Hi,
There's a show I catch every now and then on how things are made. It's amazing just how much can be, and is, automated. Sewing Roebucks is probably well within present capabilities. Besides, redesigning products to make them easier to produce in automated factories is common. Things like replacing stitching with pressure welding. So far, it's been the initial investment and the efforts of unions that have held automation at bay. The investment is getting smaller, the unions weaker. In the '70s, I predicted work riots by now -- I was off in the timing, but I'm still pretty convinced of the probability.
Yes, but not one of these is a *new* job. The number of people who support the robots will be approximately the same as that which supports the sewing machines the robots replaced. But they will have to have more knowledge and better training. Mid level jobs go away. There is a lesser need for managers at a factory with 20 techs servicing the machinery than at one with 20 techs and 500 workers. Even customer service takes a hit, since goods produced in an automated factory have fewer defects than do those produced by workers.
As per my previous paragraph, I don't think there is a net creation of jobs. The jobs that are created are in the service sector. These jobs do not produce any goods nor added value services. An economy based largely on these jobs is an economy without a foundation. The bastard offspring of a shell game and a pyramid scheme.
As the number of mid level jobs go away, the number of people who can afford the services decreases. When only 10% of the population can afford to go to a restaurant, how many restaurants will be needed?
In The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Heinlein remarks that if two Chinese crash landed in a crater, they'd get rich selling rocks to each other while raising a pack of children. Of course, it's a sardonic remark on a non-productive economy. Stripped down to the basics, it's clear that without production, there is no economy.
Please, don't throw unemployment numbers around, they're mostly meaningless. How many people, both the young students and the elderly wanting a source of income and society, cannot find a job but don't qualify for unemployment (and are not counted)? How many SO that would like to contribute to the family income have given up looking for a job and never qualified for unemployment or used up their benefits (not counted)? How many people are underemployed? How many people with advanced degrees spend years as post-doc fellows on a tiny stipend because there are no jobs in their field (except, of course, low paying post-doc positions).
This discussion started because of an article on the divergence. The article was largely nonsense, but the divergence is real. And, to a large degree, the divergence is because of the elimination of the middle -- not a completed process, but ongoing nonetheless. We are moving toward a bimodal society. Those capable of contributing more than a machine will continue to be better off -- until what they do can be done by a machine (architectural firms hardly use draftsmen anymore). Those not capable of contributing as much as a machine will be relegated to more and more menial work. And as the machines get better, the need for manual labor gets smaller and its value less.
The problem isn't how to deploy the methods of the past. The problem is that the methods of the past are based on a principle that is no longer true. Humanity no longer needs the output humanity is capable of. "An honest day's work for an honest day's pay" can no longer be applied. What is the solution? I don't know. But I'd suggest looking in science fiction novels rather than in economic texts. The texts are summaries and speculations of what was. The novels at least explore potential for the future (and the future is real close to now).
--Pete
(10-19-2010, 05:38 PM)Jester Wrote: . . . they are not easy or profitable to automate . . .
There's a show I catch every now and then on how things are made. It's amazing just how much can be, and is, automated. Sewing Roebucks is probably well within present capabilities. Besides, redesigning products to make them easier to produce in automated factories is common. Things like replacing stitching with pressure welding. So far, it's been the initial investment and the efforts of unions that have held automation at bay. The investment is getting smaller, the unions weaker. In the '70s, I predicted work riots by now -- I was off in the timing, but I'm still pretty convinced of the probability.
Quote:For those industries that are automatable, there is still a demand for support personnel, managers, technicians, customer service, and so on.
Yes, but not one of these is a *new* job. The number of people who support the robots will be approximately the same as that which supports the sewing machines the robots replaced. But they will have to have more knowledge and better training. Mid level jobs go away. There is a lesser need for managers at a factory with 20 techs servicing the machinery than at one with 20 techs and 500 workers. Even customer service takes a hit, since goods produced in an automated factory have fewer defects than do those produced by workers.
Quote:And every job created there is another several supporting them with haircuts and lawnmowing. And so on.
As per my previous paragraph, I don't think there is a net creation of jobs. The jobs that are created are in the service sector. These jobs do not produce any goods nor added value services. An economy based largely on these jobs is an economy without a foundation. The bastard offspring of a shell game and a pyramid scheme.
Quote:It depends - largely on how productive the other sectors of the economy are. There are an absurdly large number of potential service tasks to do, some of which we haven't even thought of yet. The question is whether the rest of society is productive enough to justify people doing them.
As the number of mid level jobs go away, the number of people who can afford the services decreases. When only 10% of the population can afford to go to a restaurant, how many restaurants will be needed?
Quote:A maid/hairdresser/landscaper/whatever today gets paid a wage that would be laughably high by the standards of a century ago, on the backs of the rest of the economy. The higher that wage goes, the more room there is to create more jobs by using more labour.
In The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Heinlein remarks that if two Chinese crash landed in a crater, they'd get rich selling rocks to each other while raising a pack of children. Of course, it's a sardonic remark on a non-productive economy. Stripped down to the basics, it's clear that without production, there is no economy.
Quote:But it's hardly that bad, that only the intelligent and creative can find any job at all. Unemployment may be 10%, but it's not 70%. And the employed are consuming more services than ever, in the big picture.
Please, don't throw unemployment numbers around, they're mostly meaningless. How many people, both the young students and the elderly wanting a source of income and society, cannot find a job but don't qualify for unemployment (and are not counted)? How many SO that would like to contribute to the family income have given up looking for a job and never qualified for unemployment or used up their benefits (not counted)? How many people are underemployed? How many people with advanced degrees spend years as post-doc fellows on a tiny stipend because there are no jobs in their field (except, of course, low paying post-doc positions).
This discussion started because of an article on the divergence. The article was largely nonsense, but the divergence is real. And, to a large degree, the divergence is because of the elimination of the middle -- not a completed process, but ongoing nonetheless. We are moving toward a bimodal society. Those capable of contributing more than a machine will continue to be better off -- until what they do can be done by a machine (architectural firms hardly use draftsmen anymore). Those not capable of contributing as much as a machine will be relegated to more and more menial work. And as the machines get better, the need for manual labor gets smaller and its value less.
The problem isn't how to deploy the methods of the past. The problem is that the methods of the past are based on a principle that is no longer true. Humanity no longer needs the output humanity is capable of. "An honest day's work for an honest day's pay" can no longer be applied. What is the solution? I don't know. But I'd suggest looking in science fiction novels rather than in economic texts. The texts are summaries and speculations of what was. The novels at least explore potential for the future (and the future is real close to now).
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?