics production, tooling, software engineering, and the jobs associated with whole new industries that are enabled by robotic manufacturing. All of which employ far fewer people (And collectively pay them far less in wages) then the assembly lines did. If they didn't, the robots would be more expensive then assembly line workers. > Also, the jobs associated with more cars being on the road and being more reliable. More reliable cars arguably produce fewer jobs. More importantly, per-capita car ownership hasn't changed in the US in the past 35 years. > More broadly, economists overwhelmingly think that increases in productivity lead to improvements in quality of life of people over time. Either by improving their labor situation (better, safer jobs) or their consumer situation (cheaper goods, more choice etc). Have these economists ever considered that automation scales non-linearly? In the industrial revolution, if you wanted to double the amount of widgets you made, you needed to double your workforce. If you want to double the number of widgets you make today, you buy more robots - this does not double your costs. If we take automation to its logical conclusion (Wherein robots can build other robots), then its clear that that claim is nonesense. Yes, the labor situation is improved (All jobs are safe, because no jobs are left), and yes, the consumer situation is improved (All goods are now made by robots, all robots are now made by robots). Yet, it's a complete disaster - as with no employees, nobody has the money to buy all these cheap goods. For a capitalist, the best state of affairs is when he doesn't have to employ anyone to produce products. If automation is adopted, it's because it gets a factory closer to that point. (And let's not forget that exponential growth in the production of goods will bring about an unmitigated ecological disaster... We need to produce fewer things - not more.)
  - daniel_levine 10y ago
    Per non-adjusted output manufacturing employs fewer than Farming, and farming employs fewer people than hunting and gathering. I'm not totally disagreeing with you. I just think this a turtles all the way down situation. "Reliable cars" have built in positives for the consumers productivity (they're reliable). Yes, the majority of economists have considered that and it's why they love automation so much! As costs to produce goods come down, competition (in a competitive market) forces the end price down. Then the end consumer saves money! In your example if the costs hit zero while the consumers still have money then it's a complete miracle! For a capitalist, the best state of affairs is when everyone can consume her products with enough margin to beat other possible places to invest capital! If automation is adopted, it's because it gets a factory closer to that point.

JoeAltmaier 10y ago

I don't know; there were a hell of a lot of horses. Cars took generations to get up to that number. Not a good example? And cars were preferable precisely because they took less effort/expense. It was actually cheaper to build a car than raise equivalent horse(s).

daniel_levine 10y ago
I'm speaking to not just the cars themselves, but all the jobs that are a derivative effect. As a quick example, horses were quite good on variable terrain. Whereas, we decided to dramatically increase spend on roads with the advent and popularization of the car.

pault 10y ago

I think you're missing the point in GP's analogy. _We are the horses._