5 ms·

Robotics production, tooling, software engineering, and the jobs associated with whole new industries that are enabled by robotic manufacturing. Also, the jobs

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.
  - vkou 10y ago
    > In your example if the costs hit zero while the consumers still have money then it's a complete miracle! Whatever money consumers have will be quickly siphoned up by both the non-productive rentier class, and profit margins - just because the production costs zero human labour, doesn't mean that the cost of a product will be zero. (Who would want to build a factory, when you can't make any margin?)

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.
- vkou 10y ago
  > In your example if the costs hit zero while the consumers still have money then it's a complete miracle! Whatever money consumers have will be quickly siphoned up by both the non-productive rentier class, and profit margins - just because the production costs zero human labour, doesn't mean that the cost of a product will be zero. (Who would want to build a factory, when you can't make any margin?)