7 ms·

> Miller acknowledges that shifting work towards automated factories could threaten jobs, but argues that more efficient manufacturing plants will create better

> Miller acknowledges that shifting work towards automated factories could threaten jobs, but argues that more efficient manufacturing plants will create better jobs for displaced workers. How exactly?

devopsproject 9y ago
Supply Side Jesus™
jbob2000 9y ago
Instead of the workers doing the work, they will move to maintaining the machines that do the work. Or they will move to QA to correct imperfect automation or to increase quality in general. These jobs are less physically demanding and less risky, so I'd consider them "better".
- Retric 9y ago
  That might work for say 5% of the work force, but what happens to the other 95%. Remember, a single factory may have similar number of workers, but it's going to produce a lot more stuff so at the industry level there are going to be massive cuts when say self driving trucks become the norm. Automation does produce a surplus, but total wealth is in many ways less important than median wealth.
  - KekDemaga 9y ago
    Many workers will move on to other sectors and spend the money earned there to buy dramatically cheaper goods from the owners of the machines that replaced them.
    - maxerickson 9y ago
      I'll bet you a pair of Nike shoes that Nike shoes don't get a whole lot cheaper anytime soon.
      - adventured 9y ago
        The price will fall for an average pair of shoes available to people earning at or below the global median income, while quality simultaneously increases. As is always the case throughout the last 200 years of well studied industrial history, this process will open the market up to a lot more customers at lower income tiers to buy for the first time or to buy more. If they could afford one pair of average shoes before, they'll be able to afford two. Nike will keep its prices high for brand purposes. Meanwhile, robotic shoe bots churning out 3x the number of shoes in the same amount of time, at half the price per shoe that it used to cost, will be selling to the bottom 2/3 of the planet, not to Nike customers. Robotic manufacturing will do two big things: relocate some types of manufacturing based on demand instead of labor, and make quality goods far cheaper for countries near or below the global median income wise.
        abfan1127 9y ago
        those Brands like Nike will increase their bottom lines, but we all invest in these brands in our retirement accounts. Ultimately what matters is not the shuffling of money, but the increase in goods we all use. This is the creation of wealth that really matters.
    - hectorlorenzo 9y ago
      You are assuming that no other sectors will be affected by automation and that most workers in that region can freely and easily switch jobs.
- Jemmeh 9y ago
  Programming is specifically super profitable because you need far less people to do the same amount of work. We'll have to come up with different economic models to cope with automation. One that's being talked about a lot lately is basic income, but there's various solutions to be looked at.
drenvuk 9y ago
It won't. This is just a saying to cover their ass from political action. I say this as a robot enthusiast.
- bitJericho 9y ago
  Indeed. The only relief will be the rich factory owners paying livable wages to the public via taxation.
  - mars4rp 9y ago
    yes and Tax consumption instead of production and it doesn't matter where the robot is set up!
    - hansthehorse 9y ago
      We are going to have to find a way to tax robots as if they were humans doing the work. Social security can't survive in America unless we do some pre-planning. Robot displaces 10 people? Robot pays the payroll tax times 10, or something like it.
      - ThomPete 9y ago
        Not robots, but output of robots.
        mars4rp 9y ago
        that way we just force robots out of country, we should tax consumption! that way it doesn't matter where the robots sit! and we might get some high paying jobs for maintenance back.
        ThomPete 9y ago
        Where are the consumers you want to tax going to get their money from?
eridius 9y ago
AIUI economic growth is strongly correlated with job creation. Robotics may eliminate individual jobs, but if they drive economic growth, then this should lead to more job creation that will provide opportunities for the displaced workers (though they may need education).
- SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
  But why wouldn't those jobs be replaced by robots, given that we see pretty much every job being replaced by robots? If the time it takes to mechanize a new job is shorter than a generation, the economy crumbles from the churn and permanently displaced workers. (I'd argue we're on the cusp of this.) Everyone is addressing that we've seen displaced labor before, but not a lot about the fact that the rate at which we're displacing labor is rapidly accelerating. (Or that massively displaced labor often only gets better after a generation of massive hardships.)
  - eridius 9y ago
    Unless you're expecting "true" A.I. to show up anytime soon, only some categories of jobs can be automated, namely ones that involve fairly repetitive physical labor. Knowledge work and many types of physical jobs that require specialized expertise (such as electrician, plumber, etc) aren't going to be automated.
    - deepnotderp 9y ago
      Oh sweet summer child, even the act of making deep learning models has been automated...
    - SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
      As I understand it, technology is already displacing lots of support staff around knowledge work (clerks, paralegels, clinic administrators, filing specialists, etc) and is rapidly digging at specialist knowledge (disease diagnosis, algorithmic designs, etc). I don't expect "AI" to take over every job, I just expect technology to displace 95% of the people from 95% of the (good) jobs in ~30 years. I think once that 90% of the workforce becomes dislodged, we're not going to see the notion of "jobs" ever recover, particularly ones that are more than service industry positions. I think we're already seeing the tip of it in lost office jobs being replaced by service industry jobs -- hilariously, replacing knowledge and skilled work with repetitive physical labor.
leggomylibro 9y ago
Often there are government programs available for retraining if your job is lost to outsourcing or automation or similar. People who train into a new job will likely make more money, have a better quality of life, and better long-term career prospects. So 200 people are put out of work in a factory town, but the 10 people the plant still needs are much better off. The rest of the workers are expected to take advantage of the resources available to them, and find something better. There is still a large net job loss, but other jobs crop up elsewhere in the economy, and the general quality of jobs throughout the nation is improved. Often people don't take advantage of retraining programs, however, which leads to enormously depressed areas which used to be centered around a few large employers. But it's not usually because of laziness or unwillingness to change gears. Many people simply balk at leaving their home community, and when everyone is suddenly out of work, there aren't openings in many industries that they might retrain into. Still, that's like staying in a village after the well dries up; sort of pointless and making life much harder on yourself than it needs to be. Automation is not a bad thing, but it requires a dynamic country where people are willing to move and train into jobs. Today's America is stagnant and stationary, a problem which would probably solve itself if these decrepit factory towns weren't so successful at garnering subsidies to maintain their lifestyles. Just look at coal country...

devopsproject 9y ago

Supply Side Jesus™

jbob2000 9y ago

Instead of the workers doing the work, they will move to maintaining the machines that do the work. Or they will move to QA to correct imperfect automation or to increase quality in general. These jobs are less physically demanding and less risky, so I'd consider them "better".

Retric 9y ago
That might work for say 5% of the work force, but what happens to the other 95%. Remember, a single factory may have similar number of workers, but it's going to produce a lot more stuff so at the industry level there are going to be massive cuts when say self driving trucks become the norm. Automation does produce a surplus, but total wealth is in many ways less important than median wealth.
- KekDemaga 9y ago
  Many workers will move on to other sectors and spend the money earned there to buy dramatically cheaper goods from the owners of the machines that replaced them.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    I'll bet you a pair of Nike shoes that Nike shoes don't get a whole lot cheaper anytime soon.
    - adventured 9y ago
      The price will fall for an average pair of shoes available to people earning at or below the global median income, while quality simultaneously increases. As is always the case throughout the last 200 years of well studied industrial history, this process will open the market up to a lot more customers at lower income tiers to buy for the first time or to buy more. If they could afford one pair of average shoes before, they'll be able to afford two. Nike will keep its prices high for brand purposes. Meanwhile, robotic shoe bots churning out 3x the number of shoes in the same amount of time, at half the price per shoe that it used to cost, will be selling to the bottom 2/3 of the planet, not to Nike customers. Robotic manufacturing will do two big things: relocate some types of manufacturing based on demand instead of labor, and make quality goods far cheaper for countries near or below the global median income wise.
      - abfan1127 9y ago
        those Brands like Nike will increase their bottom lines, but we all invest in these brands in our retirement accounts. Ultimately what matters is not the shuffling of money, but the increase in goods we all use. This is the creation of wealth that really matters.
  - hectorlorenzo 9y ago
    You are assuming that no other sectors will be affected by automation and that most workers in that region can freely and easily switch jobs.
Jemmeh 9y ago
Programming is specifically super profitable because you need far less people to do the same amount of work. We'll have to come up with different economic models to cope with automation. One that's being talked about a lot lately is basic income, but there's various solutions to be looked at.

drenvuk 9y ago

It won't. This is just a saying to cover their ass from political action. I say this as a robot enthusiast.

bitJericho 9y ago
Indeed. The only relief will be the rich factory owners paying livable wages to the public via taxation.
- mars4rp 9y ago
  yes and Tax consumption instead of production and it doesn't matter where the robot is set up!
  - hansthehorse 9y ago
    We are going to have to find a way to tax robots as if they were humans doing the work. Social security can't survive in America unless we do some pre-planning. Robot displaces 10 people? Robot pays the payroll tax times 10, or something like it.
    - ThomPete 9y ago
      Not robots, but output of robots.
      - mars4rp 9y ago
        that way we just force robots out of country, we should tax consumption! that way it doesn't matter where the robots sit! and we might get some high paying jobs for maintenance back.
        ThomPete 9y ago
        Where are the consumers you want to tax going to get their money from?

eridius 9y ago

AIUI economic growth is strongly correlated with job creation. Robotics may eliminate individual jobs, but if they drive economic growth, then this should lead to more job creation that will provide opportunities for the displaced workers (though they may need education).

SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
But why wouldn't those jobs be replaced by robots, given that we see pretty much every job being replaced by robots? If the time it takes to mechanize a new job is shorter than a generation, the economy crumbles from the churn and permanently displaced workers. (I'd argue we're on the cusp of this.) Everyone is addressing that we've seen displaced labor before, but not a lot about the fact that the rate at which we're displacing labor is rapidly accelerating. (Or that massively displaced labor often only gets better after a generation of massive hardships.)
- eridius 9y ago
  Unless you're expecting "true" A.I. to show up anytime soon, only some categories of jobs can be automated, namely ones that involve fairly repetitive physical labor. Knowledge work and many types of physical jobs that require specialized expertise (such as electrician, plumber, etc) aren't going to be automated.
  - deepnotderp 9y ago
    Oh sweet summer child, even the act of making deep learning models has been automated...
  - SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
    As I understand it, technology is already displacing lots of support staff around knowledge work (clerks, paralegels, clinic administrators, filing specialists, etc) and is rapidly digging at specialist knowledge (disease diagnosis, algorithmic designs, etc). I don't expect "AI" to take over every job, I just expect technology to displace 95% of the people from 95% of the (good) jobs in ~30 years. I think once that 90% of the workforce becomes dislodged, we're not going to see the notion of "jobs" ever recover, particularly ones that are more than service industry positions. I think we're already seeing the tip of it in lost office jobs being replaced by service industry jobs -- hilariously, replacing knowledge and skilled work with repetitive physical labor.

leggomylibro 9y ago

Often there are government programs available for retraining if your job is lost to outsourcing or automation or similar. People who train into a new job will likely make more money, have a better quality of life, and better long-term career prospects. So 200 people are put out of work in a factory town, but the 10 people the plant still needs are much better off. The rest of the workers are expected to take advantage of the resources available to them, and find something better. There is still a large net job loss, but other jobs crop up elsewhere in the economy, and the general quality of jobs throughout the nation is improved. Often people don't take advantage of retraining programs, however, which leads to enormously depressed areas which used to be centered around a few large employers. But it's not usually because of laziness or unwillingness to change gears. Many people simply balk at leaving their home community, and when everyone is suddenly out of work, there aren't openings in many industries that they might retrain into. Still, that's like staying in a village after the well dries up; sort of pointless and making life much harder on yourself than it needs to be. Automation is not a bad thing, but it requires a dynamic country where people are willing to move and train into jobs. Today's America is stagnant and stationary, a problem which would probably solve itself if these decrepit factory towns weren't so successful at garnering subsidies to maintain their lifestyles. Just look at coal country...