3 ms·

Has anyone actually convincingly argued that automation reduces the net number of jobs over time? My impression is that this belief entails a kind of parochiali

Has anyone actually convincingly argued that automation reduces the net number of jobs over time? My impression is that this belief entails a kind of parochialism about job loss, i.e., that it merely tracks the specific kinds or manifestations of jobs that automation has rendered obsolete while ignoring either the fact that particular occupations remain but now make use of new, more sophisticated methods, or the new jobs created by the needs and complexities introduced by new technologies. Think of our ancestors. How many occupations were there? Arguably fewer than we have today. Certainly, your great grandmother had to wash the dishes herself, but we didn't have factory workers at dishwasher manufacturing plants, dishwasher repairmen, dishwasher dealers, and so on. With the introduction of the dishwasher, there is a reduced need for human dishwashers, but the technology also introduced a whole new industry in its place to support it. I almost want to say that some law of conservation or even entropy is observed. We are exchanging one kind of burden for another or potentially many.

zepto 6y ago
It seems like there is no convincing argument to the contrary either. I see people propose this kind of ‘law of conservation’. It would be nice if that were a real law, but the only arguments I’ve seen in its favor have been inductive ones covering the last few hundred years. There is also something a bit odd in my mind about looking at human existence in terms of needed occupations. Isn’t the entire point of technology to eliminate work?
- danielam 6y ago
  > It seems like there is no convincing argument to the contrary either. That jobs are created seems to me to be more convincing, but I leave that as a matter of opinion substantiated only to the degree that I have in my OP. > There is also something a bit odd in my mind about looking at human existence in terms of needed occupations. > Isn’t the entire point of technology to eliminate work? From a certain point of view, yes. Economically valuable work is only needed to the degree that it costs something to attain a (licit) good and to the degree that the good is desired by someone else. If those desires could be satisfied without cost, no real opportunity for a market exists because no need for exchange exists. But I cannot imagine that that situation could ever obtain. And therefore, because it could never obtain, the only thing most people can exchange for a desired good is something obtained through the exchange of labor for capital. So it's a bit moot since labor appears endemic to the human condition. I just don't see why automation of one thing necessarily means a net loss of jobs. If anything, automation entails complex technology and complex technology, among other things, requires labor to produce and to maintain.
  - zepto 6y ago
    “Labor seems endemic to the human condition” Firstly, this is contestable, and secondly it creates a tautology. But also - consider that that humans have cognitive and physical limits. Even if there is in principle always new opportunity created by automation, which I do find plausible, I see no logic supporting the idea that these new opportunities would necessarily be widely addressable by the majority of humans.
    - danielam 6y ago
      > Firstly, this is contestable, and secondly it creates a tautology. I didn't say it was incontestable. I only said that it seems to be the case and that the evidence seems to favor that opinion. It would be more interesting to hear why you think it is contestable. Also, I'm not sure how this is tautological. > But also - consider that that humans have cognitive and physical limits. If anything, that would seem to suggest that these impose a bound on how much we can automate. Arguably, this means an upper bound would be determined by the maintainability of such technologies. > Even if there is in principle always new opportunity created by automation, which I do find plausible, I see no logic supporting the idea that these new opportunities would necessarily be widely addressable by the majority of humans. If you are making that claim on the basis of cognitive limitations, then see my previous point. But by the same token, if cognitive limitations impose a limit, then it would seem to suggest that the problem space would require a greater division of labor in order to render it tractable.
      - zepto 6y ago
        “If anything, that would seem to suggest that these impose a bound on how much we can automate.” Why would this be? All automation is now built on top of already automated processes. The level of automation we can achieve isn’t obviously bounded by human cognitive limits. The level of human participation certainly is.

zepto 6y ago

It seems like there is no convincing argument to the contrary either. I see people propose this kind of ‘law of conservation’. It would be nice if that were a real law, but the only arguments I’ve seen in its favor have been inductive ones covering the last few hundred years. There is also something a bit odd in my mind about looking at human existence in terms of needed occupations. Isn’t the entire point of technology to eliminate work?

danielam 6y ago
> It seems like there is no convincing argument to the contrary either. That jobs are created seems to me to be more convincing, but I leave that as a matter of opinion substantiated only to the degree that I have in my OP. > There is also something a bit odd in my mind about looking at human existence in terms of needed occupations. > Isn’t the entire point of technology to eliminate work? From a certain point of view, yes. Economically valuable work is only needed to the degree that it costs something to attain a (licit) good and to the degree that the good is desired by someone else. If those desires could be satisfied without cost, no real opportunity for a market exists because no need for exchange exists. But I cannot imagine that that situation could ever obtain. And therefore, because it could never obtain, the only thing most people can exchange for a desired good is something obtained through the exchange of labor for capital. So it's a bit moot since labor appears endemic to the human condition. I just don't see why automation of one thing necessarily means a net loss of jobs. If anything, automation entails complex technology and complex technology, among other things, requires labor to produce and to maintain.
- zepto 6y ago
  “Labor seems endemic to the human condition” Firstly, this is contestable, and secondly it creates a tautology. But also - consider that that humans have cognitive and physical limits. Even if there is in principle always new opportunity created by automation, which I do find plausible, I see no logic supporting the idea that these new opportunities would necessarily be widely addressable by the majority of humans.
  - danielam 6y ago
    > Firstly, this is contestable, and secondly it creates a tautology. I didn't say it was incontestable. I only said that it seems to be the case and that the evidence seems to favor that opinion. It would be more interesting to hear why you think it is contestable. Also, I'm not sure how this is tautological. > But also - consider that that humans have cognitive and physical limits. If anything, that would seem to suggest that these impose a bound on how much we can automate. Arguably, this means an upper bound would be determined by the maintainability of such technologies. > Even if there is in principle always new opportunity created by automation, which I do find plausible, I see no logic supporting the idea that these new opportunities would necessarily be widely addressable by the majority of humans. If you are making that claim on the basis of cognitive limitations, then see my previous point. But by the same token, if cognitive limitations impose a limit, then it would seem to suggest that the problem space would require a greater division of labor in order to render it tractable.
    - zepto 6y ago
      “If anything, that would seem to suggest that these impose a bound on how much we can automate.” Why would this be? All automation is now built on top of already automated processes. The level of automation we can achieve isn’t obviously bounded by human cognitive limits. The level of human participation certainly is.