5 ms·

So basically you believe in the Luddite fallacy that automation hurts workers. http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/6717/economics/the-luddite-fallacy/ http://www

So basically you believe in the Luddite fallacy that automation hurts workers. http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/6717/economics/the-luddite-fallacy/ http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/6717/economics/the-luddite... Welfare hurts incentives and misallocates capital from those who invest it most effectively to those who reproduce most quickly.

ska 10y ago
"The Luddite Fallacy" is a terrible name for this observation, because the Luddites weren't wrong. They were concerned that automation was going to destroy their economic prospects and way of life, and it did. For multiple generations, typically (we really should have a corollary, something like "The re-employment fallacy") On the whole, it was still a net positive for the broader society, but you can't really blame the Luddites for not being concerned about that. [edit] It's also worth noting that the Luddites themselves were not really pushing an anti-technology stance, or arguing against "technological unemployment" - it was more the threat of skilled work being replaced by less skilled work, quality goods replace by inferior but cheaper ones, and societal impact of the change in work and working conditions. They weren't arguing that newer methods wouldn't be more productive, but that this increase productivity wasn't worth it's price. This could be referred to as "The Luddite Fallacy Fallacy", because the position attributed to the Luddites was never one they really held - their complaint was more nuanced than that, and one that nobody then or since has really come up with a good answer to.
- Fantastic_T 10y ago
  I can't find anything to suggest that you are wrong. I can't find any evidence that the Luddites themselves believed in technological unemployment.
  - RealityVoid 10y ago
    But it did impovrish them. How big a percentage of the population needs to have it worse that automation becomes a burden on society? I think automation will happen no matter what, but in the meantime, sometimes it might make sense to slow it down. Saying there is no such reason for slowing it down is a simplistic point of view. EDIT: You edited your initial comment and I find it commendable you changed your stance based on new information. (relating to Luddites and technological unemployment)
    - Fantastic_T 10y ago
      Yep I assumed they believed in tech unemployment but I checked my assumption and couldn't find any evidence for it. However I will say that in the long run it is very unlikely that the majority of Luddites were not far better off after the power loom than before. The quality of jobs available for the average person dramatically improved over the course industrialization, because automation increases human prosperity.
      - ska 10y ago
        But that is the actual point being missed, I think. The "Luddites" themselves, who were a small majority of highly skilled, highly paid labor, were not better off. They were worse off. Their children had worse prospects because they grew up without the advantages they would have had, etc. But they were not the average person. And eventually, everyone was on average better off. So this is key lesson to take. It is perfectly reasonable to believe changes like this can lead to overall benefits that make it compelling. However, real people get really hurt in this process. Waving our hands about how "market forces" will sort things out doesn't help if that evolution takes longer than your working life to be effective. And if a real person is standing up and saying "I'm going to get screwed by this" - it is incredibly naive to respond by saying "Don't worry, it will work itself out in the end". For that person, it is a very real possibility - in some cases a near certainty, that it won't. From a policy point of view, as a society, you cannot avoid dealing with this. You either deal with it head on, or you deal with the fallout.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
RealityVoid 10y ago
Well, in one sense, the Luddites were right, it did hurt THEIR job. Society, as a whole, was better off, but not them. And growing automation means a growing number of people that are affected by it. Where is the tipping point where a great enough number of people can't produce competitive economic output and a relatively small percentage produce the most value? What happens then? Growing inequality can mean trouble for all, regardless who invests more effectively.
- Fantastic_T 10y ago
  The Luddites were wrong in the sense that they and their children for the most part had far better jobs than they did before the power loom. Automation has always caused improvements in the occupations that exist.
  - ska 10y ago
    I'll try and dig up a cite later, but I've read analysis that this is just wrong. The "croppers" themselves mostly had very much worse jobs than before, as did their children and in many cases their grandchildren. The multi generational aspect is perhaps surprising, but the first generation shouldn't be. Automation may create "better" jobs in some sense, but as a rule they aren't usually accessible to the people who are displaced by it.
    - Fantastic_T 10y ago
      Please do dig it up, because I find it highly unlikely that in an environment where the average wage increases by 20% over a generation, that the children of those who had been in one of the many occupations that had been made obsolete by automation were not better off than their fathers were at the best of times. If it was a general rule that the children of those who lose their job to automation are worse off than their parents, the majority of the population would have seen its quality of life degrade over the last two hundred years given most occupations that existed at the beginning of the period have been made obsolete or mostly obsolete since that time.
artimaeis 10y ago
I constantly see the Luddites brought up during discussions of how to handle broad-scale automation and the economy of individual labor. I understand in principle that they are similar in that, at the very reductive viewpoint, machines are taking jobs. Industrial machines such as the Jacquard Loom could only affect one industry at a time. And in doing so we brought about the service economy. Service had always been around, though history it was mostly as slavery, but because of the industrial revolution we managed to slowly pivot to something stable. The type of broad-scale automation we are on the verge of now threatens to take literally anything that is capable of being done by humans. Entertainment may remain safe, but the broad capabilities of modern robotics and its coming advancements are certainly worth worrying about and thinking through, right? After all, if it turns out that us "automation Luddites" are just wrong and there is some panacea to our woes - will we have lost anything by trying to come up with means to protect the people?
- Kalium 10y ago
  > After all, if it turns out that us "automation Luddites" are just wrong and there is some panacea to our woes - will we have lost anything by trying to come up with means to protect the people? I get it. There's nothing wrong with protecting people. It's a good task for humans to take on. Protecting people from the ravages of heartless capital is a moral imperative! The issue at hand is perhaps one of costs. What else might those resources have been used for? Very few things are free. To complicate matters further, pursuing the goal of protecting people has been known to lead governments into ill-informed policies that do great harm despite intentions good and pure. Democracies are known to be vulnerable to populist ideologies, whether they are good ideas or not. I suppose that's a long-winded way of saying we might lose a lot and should step carefully.
- Fantastic_T 10y ago
  >Industrial machines such as the Jacquard Loom could only affect one industry at a time. And in doing so we brought about the service economy. The power loom was but one variation of a more fundamental technology: the steam engine, and more generally, the combustion engine. Beyond engines, the Industrial Revolution saw a rapid shift to all kinds of mechanisation, almost all of which were made possible by combustion engines. This affected countless occupations. The occupation of the Luddites is but one example. It was not limited to them. I am not at all concerned about the speed and breadth of soon-to-occur automation. Automation reduces costs, leading to people having more money to spend on new types of products/services. The cost of a product/service being roughly equal to the human labor needed to make it, we will always consume the same amount of human labor (subject to changes in the supply of labour, as people voluntarily drop out of the work force as their prosperity increases), because a reduction in the consumption of labour in one field (as a result of automation), leads to consumer savings, which are spent on consuming labour in another field.

ska 10y ago

"The Luddite Fallacy" is a terrible name for this observation, because the Luddites weren't wrong. They were concerned that automation was going to destroy their economic prospects and way of life, and it did. For multiple generations, typically (we really should have a corollary, something like "The re-employment fallacy") On the whole, it was still a net positive for the broader society, but you can't really blame the Luddites for not being concerned about that. [edit] It's also worth noting that the Luddites themselves were not really pushing an anti-technology stance, or arguing against "technological unemployment" - it was more the threat of skilled work being replaced by less skilled work, quality goods replace by inferior but cheaper ones, and societal impact of the change in work and working conditions. They weren't arguing that newer methods wouldn't be more productive, but that this increase productivity wasn't worth it's price. This could be referred to as "The Luddite Fallacy Fallacy", because the position attributed to the Luddites was never one they really held - their complaint was more nuanced than that, and one that nobody then or since has really come up with a good answer to.

Fantastic_T 10y ago
I can't find anything to suggest that you are wrong. I can't find any evidence that the Luddites themselves believed in technological unemployment.
- RealityVoid 10y ago
  But it did impovrish them. How big a percentage of the population needs to have it worse that automation becomes a burden on society? I think automation will happen no matter what, but in the meantime, sometimes it might make sense to slow it down. Saying there is no such reason for slowing it down is a simplistic point of view. EDIT: You edited your initial comment and I find it commendable you changed your stance based on new information. (relating to Luddites and technological unemployment)
  - Fantastic_T 10y ago
    Yep I assumed they believed in tech unemployment but I checked my assumption and couldn't find any evidence for it. However I will say that in the long run it is very unlikely that the majority of Luddites were not far better off after the power loom than before. The quality of jobs available for the average person dramatically improved over the course industrialization, because automation increases human prosperity.
    - ska 10y ago
      But that is the actual point being missed, I think. The "Luddites" themselves, who were a small majority of highly skilled, highly paid labor, were not better off. They were worse off. Their children had worse prospects because they grew up without the advantages they would have had, etc. But they were not the average person. And eventually, everyone was on average better off. So this is key lesson to take. It is perfectly reasonable to believe changes like this can lead to overall benefits that make it compelling. However, real people get really hurt in this process. Waving our hands about how "market forces" will sort things out doesn't help if that evolution takes longer than your working life to be effective. And if a real person is standing up and saying "I'm going to get screwed by this" - it is incredibly naive to respond by saying "Don't worry, it will work itself out in the end". For that person, it is a very real possibility - in some cases a near certainty, that it won't. From a policy point of view, as a society, you cannot avoid dealing with this. You either deal with it head on, or you deal with the fallout.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]

RealityVoid 10y ago

Well, in one sense, the Luddites were right, it did hurt THEIR job. Society, as a whole, was better off, but not them. And growing automation means a growing number of people that are affected by it. Where is the tipping point where a great enough number of people can't produce competitive economic output and a relatively small percentage produce the most value? What happens then? Growing inequality can mean trouble for all, regardless who invests more effectively.

Fantastic_T 10y ago
The Luddites were wrong in the sense that they and their children for the most part had far better jobs than they did before the power loom. Automation has always caused improvements in the occupations that exist.
- ska 10y ago
  I'll try and dig up a cite later, but I've read analysis that this is just wrong. The "croppers" themselves mostly had very much worse jobs than before, as did their children and in many cases their grandchildren. The multi generational aspect is perhaps surprising, but the first generation shouldn't be. Automation may create "better" jobs in some sense, but as a rule they aren't usually accessible to the people who are displaced by it.
  - Fantastic_T 10y ago
    Please do dig it up, because I find it highly unlikely that in an environment where the average wage increases by 20% over a generation, that the children of those who had been in one of the many occupations that had been made obsolete by automation were not better off than their fathers were at the best of times. If it was a general rule that the children of those who lose their job to automation are worse off than their parents, the majority of the population would have seen its quality of life degrade over the last two hundred years given most occupations that existed at the beginning of the period have been made obsolete or mostly obsolete since that time.

artimaeis 10y ago

I constantly see the Luddites brought up during discussions of how to handle broad-scale automation and the economy of individual labor. I understand in principle that they are similar in that, at the very reductive viewpoint, machines are taking jobs. Industrial machines such as the Jacquard Loom could only affect one industry at a time. And in doing so we brought about the service economy. Service had always been around, though history it was mostly as slavery, but because of the industrial revolution we managed to slowly pivot to something stable. The type of broad-scale automation we are on the verge of now threatens to take literally anything that is capable of being done by humans. Entertainment may remain safe, but the broad capabilities of modern robotics and its coming advancements are certainly worth worrying about and thinking through, right? After all, if it turns out that us "automation Luddites" are just wrong and there is some panacea to our woes - will we have lost anything by trying to come up with means to protect the people?

Kalium 10y ago
> After all, if it turns out that us "automation Luddites" are just wrong and there is some panacea to our woes - will we have lost anything by trying to come up with means to protect the people? I get it. There's nothing wrong with protecting people. It's a good task for humans to take on. Protecting people from the ravages of heartless capital is a moral imperative! The issue at hand is perhaps one of costs. What else might those resources have been used for? Very few things are free. To complicate matters further, pursuing the goal of protecting people has been known to lead governments into ill-informed policies that do great harm despite intentions good and pure. Democracies are known to be vulnerable to populist ideologies, whether they are good ideas or not. I suppose that's a long-winded way of saying we might lose a lot and should step carefully.
Fantastic_T 10y ago
>Industrial machines such as the Jacquard Loom could only affect one industry at a time. And in doing so we brought about the service economy. The power loom was but one variation of a more fundamental technology: the steam engine, and more generally, the combustion engine. Beyond engines, the Industrial Revolution saw a rapid shift to all kinds of mechanisation, almost all of which were made possible by combustion engines. This affected countless occupations. The occupation of the Luddites is but one example. It was not limited to them. I am not at all concerned about the speed and breadth of soon-to-occur automation. Automation reduces costs, leading to people having more money to spend on new types of products/services. The cost of a product/service being roughly equal to the human labor needed to make it, we will always consume the same amount of human labor (subject to changes in the supply of labour, as people voluntarily drop out of the work force as their prosperity increases), because a reduction in the consumption of labour in one field (as a result of automation), leads to consumer savings, which are spent on consuming labour in another field.