The Elephant in the Room

[Auteur]

It seems to me that unemployment is the elephant in the room that no politician has the nerve to mention. To do so would then require a massive rethink of how we do society, from the bottom up, including how wealth is distributed. Imagine that in an environment where just raising taxes four percentage points (only on the uber rich) causes a firestorm in the US.


As we become more efficient, we tend to need less workers. Of course, some here might point out that as some industries have dried up in terms of employment, new ones have been created, with new positions. I think it is arguable though that the tendency has been in one direction: away from masses of workers pouring into factories in the morning, and towards a few highly skilled specialists writing software, or doing similar tasks.


Globalization has transferred work from the developed world to the less developed, such as China and India. Yet even these countries are in a mortal struggle to provide enough jobs for their populations, enough at least to ward of civil discord.


Perhaps more significantly, digitalization has eliminated the need for masses of workers, in an increasing category of industries. What seemed outside the capability of software yesterday is increasingly on the drawing board for tomorrow.


What to do? Spain reportedly has a youth unemployment rate of about 50%. In some countries, the true extent of the problem can be masked by figures that don't include those hanging on with part time, poverty wages, or have dropped out, and are hanging on by the most precarious means. It seems unlikely we could roll back the tide of computerization and technological change, even if this was so desired. On the other hand, how long are millions of educated youth going to sit around on the dole, or perhaps not even have that, and watch life go by?


It's not that society, overall, isn't doing well. GDP has been going up, even in the EU. So wealth is there, but it seems to me the way we look at the whole business of work, and value produced in society, is going to need a complete reanalysis.


"....To articulate the core of his argument, McAfee draws from the concept of exponential growth patterns. The numbers at the beginning of any exponential curve (1+2+4+8+16….etc) are easy to comprehend. It isn’t until later in the progression that intuition breaks down and human imagination is outstripped by the explosive growth in the doubling pattern. With regards to the digitization of labor, McAfee argues that we may have just entered the “knee” of the curve; the portion of the growth pattern characterized by massive acceleration...."

Could Automation Lead to Chronic Unemployment? Andrew McAfee Sounds the Alarm - Forbes


Youth unemployment is a global crisis - The Globe and Mail


The U.S. Long-Term Unemployment Crisis Stumps Economists - Businessweek

 

[Moonglow]

Since robotics are making human labor more cheap, humans will need to find another way of earning a living.

 

[AmazonTania]

Probably the worst things ever said or written since President Obama suggested that the high unemployment rate was the result of ATM’s all across the country. Its a total misunderstanding of basic economics, and a complete myth.

Automation can remove some jobs, but ultimately other jobs are created in its place. Skilled labour replaces unskilled labour, as jobs are required to create, maintain, and develop software for the automation. Some automation doesn’t eliminate jobs at all. For example, there is no shortfall of bank tellers as a result of the ATM and even the most automated assembly queues require human interaction and oversight.

Some jobs are made obsolescent, and others change for the better.

Also, the Youth unemployment rate has zero to do with automation or globalisation, especially in Europe. In Europe, youth unemployment is strictly a result of seniority, not automation or globalisation.

 

[Auteur]

Probably the worst things ever said or written since President Obama suggested that the high unemployment rate was the result of ATM’s all across the country. Its a total misunderstanding of basic economics, and a complete myth.

Automation can remove some jobs, but ultimately other jobs are created in its place. Skilled labour replaces unskilled labour, as jobs are required to create, maintain, and develop software for the automation. Some automation doesn’t eliminate jobs at all. For example, there is no shortfall of bank tellers as a result of the ATM and even the most automated assembly queues require human interaction and oversight.

Some jobs are made obsolescent, and others change for the better.

Also, the Youth unemployment rate has zero to do with automation or globalisation, especially in Europe. In Europe, youth unemployment is strictly a result of seniority, not automation or globalisation.

Ah, amazon lady. Are you really a lady? Or perhaps a computer nerd down in Naw'account Tennesse, or some such? It's hard to tell sometimes. Because it seems like pissing contests take priority over facts within your posts. Obama and ATMs? Maybe you would like to supply a link.

What you are saying here is a retiteration of the general flow of history to date. That's hardly helpful. My point is, and if you had read the links you would have understood, that history is today diverging from the norm, and, as is occasionally the case with history, moving off in a tangent. What was foreseen before is now rising up on the horizon in unforeseen and meanacing ways.

Yes, of course there is new job creation with new technologies. Who would have thought of being a softwear developer in 1950? But a closer look at the situation suggests an ever larger atrophying of the labour force, and moreover a polarization of work. New technologies require new workers- but in ever smaller numbers. What is going to replace the hundreds of thousands of auto workers in Detroit? Think Bill Gates is going to hire them all? He's generous, but not all that generous.

Work today is separating between the highly skilled, and the almost unskilled. Yes, there are positions for a minority with appropriate technical and analylitical skills at the top. There is also work for those at the bottom, in service industries that cannot (as yet) be filled by robotics. But we are loosing the middle class, the segment of society that has been so instrumental in creating the world we live in today. Many middle class jobs can easily be done by automation today, or at least by low paid third world world workers.

This is the crisis we need to deal with, and one not resolved by your glib cliches.

 

[Moonglow]

I was a brick layer off an on since 1983 to 2012, they have tried to invent a brick layer but have never succeeded. As the old timer would say when they ask me what I did for a living I would tell them I was a mason, the retort was, "That's house buying wages there". I took it one step further and became a sub-contractor and finally a contractor. You can make 70-120k per annul in this field off work, but you have to work hard.

 

[Auteur]

I was a brick layer off an on since 1983 to 2012, they have tried to invent a brick layer but have never succeeded.

You may be surprised Mr Bumfetish. Computers can now drive cars, better than humans (to the extent that automated cars have been legalized to use public roads and highways in three US states). They can also read legal documents, make medical diagnosis, perform welding and metal fabrication, analize risk assessment for insurance purposes, and, I'd be willing to bet you a beer, are not far off from doing the rocket science task of brick laying. This is the future we are going to have to face, and doing it by insisting that nothing has changed will not be enough.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Progressive economics has a 100% Guaranteed Fail Rate. That's the one and only problem

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"At one of our dinners, Milton recalled traveling to an Asian country in the 1960s and visiting a worksite where a new canal was being built. He was shocked to see that, instead of modern tractors and earth movers, the workers had shovels. He asked why there were so few machines. The government bureaucrat explained: “You don’t understand. This is a jobs program.” To which Milton replied: “Oh, I thought you were trying to build a canal. If it’s jobs you want, then you should give these workers spoons, not shovels.”

If You Want Jobs Then Give These Workers Spoons Instead of Shovels | Quote Investigator

 

[Rshermr]

Probably the worst things ever said or written since President Obama suggested that the high unemployment rate was the result of ATM’s all across the country. Its a total misunderstanding of basic economics, and a complete myth.

Automation can remove some jobs, but ultimately other jobs are created in its place. Skilled labour replaces unskilled labour, as jobs are required to create, maintain, and develop software for the automation. Some automation doesn’t eliminate jobs at all. For example, there is no shortfall of bank tellers as a result of the ATM and even the most automated assembly queues require human interaction and oversight.

Some jobs are made obsolescent, and others change for the better.

Also, the Youth unemployment rate has zero to do with automation or globalisation, especially in Europe. In Europe, youth unemployment is strictly a result of seniority, not automation or globalisation.

Ah, amazon lady. Are you really a lady? Or perhaps a computer nerd down in Naw'account Tennesse, or some such? It's hard to tell sometimes. Because it seems like pissing contests take priority over facts within your posts. Obama and ATMs? Maybe you would like to supply a link.

What you are saying here is a retiteration of the general flow of history to date. That's hardly helpful. My point is, and if you had read the links you would have understood, that history is today diverging from the norm, and, as is occasionally the case with history, moving off in a tangent. What was foreseen before is now rising up on the horizon in unforeseen and meanacing ways.

Yes, of course there is new job creation with new technologies. Who would have thought of being a softwear developer in 1950? But a closer look at the situation suggests an ever larger atrophying of the labour force, and moreover a polarization of work. New technologies require new workers- but in ever smaller numbers. What is going to replace the hundreds of thousands of auto workers in Detroit? Think Bill Gates is going to hire them all? He's generous, but not all that generous.

Work today is separating between the highly skilled, and the almost unskilled. Yes, there are positions for a minority with appropriate technical and analylitical skills at the top. There is also work for those at the bottom, in service industries that cannot (as yet) be filled by robotics. But we are loosing the middle class, the segment of society that has been so instrumental in creating the world we live in today. Many middle class jobs can easily be done by automation today, or at least by low paid third world world workers.

This is the crisis we need to deal with, and one not resolved by your glib cliches.

That ATM quote is really funny. It has been run in every single right wing nut case web site out there. All of them. Just type obama and atm, and you will get over 30 direct hits, of which 27 are right wing nut case sites. And right wing nuts themselves making the statement like it is the truth. \
Here is the actual quote they are talking about, made by obama when talking about automation and it's effect on employment:
"The president said that “the other thing that happened, though, and this goes to the point you were just making, is there are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers. You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM; you don't go to a bank teller. Or you go to the airport, and you're using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate. So all these things have created changes in the economy, and what we have to do now — and that's what this job council is all about — is identifying where the jobs for the future are going to be; how do we make sure that there's a match between what people are getting trained for and the jobs that exist; how do we make sure that capital is flowing into those places with the greatest opportunity. We are on the right track. The key is figuring out how do we accelerate it.”
O on ATMs - ABC News

So, I suppose you could take that single sentence out of context and make the statement that Amazon made. Which is, by the way, exactly what every bat shit crazy con web site out there is doing. But the truth is, in this case Obama was exactly correct. As hundreds and hundreds of sources will tell you, this is not the 1930's, and automation is a very major issue today. You have to be ignorant to miss it. But the statement that " President Obama suggested that the high unemployment rate was the result of ATM’s all across the country" is dishonest and childish.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama Fluffers and their Obama Context Filter, it's laughable.

Obama blamed ATM's and kiosks and automation for his unemployment; the guy is the punchline to the biggest joke in American political history

 

[Rshermr]

And, on cue, cf pops up to prove the point that con tools do not need facts. They simply make them up.

 

[jasonnfree]

I was a brick layer off an on since 1983 to 2012, they have tried to invent a brick layer but have never succeeded.

You may be surprised Mr Bumfetish. Computers can now drive cars, better than humans (to the extent that automated cars have been legalized to use public roads and highways in three US states). They can also read legal documents, make medical diagnosis, perform welding and metal fabrication, analize risk assessment for insurance purposes, and, I'd be willing to bet you a beer, are not far off from doing the rocket science task of brick laying. This is the future we are going to have to face, and doing it by insisting that nothing has changed will not be enough.

There was a book written about this subject in the 50's of what to do with excess workers because of automation and robotization of industry. The ex workers were given a stipend to survive. Like welfare. Somebody had to buy the stuff being produced. The book was "Player Piano". Maybe this is the direction were headed in.

 

[AmazonTania]

Probably the worst things ever said or written since President Obama suggested that the high unemployment rate was the result of ATM’s all across the country. Its a total misunderstanding of basic economics, and a complete myth.

Automation can remove some jobs, but ultimately other jobs are created in its place. Skilled labour replaces unskilled labour, as jobs are required to create, maintain, and develop software for the automation. Some automation doesn’t eliminate jobs at all. For example, there is no shortfall of bank tellers as a result of the ATM and even the most automated assembly queues require human interaction and oversight.

Some jobs are made obsolescent, and others change for the better.

Also, the Youth unemployment rate has zero to do with automation or globalisation, especially in Europe. In Europe, youth unemployment is strictly a result of seniority, not automation or globalisation.

Ah, amazon lady. Are you really a lady? Or perhaps a computer nerd down in Naw'account Tennesse, or some such? It's hard to tell sometimes. Because it seems like pissing contests take priority over facts within your posts.

I don't understand why you would start with your weakest argument, especially since it's an Ad hominem attack... Now it's all downhill from here for you.

But since you've brought it up, I'm really a 'lady.' I also spend majority of my days in front of the computer. I guess that makes me a computer boffin as well. But for what it's worth, I'm a real person. Are you?

http://imageshack.us/a/img29/1372/umqk.jpg

Obama and ATMs? Maybe you would like to supply a link.

As a Luddite, you are allowed to use Google. You do know this, right?

Obama on the economy (and Weiner) - Video on TODAY.com

What you are saying here is a retiteration of the general flow of history to date. That's hardly helpful. My point is, and if you had read the links you would have understood, that history is today diverging from the norm, and, as is occasionally the case with history, moving off in a tangent. What was foreseen before is now rising up on the horizon in unforeseen and meanacing ways.

It's really not an issue of history diverging from the norm. It's all a matter of economics, also some of which involves demographics. Overtime, you will have some jobs which are made obsolete as a result of automation, such as manufacturing. But other jobs are created for the software development of those mechanics, such as in the Information Sector.

The downward trend is mostly due to the series of booms and bust we've experienced. Automation is not the cause of this. It's merely the catalyst. Manufacturing is on a global decline all over the wold. That's normal and ultimately inevitable. As economies grow, the manufacturing output becomes smaller relative to the output of many other sectors. Such as the result when industrial economies make a transition towards a Post Industrial or Service Sector economy.

Ultimately mechanics do not destroy jobs, they liberate labor so people can peruse other things. The goal of life is to work less and to enjoy more. Someone needs to drag you towards the 21st century.

Yes, of course there is new job creation with new technologies. Who would have thought of being a softwear developer in 1950? But a closer look at the situation suggests an ever larger atrophying of the labour force, and moreover a polarization of work. New technologies require new workers- but in ever smaller numbers. What is going to replace the hundreds of thousands of auto workers in Detroit? Think Bill Gates is going to hire them all? He's generous, but not all that generous.

Bill Gates is not as generous as you think he is. No, really, he isn't. Although I think Warren Buffet might be giving free tax dodging advice.

Also, there is nothing keeping these unemployed Detroit automakers from having their labour allocated towards the production of new mechanics. Of course, there is nothing keeping the labour idle except for the rigorous labour laws and cost in the country.

Also a big plus of hiring a machine over an actual person, the machine isn't going to sue you, as ligation also a big factor when it comes to hiring individuals.

Work today is separating between the highly skilled, and the almost unskilled. Yes, there are positions for a minority with appropriate technical and analylitical skills at the top. There is also work for those at the bottom, in service industries that cannot (as yet) be filled by robotics. But we are loosing the middle class, the segment of society that has been so instrumental in creating the world we live in today. Many middle class jobs can easily be done by automation today, or at least by low paid third world world workers.

As the increase information jobs never put a dent in the amount of manufacturing jobs created. Also, the wages in the third world have always been lower than that of the US. This has never changed. What exactly has changed? What has seemed too changed is the increase labour cost in make sectors of the economy. Sure, the economy is more protective as a result to these sectors which does utilises this automation, but wages have generally outpaced productive sectors.

This is the crisis we need to deal with, and one not resolved by your glib cliches.

I really don't care if you deal with it or how you deal with it. I get paid either way. Might was well take the time to correct a few inaccuracies along the way.

 

[Joe Steel]

... Automation can remove some jobs, but ultimately other jobs are created in its place. ...

Never as many as it destroys. What is to become of the jobless?

 

[editec]

Probably the worst things ever said or written since President Obama suggested that the high unemployment rate was the result of ATM’s all across the country. Its a total misunderstanding of basic economics, and a complete myth.

Automation can remove some jobs, but ultimately other jobs are created in its place. Skilled labour replaces unskilled labour, as jobs are required to create, maintain, and develop software for the automation. Some automation doesn’t eliminate jobs at all. For example, there is no shortfall of bank tellers as a result of the ATM and even the most automated assembly queues require human interaction and oversight.

Some jobs are made obsolescent, and others change for the better.

Also, the Youth unemployment rate has zero to do with automation or globalisation, especially in Europe. In Europe, youth unemployment is strictly a result of seniority, not automation or globalisation.

Dream on.

This is NOT our great grandfathers' industrial revolution, Amazon.

The value of human labor is dropping like a stone and there will be NO NEW employment opportunities for those whose jobs have been made obsolete by technology.

Now not only have machines replaced human and animal labor, smart machines are replaced highly skilled human labor.

And that trend is NOT going to change, its only going to get worse as technology gets smarter still.

I suspect many of us at USMB will be around for the SINGULARITY

Let me give you just ONE example of technology replacing HIGHLY SKILLED HUMAN LABOR.

Reserarch...what might have taken me WEEKS OF RESEARCH in a library can now be discovered in fractions of a second on GOOGLE.

What that basically means is that the value of the labor of research is gone gone GONE.

Computer programs are going to replace workers like MDs in YOUR lifetime.

 

[oldfart]

It's all a matter of economics, also some of which involves demographics. Over time, you will have some jobs which are made obsolete as a result of automation, such as manufacturing. But other jobs are created for the software development of those mechanics, such as in the Information Sector.... Ultimately mechanics do not destroy jobs, they liberate labor so people can peruse other things. The goal of life is to work less and to enjoy more.

The process of automation has been going on for centuries and constitutes the main reason for increasing living standards. It simply is not feasible to attempt to support current living standards with old technology. Part of this increased productivity has been used to shorten the work week, make jobs safer, and generally improve working conditions. From this standpoint automation has been both inevitable and admirable.

The downward trend is mostly due to the series of booms and bust we've experienced. Automation is not the cause of this. It's merely the catalyst. Manufacturing is on a global decline all over the world. That's normal and ultimately inevitable. As economies grow, the manufacturing output becomes smaller relative to the output of many other sectors. Such as the result when industrial economies make a transition towards a Post Industrial or Service Sector economy.

In another thread I referenced a recent paper (damn! I'm getting a lot of mileage out of that paper!) that defined "recovery" as part of the business cycle and noted a change about 1980 that showed recoveries becoming more problematic. I'm not sure if office computerization has much to do with this (coincidences happen), but it might be a case where automation has caused changes in the office workforce similar to the role of computer assisted technology in manufacturing. Either way, I expect that information technology and manufacturing will both decline as shares of the labor force over time. The real question is what kind of jobs will grow as they diminish.

Of course, there is nothing keeping the labour idle except for the rigorous labour laws and cost in the country.

Also a big plus of hiring a machine over an actual person, the machine isn't going to sue you, as ligation also a big factor when it comes to hiring individuals.

This has been a big argument by business for about a century. Labor laws increase the cost of labor. But the argument cuts in unexpected ways. Nations with national health insurance, like Switzerland, do not have health insurance costs as part of their prime labor cost, so at the margin they can be more competitive. If everything becomes a race to the bottom in terms of labor cost using compensation as the only tool, it's going to be a grim future, one that is dominated by nations that keep compensation high and increase productivity. In the long run, a nation can only consume as much as it produces, so the focus should be maniacally directed at increasing productivity.

As the increase information jobs never put a dent in the amount of manufacturing jobs created. Also, the wages in the third world have always been lower than that of the US. This has never changed. What exactly has changed? What has seemed too changed is the increase labour cost in make sectors of the economy. Sure, the economy is more protective as a result to these sectors which does utilises this automation, but wages have generally outpaced productive sectors.

The only way I can interpret your remarks here is that you do not believe the published figures on compensation and productivity. Real wages are in a 30+ year decline, labor productivity has increased over that time with essentially none of the benefit accruing to labor. Am I missing something here?

 

[Auteur]

Probably the worst things ever said or written since President Obama suggested that the high unemployment rate was the result of ATM’s all across the country. Its a total misunderstanding of basic economics, and a complete myth.

Automation can remove some jobs, but ultimately other jobs are created in its place. Skilled labour replaces unskilled labour, as jobs are required to create, maintain, and develop software for the automation. Some automation doesn’t eliminate jobs at all. For example, there is no shortfall of bank tellers as a result of the ATM and even the most automated assembly queues require human interaction and oversight.

Some jobs are made obsolescent, and others change for the better.

Also, the Youth unemployment rate has zero to do with automation or globalisation, especially in Europe. In Europe, youth unemployment is strictly a result of seniority, not automation or globalisation.

Ah, amazon lady. Are you really a lady? Or perhaps a computer nerd down in Naw'account Tennesse, or some such? It's hard to tell sometimes. Because it seems like pissing contests take priority over facts within your posts.

I don't understand why you would start with your weakest argument, especially since it's an Ad hominem attack... Now it's all downhill from here for you.

But since you've brought it up, I'm really a 'lady.' I also spend majority of my days in front of the computer. I guess that makes me a computer boffin as well. But for what it's worth, I'm a real person. Are you?

http://imageshack.us/a/img29/1372/umqk.jpg

You do seem to have a lot of time to spend on the forum. Not unemployed are you?

As a Luddite, you are allowed to use Google. You do know this, right?

Obama on the economy (and Weiner) - Video on TODAY.com

Obama used ATM's as an example, and he was correct. It was an example of how tens, or hundreds of jobs are being replaced by automation. The relative gains and losses from these events are argueable, but the fact of increasing automation is not.

It's really not an issue of history diverging from the norm. It's all a matter of economics, also some of which involves demographics. Overtime, you will have some jobs which are made obsolete as a result of automation, such as manufacturing. But other jobs are created for the software development of those mechanics, such as in the Information Sector.

The downward trend is mostly due to the series of booms and bust we've experienced. Automation is not the cause of this. It's merely the catalyst. Manufacturing is on a global decline all over the wold. That's normal and ultimately inevitable. As economies grow, the manufacturing output becomes smaller relative to the output of many other sectors. Such as the result when industrial economies make a transition towards a Post Industrial or Service Sector economy.

Ultimately mechanics do not destroy jobs, they liberate labor so people can peruse other things. The goal of life is to work less and to enjoy more. Someone needs to drag you towards the 21st century.

You are simply reiterating some of the mainstream trends from the last few decades. This is economics 101, but it is not enough to grasp more recent, and more divergent trends in technology and the economy, which I have tried to illustrate here with the posted links.

Take another look at your graph. At first, we see a decline in manufacturing employment, and an increase in "information" jobs. This is well known, and understood. But by around 2000, before the big crash, both sectors take a drop. Around 2008, they slide again, not surprisingly. Now we are seeing a recovery, but only a tepid increase in jobs. If we are to believe your graph, we are back to were we were in the mid 90's for "information" jobs.

Yes, some of this has to do with the recession, but there is also (even in your preferred illustration) an underlying trend towards more automation, and less middle class employment. Job growth has been at the top end, in the new technologies, and at the bottom end, in manual work that has yet to find robotic applications, or is simply so low paid that there is little incentive to do this. It is this trend, projected forward, that is going to be a huge social issue for the US, and the developed world.

We have already made the transition to a post industrial society. We are now making the transiton to a post service society, which puts us in terra incognito, and will most surely have the ultra right foaming at the mouth, because the only solutions to these issues are going to be political ones, and ones that they will not like.

Bill Gates is not as generous as you think he is. No, really, he isn't. Although I think Warren Buffet might be giving free tax dodging advice.

Also, there is nothing keeping these unemployed Detroit automakers from having their labour allocated towards the production of new mechanics. Of course, there is nothing keeping the labour idle except for the rigorous labour laws and cost in the country.

Also a big plus of hiring a machine over an actual person, the machine isn't going to sue you, as ligation also a big factor when it comes to hiring individuals.

Labour laws have helped create the middle class society we have come to accept as the norm in recent years. Without them, we would still be living in the age of the robber barons. And again, you are simply assuming the future will be the same as the past, while ignoring rising trends that will almost certainly prove that not to be the case.

Work today is separating between the highly skilled, and the almost unskilled. Yes, there are positions for a minority with appropriate technical and analylitical skills at the top. There is also work for those at the bottom, in service industries that cannot (as yet) be filled by robotics. But we are loosing the middle class, the segment of society that has been so instrumental in creating the world we live in today. Many middle class jobs can easily be done by automation today, or at least by low paid third world world workers.

As the increase information jobs never put a dent in the amount of manufacturing jobs created. Also, the wages in the third world have always been lower than that of the US. This has never changed. What exactly has changed? What has seemed too changed is the increase labour cost in make sectors of the economy. Sure, the economy is more protective as a result to these sectors which does utilises this automation, but wages have generally outpaced productive sectors.

Have no idea what you are talking about here, as real wages have declined over the last few decades, even as productivity has increased. And this is exactly my point. Overall, society is reaping the benefits of automation. But how will those benefits be distributed? Because right now, it is essentially all going to the top, recreating the chaotic 19th century for our children. Some tough political choices are going to have to be made here, or conflict will occur in the future.

This is the crisis we need to deal with, and one not resolved by your glib cliches.

I really don't care if you deal with it or how you deal with it. I get paid either way. Might was well take the time to correct a few inaccuracies along the way.

 

[william the wie]

Probably the worst things ever said or written since President Obama suggested that the high unemployment rate was the result of ATM’s all across the country. Its a total misunderstanding of basic economics, and a complete myth.

Automation can remove some jobs, but ultimately other jobs are created in its place. Skilled labour replaces unskilled labour, as jobs are required to create, maintain, and develop software for the automation. Some automation doesn’t eliminate jobs at all. For example, there is no shortfall of bank tellers as a result of the ATM and even the most automated assembly queues require human interaction and oversight.

Some jobs are made obsolescent, and others change for the better.

Also, the Youth unemployment rate has zero to do with automation or globalisation, especially in Europe. In Europe, youth unemployment is strictly a result of seniority, not automation or globalisation.

Actually automation only works in non-creative fields and creativity is taught in different ways than American schooling teaches.

 

[AmazonTania]

Ah, amazon lady. Are you really a lady? Or perhaps a computer nerd down in Naw'account Tennesse, or some such? It's hard to tell sometimes. Because it seems like pissing contests take priority over facts within your posts.

I don't understand why you would start with your weakest argument, especially since it's an Ad hominem attack... Now it's all downhill from here for you.

But since you've brought it up, I'm really a 'lady.' I also spend majority of my days in front of the computer. I guess that makes me a computer boffin as well. But for what it's worth, I'm a real person. Are you?

http://imageshack.us/a/img29/1372/umqk.jpg

You do seem to have a lot of time to spend on the forum. Not unemployed are you?

First you attack me as an individual, and then you attack my lifestyle. If you must know, I am not unemployed. But don't let the sheer fact that I make more money sitting on my ass for 10 hours a day than mostly all the regulars on this forum mystify you. It just means that what I do is very valuable and there is absolutely zero threat of automation taking over my job.

If you were as good with your assumptions as you were with the discussion matter, this would probably go easier for you.

Obama used ATM's as an example, and he was correct. It was an example of how tens, or hundreds of jobs are being replaced by automation. The relative gains and losses from these events are argueable, but the fact of increasing automation is not.

In what way was Obama right? ATM's have not and are not replacing bank tellers in any way. Automated bank vaults never eliminated the need for armed security in banks. There are more jobs being created to replace the ones already lost as a result of automation. Vault guards can now go on and perform other security task instead.

My iPhone eliminated the need for my secretary. Now she can go off and preform other task in which her skills are required.

You are simply reiterating some of the mainstream trends from the last few decades. This is economics 101, but it is not enough to grasp more recent, and more divergent trends in technology and the economy, which I have tried to illustrate here with the posted links.

Take another look at your graph. At first, we see a decline in manufacturing employment, and an increase in "information" jobs. This is well known, and understood. But by around 2000, before the big crash, both sectors take a drop. Around 2008, they slide again, not surprisingly. Now we are seeing a recovery, but only a tepid increase in jobs. If we are to believe your graph, we are back to were we were in the mid 90's for "information" jobs.

Yes, some of this has to do with the recession, but there is also (even in your preferred illustration) an underlying trend towards more automation, and less middle class employment. Job growth has been at the top end, in the new technologies, and at the bottom end, in manual work that has yet to find robotic applications, or is simply so low paid that there is little incentive to do this. It is this trend, projected forward, that is going to be a huge social issue for the US, and the developed world.

You don't seem to understand what you are looking at. The first decline in manufacturing was due to the transition from a war time economy to a peace time economy. It has nothing to do with the increase in the information sector. Job growth in the manufacturing sector Y/Y has an annualised rate of 1.3%, while the information sector has lost jobs at an annualised rate of -1.2% Y.Y. There are plenty of new technological developments for the manufacturing sector to transition to. There is no short far of manufacturing jobs due to automation. The growth in the manufacturing sector is outpacing the information sector, and there is still more to go.

A good portion of US exports are computer and electronic products. The increase in automation can easily correct the void left from failing, obsolete economic sectors.

We have already made the transition to a post industrial society. We are now making the transiton to a post service society, which puts us in terra incognito, and will most surely have the ultra right foaming at the mouth, because the only solutions to these issues are going to be political ones, and ones that they will not like.

Meaningless platitudes are meaningless. As economies grow, a once dominating industry shrinks more and more. Agriculture was once a dominating sector of the US economy, and of great importance to the economy. Now, Agriculture is less than 2% of the economy. The economy became more industrial oriented towards the end of the industrial revolution. Now the goods producing sector is 19% of the economy. As the economy becomes more efficient, it creates more output with fewer resources, including human labour.

There are no changes in trends. The only changes in trends are the times. Automation is creating more opportunities for developers, manufacturers, engineers as well as the average employee who utilises this technology. If you are entering today's economy and you have very little to no computer skills, then you virtually have zero chance of being employed. Absolutely no one is going to lower their standards just to make you feel better.

Labour laws have helped create the middle class society we have come to accept as the norm in recent years. Without them, we would still be living in the age of the robber barons. And again, you are simply assuming the future will be the same as the past, while ignoring rising trends that will almost certainly prove that not to be the case.

You have it backwards. A middle class is created as a result of a growing economy. Not the other way around. We can pinpoint many jobs which use to exist in this economy before, and trace it towards a regulation in the Federal Register around the same year. It's really not that hard.

According to the National Federation of Small Business, Government Regulations and Rep Tap are the largest concern small businesses face next to taxes. Why do you think in a poor economic climate such as this, the third most important concern for small businesses are poor sales?

Have no idea what you are talking about here, as real wages have declined over the last few decades, even as productivity has increased. And this is exactly my point.

These are real wages:

And these are real wages in the past 30 years:

Now that we've gotten that talking point out of the way, you should know that Unit Labour Cost is indexed at a base period, which means real wages are being compared to real overall output. That is essentially how unit labour cost is measured. Unit Labour cost in the business sector is increasing, which means wages are outpacing productivity, not the other way around.

Overall, society is reaping the benefits of automation. But how will those benefits be distributed? Because right now, it is essentially all going to the top, recreating the chaotic 19th century for our children. Some tough political choices are going to have to be made here, or conflict will occur in the future.

Still not tired of these meaningless platitudes, I see. The entire nation benefits from the use in automation, not just at the top. Automation makes our lives easier. If you'd rather live like you're in the stone-age, there are plenty of countries I can recommend.

 

[Rshermr]

I don't understand why you would start with your weakest argument, especially since it's an Ad hominem attack... Now it's all downhill from here for you.

But since you've brought it up, I'm really a 'lady.' I also spend majority of my days in front of the computer. I guess that makes me a computer boffin as well. But for what it's worth, I'm a real person. Are you?

http://imageshack.us/a/img29/1372/umqk.jpg

You do seem to have a lot of time to spend on the forum. Not unemployed are you?

First you attack me as an individual, and then you attack my lifestyle. If you must know, I am not unemployed. But don't let the sheer fact that I make more money sitting on my ass for 10 hours a day than mostly all the regulars on this forum mystify you. It just means that what I do is very valuable and there is absolutely zero threat of automation taking over my job.

If you were as good with your assumptions as you were with the discussion matter, this would probably go easier for you.



In what way was Obama right? ATM's have not and are not replacing bank tellers in any way. Automated bank vaults never eliminated the need for armed security in banks. There are more jobs being created to replace the ones already lost as a result of automation. Vault guards can now go on and perform other security task instead.

My iPhone eliminated the need for my secretary. Now she can go off and preform other task in which her skills are required.



You don't seem to understand what you are looking at. The first decline in manufacturing was due to the transition from a war time economy to a peace time economy. It has nothing to do with the increase in the information sector. Job growth in the manufacturing sector Y/Y has an annualised rate of 1.3%, while the information sector has lost jobs at an annualised rate of -1.2% Y.Y. There are plenty of new technological developments for the manufacturing sector to transition to. There is no short far of manufacturing jobs due to automation. The growth in the manufacturing sector is outpacing the information sector, and there is still more to go.

A good portion of US exports are computer and electronic products. The increase in automation can easily correct the void left from failing, obsolete economic sectors.



Meaningless platitudes are meaningless. As economies grow, a once dominating industry shrinks more and more. Agriculture was once a dominating sector of the US economy, and of great importance to the economy. Now, Agriculture is less than 2% of the economy. The economy became more industrial oriented towards the end of the industrial revolution. Now the goods producing sector is 19% of the economy. As the economy becomes more efficient, it creates more output with fewer resources, including human labour.

There are no changes in trends. The only changes in trends are the times. Automation is creating more opportunities for developers, manufacturers, engineers as well as the average employee who utilises this technology. If you are entering today's economy and you have very little to no computer skills, then you virtually have zero chance of being employed. Absolutely no one is going to lower their standards just to make you feel better.



You have it backwards. A middle class is created as a result of a growing economy. Not the other way around. We can pinpoint many jobs which use to exist in this economy before, and trace it towards a regulation in the Federal Register around the same year. It's really not that hard.

According to the National Federation of Small Business, Government Regulations and Rep Tap are the largest concern small businesses face next to taxes. Why do you think in a poor economic climate such as this, the third most important concern for small businesses are poor sales?

Have no idea what you are talking about here, as real wages have declined over the last few decades, even as productivity has increased. And this is exactly my point.

These are real wages:

And these are real wages in the past 30 years:

Now that we've gotten that talking point out of the way, you should know that Unit Labour Cost is indexed at a base period, which means real wages are being compared to real overall output. That is essentially how unit labour cost is measured. Unit Labour cost in the business sector is increasing, which means wages are outpacing productivity, not the other way around.

Overall, society is reaping the benefits of automation. But how will those benefits be distributed? Because right now, it is essentially all going to the top, recreating the chaotic 19th century for our children. Some tough political choices are going to have to be made here, or conflict will occur in the future.

Still not tired of these meaningless platitudes, I see. The entire nation benefits from the use in automation, not just at the top. Automation makes our lives easier. If you'd rather live like you're in the stone-age, there are plenty of countries I can recommend.

So, more of Tania's graphs. What if we look at what those with the resources to look at the subject and who produce impartial results say:

A bigger share of what businesses in the U.S. are producing is going to the owners of the firms and the people who lent money to the firm, and a smaller share is going to workers," Gary Burtless, senior fellow in economic studies at The Brookings Institution, told CNN in a report published Thursday.
US Worker Productivity Is Rising Faster Than Wage Growth

Productivity, which measures the goods and services generated per hour worked, rose by 80.4% between 1973 and 2011, compared to a 10.7% growth in median hourly compensation...
Workers don't share in companies' productivity gains - Mar. 7, 2013

We've got eleven charts that show how the superrich spoil it for the rest of us. ... Productivity has surged, but income and wages have stagnated for most ...
Overworked America: 12 Charts That Will Make Your Blood Boil | Mother Jones

And in the above, there are many more charts than tania has.

During the 1973 to 2011 period, labor productivity rose 80.4 percent but real median hourly wage increased 4.0 percent, and the real median hourly compensation (including all wages and benefits) increased just 10.7 percent. ... If the real median hourly compensation had grown at the same rate as labor productivity over the period, it would have been $32.61 in 2011 (2011 dollars), considerably more than the actual $20.01 (2011 dollars).
Economist's View: The Wedge between Productivity and Wages

Real hourly compensation growth failed to keep pace with accelerating productivity growth over the past three decades, and the gap between productivity growth and compensation growth widened.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2011/01/art3full.pdf

And on, and on, and on. Where did you get your data, Tania. Because I can find no impartial source that agrees. Perhaps a link???