3 ms·

People have been predicting the demise of the workforce ever since the industrial age (and probably before that, too). With every technological innovation we cr

People have been predicting the demise of the workforce ever since the industrial age (and probably before that, too). With every technological innovation we cry "it's the end of work as we know it!" Yet here we are, hundreds of years in the future, with jobs abound. I'm skeptical that will ever change. We humans are great at coming up with shit for people to do for a dollar.

brownbat 13y ago
Or, "There is a long history of exaggerated concern, rightly derided by economists, with the replacement and hence displacement of workers by machines." http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2013/03/automation-and-employment-posner.html http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2013/03/automation-and-emp... Abrupt technological advances can disrupt certain industries very quickly, and it can take a while for the wages and the workforce size to find a new equilibrium. But I agree, that's much different than the sudden and dystopian end of all labor.
- waps 13y ago
  However, it is equally true that industry never provided as much jobs, and not at the same conditions, that agriculture did. And the service industry never provided 50% as much jobs as the industry ever did, and completely excludes a decent percentage of workers. And people are getting displaced in the service industry too, and there is nothing even pretending to replace the service industry. People go from A -> B -> C -> D, with A agro, B industry, C services and D ... well there is no D.
  - brownbat 13y ago
    "Technology displaces labor" has a strong intuitive appeal. But I don't think it is very predictive... it never quite fits the data. I'd be on board if we had seen investment over the last five years flood away from labor towards equipment and technology. But we didn't, we saw 20-30% reductions in spending on nonresidential equipment and software.[1][2] Declines in purchases of non-labor productive capital were far steeper than reductions labor (they're just harder to see for the average person). It wasn't labor vs. equipment this time, the decline in labor was mostly driven by the decline in consumption. I'm not sure there's strong consensus to explain the decline in consumption. One theory is that the decline in consumption happened primarily because households woke up one morning and realized that they were broke from years of credit card debt and housing investment [3], but there are a million other theories. On the whole though, I don't think you find better worker conditions in agricultural societies. Medieval Europe and North Korea come to mind. Backbreaking labor all day for the privilege of regular mass famines... I don't think it's for me. [1] http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/events/2013/january/federal-reserve-day-ahead-financial-markets-institutions/files/Session_3_Paper_3_Edgerton_equipment.pdf http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/events/2013/january/f... [2] http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=4620 http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_displa... [3] http://www.perpustakaan.depkeu.go.id/FOLDERJURNAL/w17830.pdf http://www.perpustakaan.depkeu.go.id/FOLDERJURNAL/w17830.pdf
    - waps 13y ago
      I'm not saying working conditions were better in agricultural societies, but employment (meaning percentage of people working) was better. Ironically vacation days was also much, much better than we have today. In an agricultural society, you'd probably have ~100 vacation days a year (in trade for having to work weekends - but not sundays) for 4-5 weeks twice a year.
      - brownbat 13y ago
        I'd be very surprised, but eh, could be true. Really just a research question. I'm a big fan of economic history as a discipline, if you have anything to recommend, I'd love to check it out. UPDATE: I found one research paper claiming that "The statistical record reveals a high and growing labor force to population ratio in America for most of the last two centuries." http://economics.ucr.edu/papers/papers03/03-13.pdf http://economics.ucr.edu/papers/papers03/03-13.pdf I don't take that to have settled the question, I'd like to go back further, and make sure we properly account for the reversal of this trend between the 1930s and the 1960s. But it certainly is a provocative set of data.

brownbat 13y ago

Or, "There is a long history of exaggerated concern, rightly derided by economists, with the replacement and hence displacement of workers by machines." http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2013/03/automation-and-employment-posner.html http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2013/03/automation-and-emp... Abrupt technological advances can disrupt certain industries very quickly, and it can take a while for the wages and the workforce size to find a new equilibrium. But I agree, that's much different than the sudden and dystopian end of all labor.

waps 13y ago
However, it is equally true that industry never provided as much jobs, and not at the same conditions, that agriculture did. And the service industry never provided 50% as much jobs as the industry ever did, and completely excludes a decent percentage of workers. And people are getting displaced in the service industry too, and there is nothing even pretending to replace the service industry. People go from A -> B -> C -> D, with A agro, B industry, C services and D ... well there is no D.
- brownbat 13y ago
  "Technology displaces labor" has a strong intuitive appeal. But I don't think it is very predictive... it never quite fits the data. I'd be on board if we had seen investment over the last five years flood away from labor towards equipment and technology. But we didn't, we saw 20-30% reductions in spending on nonresidential equipment and software.[1][2] Declines in purchases of non-labor productive capital were far steeper than reductions labor (they're just harder to see for the average person). It wasn't labor vs. equipment this time, the decline in labor was mostly driven by the decline in consumption. I'm not sure there's strong consensus to explain the decline in consumption. One theory is that the decline in consumption happened primarily because households woke up one morning and realized that they were broke from years of credit card debt and housing investment [3], but there are a million other theories. On the whole though, I don't think you find better worker conditions in agricultural societies. Medieval Europe and North Korea come to mind. Backbreaking labor all day for the privilege of regular mass famines... I don't think it's for me. [1] http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/events/2013/january/federal-reserve-day-ahead-financial-markets-institutions/files/Session_3_Paper_3_Edgerton_equipment.pdf http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/events/2013/january/f... [2] http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=4620 http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_displa... [3] http://www.perpustakaan.depkeu.go.id/FOLDERJURNAL/w17830.pdf http://www.perpustakaan.depkeu.go.id/FOLDERJURNAL/w17830.pdf
  - waps 13y ago
    I'm not saying working conditions were better in agricultural societies, but employment (meaning percentage of people working) was better. Ironically vacation days was also much, much better than we have today. In an agricultural society, you'd probably have ~100 vacation days a year (in trade for having to work weekends - but not sundays) for 4-5 weeks twice a year.
    - brownbat 13y ago
      I'd be very surprised, but eh, could be true. Really just a research question. I'm a big fan of economic history as a discipline, if you have anything to recommend, I'd love to check it out. UPDATE: I found one research paper claiming that "The statistical record reveals a high and growing labor force to population ratio in America for most of the last two centuries." http://economics.ucr.edu/papers/papers03/03-13.pdf http://economics.ucr.edu/papers/papers03/03-13.pdf I don't take that to have settled the question, I'd like to go back further, and make sure we properly account for the reversal of this trend between the 1930s and the 1960s. But it certainly is a provocative set of data.