>The report linked above is from Ball State University, and argues that, while manufacturing has thrived, automation has reduced the need for workers so much th

>The report linked above is from Ball State University, and argues that, while manufacturing has thrived, automation has reduced the need for workers so much that lots of them have been laid off: >Had we kept 2000-levels of productivity and applied them to 2010-levels of production, we would have required 20.9 million manufacturing workers. Instead, we employed only 12.1 million. >The report gets summarized in a few places as “13% of job loss is due to trade, 87% is due to increasing productivity/automation”, which seems like a fair summary of some of its claims. It's a fair summary of Michael J. Hicks and Srikant Devara's claims, but if you take a closer look at the study's model, they conflate cost savings from offshoring with cost savings from automation, which would naturally make job losses from automation seem relatively larger. They also lobby for a reduction in corporation tax on page 7.