7 ms·

Automation has never killed jobs, only dis[re]placed them.

• bowlofpetunias 13y ago
  That is only true if you see jobs as statistics, not as activities carried out by actual human beings.
  • MWil 13y ago
    designing, producing, selling, installing, operating, and maintaining automation are activities carried out by actual human beings
    • ebiester 13y ago
      How many of those jobs can be done by a dull person? Consider someone smart enough not to be classified as disabled, but not smart enough to do more than semi-skilled labor under supervision. They used to have factory jobs. These have been automated. Agriculture is increasingly automated. We are finding ways to build our systems around fewer and fewer people. More capable people are fighting further down the food chain. Do we just throw people who can't adapt on disability? That's what we did for the group below them, after all. (Who themselves, mind you, we're once capable of being functional members of society, even if they needed help and we're often exploited.)
      • MWil 13y ago
        it doesn't automatically follow that "finding ways to build our systems around fewer and fewer people" in a SPECIFIC area = a system for fewer and fewer people. What if the journey to automation elevated job positions to something far greater than if the job had remained off-limits to automation?
        • ThomPete 13y ago
          You are grabbing for straws now. The whole point of technology is to increase production output. To do more with less. This might open up new areas but it doesn't follow at all either. And unless you can point to something like the semiconductor revolution it's hard to see what you are referring to.
          • MWil 13y ago
            I don't feel like I'm reaching at all. I feel like I'm describing a pretty general truth. Job A gets replaced by Automation 1.0. Automation 1.0 required the labor of Jobs B, C, and D to become a reality. Now, not only can Jobs B, C, and D become greatly automated but Automation A is going to eventually lead to Automation 2.0 which led to Jobs E, F, and G being created. Within one generation of the death of Job A, six other jobs were created. You're arguing that specialization isn't opened up but someone specialized in something enough (robotics, AI, mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, something) to lead to the automation in the first place.
            • ThomPete 13y ago
              That's not a general truth at all. Thats the point. There is no data that shows that new jobs are created to replace those lost by automation. So not it's not a general truth at all.
              • MWil 13y ago
                How in the world did the automation become a reality without at least one new job having come into creation? Replacement is at least guaranteed (not obviously analogous by hours or skills required). The question is can we say that more now jobs exist (although they might not need filling or lead to the displaced workers finding new work).
                • ThomPete 13y ago
                  Because at the same time new markets where liberalized. In fact it was a major part of the US doctrine since second world war. To open up new markets for American companies which they have done very successfully. You could have jobs for everyone if you just gave them 50 cent an hour so no that is not question as it's missing the point. I find the continued apologetic nature of your and some others argument amazing. Technology does not create more jobs than it destroys it help create new markets. But at the same time it removes jobs from the middle class and leaves only either high tech jobs or Wallmart like jobs in the US (and europe) If you think that is a sustainable model and proves that the market works just fine I think you are mistaken.
        • ebiester 13y ago
          Using IQ in the abstract sense, I am suggesting instead that we can automate any job that someone who is 70 IQ now, possibly 80 IQ, and that there are very few jobs where it would be more expensive to automate than hire them. Those jobs (Agriculture, light manufacturing) have largely been outsourced or automated, and those that have been outsourced are largely in the process of being automated now. These people will not suddenly be able to get jobs in IT. Now, I'm not saying that automation is bad, but I am saying we have a structural unemployment situation on our hands and we are going to have to figure out something.
• ThomPete 13y ago
  Thats simply not true. In some areas yes but those new areas tend to require fewer and fewer people. What you have seen is new markets getting liberalized and that made it look like technology would just open up new industries that everyone could get into. In reality that is not the case.
  • MWil 13y ago
    I haven't really seen the data to back up what you're saying and I base my comments only on the generalized fact that the automation didn't just drop out of the sky - it took some labor to get it there, it takes some labor to maintain it as the current status quo, and there's almost certainly some labor already working to replace it. It's all part of a spectrum where specific jobs die but "jobs for people to have" more or less stay the same, if they don't actually increase.
    • ThomPete 13y ago
      I am not sure what you mean. The US is one of best countries in the world for job creation and it is netto loosing jobs. Those that are still around outside the Wallstreet/Tech scene are becoming less and less valuable wallmart being a great example. Everything else is just a poor attempt to rationalize our way out of that reality.
      • MWil 13y ago
        Maybe it's net losing jobs because we don't teach people to imagine how they might automate their own job and prepare for the worst case scenario (a drop in the value of the job you're currently trained for). We teach people to go to school and to get a job and to hold onto that job for as long as possible. That used to be playing it safe but it's playing it pretty not safe these days.
        • ThomPete 13y ago
          So what if that is the case? What's your point?