5 ms·

This is fascinating. Can you please point me somewhere I can learn more about automation increasing employment? When I google it I just get a bunch of highly

This is fascinating. Can you please point me somewhere I can learn more about automation increasing employment? When I google it I just get a bunch of highly political pieces about robots stealing jobs.

gwy 7y ago
Seems similar to the Jevons paradox, as discussed here: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7pNJ9aQxRMrWAnkmf/thank-you-old-man-jevons-for-my-job https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7pNJ9aQxRMrWAnkmf/thank-you-...
- MegaButts 7y ago
  > So anyways, my next post will explain why this is all a lie and you’re actually maybe doomed to lose your job to automation. If you’ve found the problem with this analysis already, feel free to leave it in the comments. That article is essentially refuting itself.
  - chimi 7y ago
    Any computer person who has automated their jobs to the point fires aren't flaring up every day and their bosses and coworkers wonder what they do all day has felt the reality of automation killing jobs.
    - coryrc 7y ago
      Yup, that's why number of programmers is dropping and salaries are falling through the floor.
      - Ill_ban_myself 7y ago
        /s?
Animats 7y ago
There's a classic book from almost a century ago, "Chapters on Machinery and Labor", which lists the three usual outcomes from mechanization. It's still relevant. The "good case" was typesetting. The introduction of the Linotype enormously increased the volume of material printed and created more printing and typesetting jobs. The "medium case" was bottle making. Hand-made bottles were expensive, taking a trained group of about five people to blow a bottle. Machine-made made bottles were cheaper, and required far fewer people to make. Cheaper bottles increased demand for bottles, but, overall, employment in bottle making was about the same or less. Also, much of the labor was now low-skill machine tending - putting in sand, taking out bottles. Only a small number of bottle-making machine experts were needed. The "bad case" was the stone planer. Brick buildings used to have stone lintels over doors and windows, and there was an industry of big guys with chisels hammering out those things. The stone planer was simply a big steam powered planer for stone slabs. This required far fewer people. But it didn't increase demand for stone lintels, because they were a minor building component, not significant enough in cost to increase demand for brick buildings.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  Link: Chapters on Machinery and Labor George E. Barnett https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674280892 https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674280892

gwy 7y ago

Seems similar to the Jevons paradox, as discussed here: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7pNJ9aQxRMrWAnkmf/thank-you-old-man-jevons-for-my-job https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7pNJ9aQxRMrWAnkmf/thank-you-...

MegaButts 7y ago
> So anyways, my next post will explain why this is all a lie and you’re actually maybe doomed to lose your job to automation. If you’ve found the problem with this analysis already, feel free to leave it in the comments. That article is essentially refuting itself.
- chimi 7y ago
  Any computer person who has automated their jobs to the point fires aren't flaring up every day and their bosses and coworkers wonder what they do all day has felt the reality of automation killing jobs.
  - coryrc 7y ago
    Yup, that's why number of programmers is dropping and salaries are falling through the floor.
    - Ill_ban_myself 7y ago
      /s?

Animats 7y ago

There's a classic book from almost a century ago, "Chapters on Machinery and Labor", which lists the three usual outcomes from mechanization. It's still relevant. The "good case" was typesetting. The introduction of the Linotype enormously increased the volume of material printed and created more printing and typesetting jobs. The "medium case" was bottle making. Hand-made bottles were expensive, taking a trained group of about five people to blow a bottle. Machine-made made bottles were cheaper, and required far fewer people to make. Cheaper bottles increased demand for bottles, but, overall, employment in bottle making was about the same or less. Also, much of the labor was now low-skill machine tending - putting in sand, taking out bottles. Only a small number of bottle-making machine experts were needed. The "bad case" was the stone planer. Brick buildings used to have stone lintels over doors and windows, and there was an industry of big guys with chisels hammering out those things. The stone planer was simply a big steam powered planer for stone slabs. This required far fewer people. But it didn't increase demand for stone lintels, because they were a minor building component, not significant enough in cost to increase demand for brick buildings.

dredmorbius 7y ago
Link: Chapters on Machinery and Labor George E. Barnett https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674280892 https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674280892