4 ms·

"Ball State University found that job loss in the 2000s due to automation" On the aggregate jobs are not being destroyed. Obviously - many are put out of work

"Ball State University found that job loss in the 2000s due to automation" On the aggregate jobs are not being destroyed. Obviously - many are put out of work because of automation, but it seems that jobs are created somewhere else. The historical unemployment rate attests to this. It's a paradox that cannot be ignored, because it likely helps us understand the nature of employment.

michaelchisari 10y ago
Are the jobs that are created, in aggregate, as good as the jobs that are replaced? If we lose 10,000 jobs at $25 an hour, and replace them with 12,000 jobs at $9 an hour, is that trend sustainable? Other factors need to be taken into consideration. Did the original jobs provide health care, childcare and other benefits, while the new jobs do not? Did the original jobs provide ample overtime opportunities, while the new jobs are barely considered full time? Are the new jobs created concentrated geographically, requiring a major redistribution of the population into cities with much higher costs of living (a double whammy if the new jobs are much lower paying). And most importantly, if we're talking about AI, are the new jobs low hanging fruit for future AI and robotics advancements, creating a cycle of disruption and precarity in semi- and low-skilled workers?
- edblarney 10y ago
  "Are the jobs that are created, in aggregate, as good as the jobs that are replaced?" Are you living at a higher material standard than people at the dawn of the industrial revolution? Are you living at a higher material standard than the people in the 1980's? If 'yes' - then wages (as defined by their purchasing power) have increased.
  - WillPostForFood 10y ago
    The problem is that there are large portions of the country that answer no to: "Are you living at a higher material standard than the people in the 1980's?".
sigmar 10y ago
Yea, it's a difficult topic for an internet forum. (Probably better suited for think-tank roundtable disscussions.) If a job is eliminated, and a new job was created, (to me) the original job was still eliminated. It's a different job. That new job may have different hours, different qualifications, and be in a different location. As productivity increases with more automation, the economy will do very well. Poor, uneducated individuals in rural areas will see jobs disappear. I don't think it is comprehensive to look at job loss and disregard it, since at the macro-level employment may be zero-sum. I think that would be a disservice to the individuals that will be affected. fullshark was probably more concise and eloquent with how he stated my thoughts in another comment on this thread.

michaelchisari 10y ago

Are the jobs that are created, in aggregate, as good as the jobs that are replaced? If we lose 10,000 jobs at $25 an hour, and replace them with 12,000 jobs at $9 an hour, is that trend sustainable? Other factors need to be taken into consideration. Did the original jobs provide health care, childcare and other benefits, while the new jobs do not? Did the original jobs provide ample overtime opportunities, while the new jobs are barely considered full time? Are the new jobs created concentrated geographically, requiring a major redistribution of the population into cities with much higher costs of living (a double whammy if the new jobs are much lower paying). And most importantly, if we're talking about AI, are the new jobs low hanging fruit for future AI and robotics advancements, creating a cycle of disruption and precarity in semi- and low-skilled workers?

edblarney 10y ago
"Are the jobs that are created, in aggregate, as good as the jobs that are replaced?" Are you living at a higher material standard than people at the dawn of the industrial revolution? Are you living at a higher material standard than the people in the 1980's? If 'yes' - then wages (as defined by their purchasing power) have increased.
- WillPostForFood 10y ago
  The problem is that there are large portions of the country that answer no to: "Are you living at a higher material standard than the people in the 1980's?".

sigmar 10y ago

Yea, it's a difficult topic for an internet forum. (Probably better suited for think-tank roundtable disscussions.) If a job is eliminated, and a new job was created, (to me) the original job was still eliminated. It's a different job. That new job may have different hours, different qualifications, and be in a different location. As productivity increases with more automation, the economy will do very well. Poor, uneducated individuals in rural areas will see jobs disappear. I don't think it is comprehensive to look at job loss and disregard it, since at the macro-level employment may be zero-sum. I think that would be a disservice to the individuals that will be affected. fullshark was probably more concise and eloquent with how he stated my thoughts in another comment on this thread.