5 ms·

It is interesting seeing how hard this assertion is being pushed in some area for political purposes. Especially as it counters another message coming from the

by alva 9y ago

It is interesting seeing how hard this assertion is being pushed in some area for political purposes. Especially as it counters another message coming from the same groups. I am not sure how the two can be reconciled. (note: I am neither advocating or criticising the below) 1. We need mass immigration to keep up growth 2. Robots and AI are coming to take our jobs, so get used to it. Many in politics, think-tanks and media sphere seem to be pushing both quite heavily, especially 2. Both are being memed into public consciousness, but by who and for what purpose I don't know. I have not thought it all through, but surely if you are expecting higher unemployment supported by a welfare state you would want a smaller population? Both present a (perceived or real) threat in the minds of the working class and a somewhat contradictory message. It is easy to adopt a conspiratorial mindset on this in the belief that the public are being groomed for mass unemployment and to accept further exacerbated social inequality.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> Many in politics, think-tanks and media sphere seem to be pushing both quite heavily Can you please provide prominent examples where the same actor is pushing both narratives?
- alva 9y ago
  > Artificial Intelligence, Automation, and the Economy https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/12/20/artificial-intelligence-automation-and-economy https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/12/20/artific... Summary: AI and automation will "disrupt" millions of low paying jobs > The economic benefits of fixing our broken immigration system https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/report.pdf https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/doc... Summary: More humans means higher GDP and larger labor force edit: Tons of examples in ${Your_Favourite_Newspaper}. A lot seem to just push out government and think-tank pieces from upstream.
  - self-diversity 9y ago
    This is not really a contradiction. Automation will indeed replace humans in millions of jobs, low-paying and otherwise, but until that process reaches a critical tipping point, we still have a country to run.
  - nostrademons 9y ago
    There's no contradiction if you don't assume that the skill level of the workforce is fixed. The first paper cited concludes that the government should invest heavily on better education & training and should ensure that there is a pathway to retraining with these new technologies. The second paper suggests that immigration is needed to bring more highly-skilled and highly-educated workers to the U.S. Both of them center around the need to increase the overall education & skill level of the U.S. workforce. If you have no desire to learn new things, then yes, you will be in a world of hurt in the new economy. If you do, there are abundant opportunities for you.
    - alva 9y ago
      > The second paper suggests that immigration is needed to bring more highly-skilled and highly-educated workers to the U.S. That aspect is indeed covered, however you will notice is a small constituent of what was proposed. Much of the bill is focused on the increased labor participation for low-skilled work (also includes protection for the skilled US jobs, countering that original point) as well as the increased GDP expected due to more people to provide loans to etc. Also, put it in context of the distribution of skill level in the jobs filled by immigration. Any of these papers can be quoted to support either side tbh, it can be quite hard to decipher and see the bigger picture.
- WillPostForFood 9y ago
  On the left: The Brookings Institution https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/in-defense-of-immigrants-heres-why-america-needs-them-now-more-than-ever/ https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/in-defense-of-immigrants-... https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/u-s-manufacturing-may-depend-on-automation-to-survive-and-prosper/ https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/u-s-manufacturing-may-dep... On the right, the Wall Street Journal. (paywall thwarted my quick attempt to get links)
pizzetta 9y ago
Seems like the biggest issue is that employers are not willing (rather than unable) to re-train a workforce to be competent at new jobs, or to make the jobs attractive enough for people to want to work them. The answer from cops very often is the imported supply of labor. If we can presume that the skills currently available in the workforce do not overlap with the skills demanded in the workplace, re-training would both benefit the underemployed as well as companies. Sadly, re-training is not often seen as a solution.

by alva 9y ago

dragonwriter 9y ago

> Many in politics, think-tanks and media sphere seem to be pushing both quite heavily Can you please provide prominent examples where the same actor is pushing both narratives?

alva 9y ago
> Artificial Intelligence, Automation, and the Economy https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/12/20/artificial-intelligence-automation-and-economy https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/12/20/artific... Summary: AI and automation will "disrupt" millions of low paying jobs > The economic benefits of fixing our broken immigration system https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/report.pdf https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/doc... Summary: More humans means higher GDP and larger labor force edit: Tons of examples in ${Your_Favourite_Newspaper}. A lot seem to just push out government and think-tank pieces from upstream.
- self-diversity 9y ago
  This is not really a contradiction. Automation will indeed replace humans in millions of jobs, low-paying and otherwise, but until that process reaches a critical tipping point, we still have a country to run.
- nostrademons 9y ago
  There's no contradiction if you don't assume that the skill level of the workforce is fixed. The first paper cited concludes that the government should invest heavily on better education & training and should ensure that there is a pathway to retraining with these new technologies. The second paper suggests that immigration is needed to bring more highly-skilled and highly-educated workers to the U.S. Both of them center around the need to increase the overall education & skill level of the U.S. workforce. If you have no desire to learn new things, then yes, you will be in a world of hurt in the new economy. If you do, there are abundant opportunities for you.
  - alva 9y ago
    > The second paper suggests that immigration is needed to bring more highly-skilled and highly-educated workers to the U.S. That aspect is indeed covered, however you will notice is a small constituent of what was proposed. Much of the bill is focused on the increased labor participation for low-skilled work (also includes protection for the skilled US jobs, countering that original point) as well as the increased GDP expected due to more people to provide loans to etc. Also, put it in context of the distribution of skill level in the jobs filled by immigration. Any of these papers can be quoted to support either side tbh, it can be quite hard to decipher and see the bigger picture.
WillPostForFood 9y ago
On the left: The Brookings Institution https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/in-defense-of-immigrants-heres-why-america-needs-them-now-more-than-ever/ https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/in-defense-of-immigrants-... https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/u-s-manufacturing-may-depend-on-automation-to-survive-and-prosper/ https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/u-s-manufacturing-may-dep... On the right, the Wall Street Journal. (paywall thwarted my quick attempt to get links)

pizzetta 9y ago

Seems like the biggest issue is that employers are not willing (rather than unable) to re-train a workforce to be competent at new jobs, or to make the jobs attractive enough for people to want to work them. The answer from cops very often is the imported supply of labor. If we can presume that the skills currently available in the workforce do not overlap with the skills demanded in the workplace, re-training would both benefit the underemployed as well as companies. Sadly, re-training is not often seen as a solution.