3 ms·

>Well by some measures we did struggle a lot during these shifts. The last industrial revolution was a period of social unrest, featuring mass riots Are you sa

>Well by some measures we did struggle a lot during these shifts. The last industrial revolution was a period of social unrest, featuring mass riots Are you saying that automation doesn't necessarily cause joblessness but that it did cause riots? The industrial revolution was a pretty nasty struggle for sure, but I'd argue that was more down to the enclosure movement - people being kicked off their land - than machines. >As for what people ended up doing, new industries opened up And your argument hinged upon the notion that this process has now somehow... stopped... why so? >maybe this is just semantics but if automatic tractors frees people up to be hired for instagram video production, can one say that automatic tractors "created" the instagram video market? A lot more than just instagram video market was created after the automation of farming. Frankly, I see the process of market creation being threatened more by wealth inequality than by automation.

chillacy 7y ago
> And your argument hinged upon the notion that this process has now somehow... stopped... why so? Apologies if I was unclear, I did not mean to imply that opportunities would stop coming up, I only meant to draw attention to the fact that within the industry there would be fewer jobs. (Ultimately this is a very good thing, we can't get much done if 9/10 people are dedicated to farming. In 30 years I'm sure we'll look back and say the same about manufacturing.) But this is why it's important: Economic theory says that workers are all fungible and will re-skill into these new jobs, while data show that the new jobs are taken by other people in other places: the old workers seem to drop out of the workforce [1], get on disability [2], and/or die from opiate overdoses [3]. [1] https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ccf_20170517_declining_labor_force_participation_sawhill1.pdf https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ccf_201... [2] https://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/ https://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/ [3] https://www.prb.org/people-and-places-hardest-hit-by-the-drug-overdose-epidemic/ https://www.prb.org/people-and-places-hardest-hit-by-the-dru... I do agree that the inequality is a big issue and it's doubly edged: less consumer spending power means the market doesn't bother serving those without wealth, and automation itself tends to concentrate wealth into few large players.

chillacy 7y ago

> And your argument hinged upon the notion that this process has now somehow... stopped... why so? Apologies if I was unclear, I did not mean to imply that opportunities would stop coming up, I only meant to draw attention to the fact that within the industry there would be fewer jobs. (Ultimately this is a very good thing, we can't get much done if 9/10 people are dedicated to farming. In 30 years I'm sure we'll look back and say the same about manufacturing.) But this is why it's important: Economic theory says that workers are all fungible and will re-skill into these new jobs, while data show that the new jobs are taken by other people in other places: the old workers seem to drop out of the workforce [1], get on disability [2], and/or die from opiate overdoses [3]. [1] https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ccf_20170517_declining_labor_force_participation_sawhill1.pdf https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ccf_201... [2] https://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/ https://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/ [3] https://www.prb.org/people-and-places-hardest-hit-by-the-drug-overdose-epidemic/ https://www.prb.org/people-and-places-hardest-hit-by-the-dru... I do agree that the inequality is a big issue and it's doubly edged: less consumer spending power means the market doesn't bother serving those without wealth, and automation itself tends to concentrate wealth into few large players.