3 ms·

Sure, but somehow the total number of jobs has still managed to increase from 1910 to 2010. Automation shifts the work humans do. So far, it hasn't replaced the

Sure, but somehow the total number of jobs has still managed to increase from 1910 to 2010. Automation shifts the work humans do. So far, it hasn't replaced the need for humans to do work, or we'd have a shrinking job market, which we didn't have prior to Covid (a temporary situation).

lotsofpulp 6y ago
Wages for the bottom 3 quintiles have been stagnating or growing well below those of the top quintile for decades. It is because they have lost their ability to negotiate for higher wages, due to an unfavorable shift in demand and supply curves. They are contending with additional supply of labor from other countries where people are willing to work for less. In addition, software and the ability to scale at zero cost has made people more productive, so one person can do much more than before. And it also leads to big companies getting even bigger meaning people only have a few employers to choose from. This change also happens at a faster rate than before in history, so while in decades past, technology obviate people slowly enough that they were able to retrain and do other things, now it could be moving too fast for people to retrain (or perhaps they’re simply not capable of learning the new task).
ameister14 6y ago
If you track the rise of administrative staff from 1990 to 2020, you see a massive increase. For example, HBR posted that healthcare jobs grew by a total 75% from 1990-2012, and that 95% of that growth was non-medical staff. This growth doesn't really have anything to do with necessary work. It has to do with how incentives function for management. We do not and have never had an economy where everyone is needed for production. In economics, as the marginal increase in utility for a worker goes down you would think that there would be less workers hired, or at least they would be more evaluated prior to hiring. That doesn't take into account the competing incentives of middle and upper management who have no real incentive to increase production efficiency or where that incentive isn't properly balanced against the social and internal gain from having a larger budget and staff within an organization. If you have the ability to hire and gain from hiring people more than you lose from their work being totally unnecessary, you hire. It's not your money you're wasting. Afterwards, you or your new hires will create systems of increasing complexity to justify the continued employment and hiring of new workers.
taneq 6y ago
The human population and therefore the size of the market has also increased rather a lot in that time. The overall size of the job market isn't shrinking, but what's the median share per worker? Also we shouldn't discount the various sophistries used to manipulate the unemployment rate. Many, many people aren't counted as 'unemployed' when they probably should be, because either they aren't applying for jobs, or they get occasional casual or gig work.

lotsofpulp 6y ago

Wages for the bottom 3 quintiles have been stagnating or growing well below those of the top quintile for decades. It is because they have lost their ability to negotiate for higher wages, due to an unfavorable shift in demand and supply curves. They are contending with additional supply of labor from other countries where people are willing to work for less. In addition, software and the ability to scale at zero cost has made people more productive, so one person can do much more than before. And it also leads to big companies getting even bigger meaning people only have a few employers to choose from. This change also happens at a faster rate than before in history, so while in decades past, technology obviate people slowly enough that they were able to retrain and do other things, now it could be moving too fast for people to retrain (or perhaps they’re simply not capable of learning the new task).

ameister14 6y ago

If you track the rise of administrative staff from 1990 to 2020, you see a massive increase. For example, HBR posted that healthcare jobs grew by a total 75% from 1990-2012, and that 95% of that growth was non-medical staff. This growth doesn't really have anything to do with necessary work. It has to do with how incentives function for management. We do not and have never had an economy where everyone is needed for production. In economics, as the marginal increase in utility for a worker goes down you would think that there would be less workers hired, or at least they would be more evaluated prior to hiring. That doesn't take into account the competing incentives of middle and upper management who have no real incentive to increase production efficiency or where that incentive isn't properly balanced against the social and internal gain from having a larger budget and staff within an organization. If you have the ability to hire and gain from hiring people more than you lose from their work being totally unnecessary, you hire. It's not your money you're wasting. Afterwards, you or your new hires will create systems of increasing complexity to justify the continued employment and hiring of new workers.

taneq 6y ago

The human population and therefore the size of the market has also increased rather a lot in that time. The overall size of the job market isn't shrinking, but what's the median share per worker? Also we shouldn't discount the various sophistries used to manipulate the unemployment rate. Many, many people aren't counted as 'unemployed' when they probably should be, because either they aren't applying for jobs, or they get occasional casual or gig work.