Hello reader(s),
Since there is no cateogory devoted to economics i have decided to post this mail under “Political Philosophy”.
I would like to know (if true) Why is automation in industry (more machines) is not threat to human labour (job creation) ?
Is there an article somewhere that explains this thoroughly ? :unsure:
xobject
I would like to know (if true) Why is automation in industry (more machines) is not threat to human labour (job creation) ?
But automation is a “threat to human labour.” What is wrong with that? We automate because the machines are more efficient than human labor, thereby freeing humans to do something more productive. Perhaps those workers help build the machines that do the drudge work, or perhaps some learn how to design more machines . Just as ancient man invented tools to enhance the benefit from his effort, so we automate to free men to perform work that is more and more suited to the mind of man, rather than physical labor.
But it is not a “threat to human labour” even the way you explain it.
The alternative work you are suggesting for the lets say “ex-workers” is also labour,
only not hard and manual but in a sense more intellectual.
By “human labour” I mean labour intended for a goal even one as simple as making a decent honourable living.
I would like to know (if true) Why is automation in industry (more machines) is not threat to human labour (job creation) ?
There are 10’s of millions more jobs available in the USA today than a 100 years ago. Yet over that period there has been an enormous increase in automation. So obviously automation does not decrease the demand for labor (as its detractors have always alleged, going back to the Luddites of the 19th Cent.).
The reason for it is that automation make labor more efficient and productive, thus enabling the same amount of “labor input” to produce far more. The result is increased wealth, both to the laborer who can be paid more and to the businessman who earns more profit. That increased wealth leads to an increased demand for goods and services which obviously creates new work opportunities.
Furthermore, automation as an integral part of new technology, creates entirely new industries which did not exist before. Thus, while the advent of the mass produced automobile diminished jobs in the horse and buggy and related industries, it created far more in producing automobiles and the vast industries which grew up around it to service it, such as the oil industry, motels, rubber, etc. etc.
Fred Weiss
Is there an article somewhere that explains this thoroughly ? :unsure:
You might try the article The Divine Right of Stagnation in The Virtue of Selfishness. Here’s an excerpt:
Once, on a plane trip, I became engaged in conversation with an executive of a labor union. He began to decry the “disaster” of automation, asserting that increasing thousands of workers would be permanently unemployed as a result of new machines and that “something ought to be done about it.” I answered that this was a myth that had been exploded many times; that the introduction of new machines invariably resulted in increasing the demand for labor as well as in raising the general standard of living; that this was demonstrable theoretically and observable historically. I remarked that automation increased the demand for skilled labor relative to unskilled labor, and that doubtless many workers would need to learn new skills. “But,” he asked indignantly, “what about the workers who don’t want to learn new skills? Why should they have troubles?”
This means that the ambition, the farsightedness, the drive to do better and still better, the living energy of creative men are to be throttled and suppressed–for the sake of men who have “thought enough” and “learned enough” and do not wish to be concerned with the future nor with the bothersome question of what their jobs depend on.
But it is not a “threat to human labour” even the way you explain it.
The alternative work you are suggesting for the lets say “ex-workers” is also labour,
only not hard and manual but in a sense more intellectual.
By “human labour” I mean labour intended for a goal even one as simple as making a decent honourable living.
In what I wrote I exaggerated a bit in an attempt to throw the question back to you. I chose to interpret “human labour” as drudge work to illustrate that mechanization raises productive power. The point I wanted to underscore was that, in general, man elevates himself as the labor he performs requires more and more of his mind and less of his body.
point taken stephen.
The good thing is that at least we support the same idea.
Increased automation = increased production = reduced prices
point taken stephen.
The good thing is that at least we support the same idea.
Increased automation = increased production = reduced prices
But my point actually goes a bit further. Even if mechanization did not result in increased production and reduced prices – if production and prices just stayed the same – there still remains great value in automating a process that required human physical labor. As I said before, we elevate man as the work he performs is more dependent on the use of his mind, rather than the physical force of his body.
but what will man’s mind work upon (art, science, technology..) …and what about people with low IQ ?
What would they trade in when there will be no takers ?
That is why i see increased production and reduced prices as an inevitable consequence of automation and as one its advantages tha applies to all kinds of people.
what about people with low IQ ?
What would they trade in when there will be no takers ?
“Would you like fries with that?”
There is still a lot of work available that does not require a high IQ and is not easy to fully automate: fast food, yard maintenance, picking fruit, etc. I can see this possibly being an issue sometime in the far future, though. Perhaps they would have to survive on charity …
“Would you like fries with that?”
There is still a lot of work available that does not require a high IQ and is not easy to fully automate: fast food, yard maintenance, picking fruit, etc. I can see this possibly being an issue sometime in the far future, though. Perhaps they would have to survive on charity …
This is an interesting subject and I wonder what the research shows, but my (unproven) hypothesis is that increased technology not only frees men from drudgery in many/most areas but also, ironically, increases the demand for such work!! As you mention, there are many kinds of work that don’t lend themselves easily to automation, but as wealth increases the demand for such work will also increase. In addition to the ones you mention, there is also house cleaning, hotel and restaurant services, car detailing, nannies, pizza delivery etc. Incidentally, because of the high demand some of this work can pay quite well. I’ve heard stories of nannies in some wealthy suburbs being paid upwards of $50,000/year.
The difference today is that, with the higher standard of living technology has provided us, people have a much wider range of work choices available to them and of course it tends to pay much better than in years past.
Fred Weiss
At some point or other, industrial automation will reduce employment. The best the unemployed then can do is to survive on charity, die or go to some lone place and set up their own small economy.
At some point or other, industrial automation will reduce employment. The best the unemployed then can do is to survive on charity, die or go to some lone place and set up their own small economy.
:pimp:
They can retrain, then they can even try to set up their own enterprises.
At that time they would then appreciate, embrace, and even profit from automation. 
At some point or other, industrial automation will reduce employment. The best the unemployed then can do is to survive on charity, die or go to some lone place and set up their own small economy.
This assertion seems out of line with what we’ve been talking about. Are you saying that there is some factor to limit what has up to now been the constant trend, or are you saying that the trend is not really there ?
At some point or other, industrial automation will reduce employment. The best the unemployed then can do is to survive on charity, die or go to some lone place and set up their own small economy.
I think you are on some implicit assumption that somehow all work will become automatized and it will be something like computers and/or robots will do all the work. Conceivably, computers and robots will even build the computers and robots which will do all work.
This of course was the fantasy nightmare envisioned in the early years of the computer revolution. You don’t hear much about it anymore because it has proven to be completely false. Even though computers have become widespread both in business and the home, enfusing our entire culture, not only hasn’t it reduced employment, it has vastly increased it - mainly by opening up entirely new industries and employment opportunities which were probably impossible to envision as little as 20-30 years ago. Just consider, as one example, the number of people who are involved today in the Internet which barely existed 20-30 years ago. Look at companies like Amazon.com (plus 1,000’s of others) which have grown up entirely connected with the Internet and wouldn’t exist without it.
Even if you had very advanced robots which could perform many of the mundane tasks of our existence, such as house cleaning or mowing the lawn, someone will have to program them, teach people how to use them, repair them, sell them, etc. And once you have one model of robot, people will want other models. They will want them in every conceivable shape, size, color and capability, just as they do now in other similar categories.
And just as it has in the past, as our standard of living increases as a result of this increased automation, people will have more money and leisure time and will look for ways to enjoy their lives with it. That, too, will create new industries - perhaps in the future interplanetary space travel. But the one thing you can be sure of is that it will create new industries that you cannot even envision right now. It will be a complete surprise.
People’s wants are virtually unlimited. No matter how many of them you satisfy, they can always want more. The average middle class person today lives in a state of unimagined luxury in comparison to the average worker 100 years ago. And yet how many of those middle class people can’t give you a list a mile long of things they’d like to have or do with their lives if they had the means to do so?
That will be as true 100 years or a 1,000 years from now as it is today.
Fred Weiss
but what will man’s mind work upon (art, science, technology..) …and what about people with low IQ ?
What would they trade in when there will be no takers ?
If by “low IQ” you mean, literally, people whose brain capacities are so limited that they can only perform the most menial activities, then surely you realize this represents an extremely small percentage of our society. In general, as a society prospers people like that will benefit more from the good will of others whose own wealth will be enriched by increasing their own ability through the better use of their minds.
That is why i see increased production and reduced prices as an inevitable consequence of automation and as one its advantages tha applies to all kinds of people.
In general that is correct, but it is not always inevitable. To be profitable the amount one invests in automation must be offset by both short- and long-term benefits, but such a cost-benefit analysis is not guranteed to result in profit. But, regardless, my point was to underscore a somewhat more ethical concern, rather than an economic one, namely that automation, even if it did not result in increased production and lower prices – even if both of these just remained the same – would still be a benefit in freeing man to perform work that is more dependent on his mind, rather than his body.
At some point or other, industrial automation will reduce employment. The best the unemployed then can do is to survive on charity, die or go to some lone place and set up their own small economy.
I think you would benefit by studying some history – specifically from the time just preceding the industrial revolutiion and onwards – to see if your assumption is borne out by historical fact. Hint: What happened when the horse and buggy trade was replaced by the invention and eventual automation of the automobile? What about the computer industry, which itself is the very basis for automation?
Let’s say a system to cure all types of cancer is found one day by a single company. This will surely cut the revenue of the other companies which benefit from the contemporary partial treatment of cancer. They will start retrenching. Although the new discovery will generate jobs, but there is no guarantee that the amount of jobs generated will be equal to or greater than the amount of jobs lost. Will this not result in reduced employment? Please correct me if I am wrong.
Let’s say a system to cure all types of cancer is found one day by a single company. This will surely cut the revenue of the other companies which benefit from the contemporary partial treatment of cancer. They will start retrenching. Although the new discovery will generate jobs, but there is no guarantee that the amount of jobs generated will be equal to or greater than the amount of jobs lost. Will this not result in reduced employment? Please correct me if I am wrong.
How could increased longevity possibly decrease economic activity and thus reduce employment opportunities? Longevity has doubled in the last 100 or so years. Has that increased or decreased economic activity (and employment opportunities) - and I might add for the pharmaceutical industry as much as if not moreso than others?
I would suggest that as you think about economics that you work on not approaching it in such a “concrete bound” manner and try not to focus so much on just looking at the very specific and short-term effects of some particular economic factoid - and instead look at the broader implications.
Fred Weiss
Let’s say a system to cure all types of cancer is found one day by a single company. This will surely cut the revenue of the other companies which benefit from the contemporary partial treatment of cancer. They will start retrenching. Although the new discovery will generate jobs, but there is no guarantee that the amount of jobs generated will be equal to or greater than the amount of jobs lost. Will this not result in reduced employment? Please correct me if I am wrong.
Perhaps one of the people who was given life by the cancer cure goes on to invent a device that spawns an entirely new industry, something along the lines of the advent of the computer. So perhaps hundreds of people were put out of work by the cancer cure, but now millions of jobs are created by the new invention.
I gave an extreme example just to highlight that you are looking at the issue from a much too narrow focus. You really should learn the principles involved, and then the examples might make more sense. Read Ayn Rand and the many references to economics books you find therein.