Krugman: Is the Computer Revolution Coming To a Close?

ninguna writes "According to Paul Krugman: 'Gordon argues, rightly in my view, that we've really had three industrial revolutions so far, each based on a different cluster of technologies. The analysis in Gordon's paper links periods of slow and rapid growth to the timing of the three industrial revolutions:
IR #1 (steam, railroads) from 1750 to 1830.
IR #2 (electricity, internal combustion engine, running water, indoor toilets, communications, entertainment, chemicals, petroleum) from 1870 to 1900.
IR #3 (computers, the web, mobile phones) from 1960 to present.
What Gordon then does is suggest that IR #3 has already mostly run its course, that all our mobile devices and all that are new and fun but not that fundamental. It's good to have someone questioning the tech euphoria; but I've been looking into technology issues a lot lately, and I'm pretty sure he's wrong, that the IT revolution has only begun to have its impact.' Is Krugman right, will robots put laborers and even the educated out of work?"

Comments

I would argue

[geekoid]

that IR 4 is robotics. Not that robotics are a continuation of IT.

Re:I would argue

[DigiShaman]

IR 4 is cheap and abundant energy (solar, wind, nuclear, fusion perhaps...etc). Emphasis on 'cheap and abundant'.

IR 5 would be robotics that require an IR 4.

Not really

[Tough Love]

The only the silicon part of the revolution is slowing down. The software revolution has barely begun, especially after being set back ten years or so during the Microsoft dark ages. What the future holds can scarcely be imagined today. Think of it this way: we already have more processing available on a single, $50, add in card than a modest sized mammalian brain. It isn't our hardware that sucks, it's our algorithms.

Already Happening

[Anonymous Coward]

As a physician, I see the future, and it's increasingly moving away from me and towards the computer. There will still be a role for us, but it will be in the areas where big data doesn't come up the obvious answer. As humans, we suck at reliably following algorithms. For a lot of medical conditions, following an algorithm reliably will give much better results than the haphazard method in which it is practiced now. Let the computer do that and let us practice the art of medicine where we don't know the correct answer yet.

Easy way to solve robots taking jobs

[Cryacin]

There is an elegant way to solve the problem of the concentration of wealth issue to the exclusion of general society.

Tax the robots at 70%
Then take that money, and funnel it into education, the arts, and a basic living wage to the masses.

Problems with people becoming breeding factories? Reduce the basic wage payments given for each child born over +2 by 50% then 75%, then nothing over 4.

With a higher level of education, our scientific advancement will increase, further increasing our wealth in general. Since the tax on robots leaves a 30% profit for the rich, they are rewarded for keeping the machines going. and paying for the administration of the machines to those who still earn a wage.

The formulas can be tweaked, should there be a new frontier opened up such as space, and money may in fact become only representations of pure resources and energy if technology such as a nano lathe becomes reality. (Being able to assemble anything from the atom up)

Re:Easy way to solve robots taking jobs

[Lumpy]

Mandatory reversible sterilization of all children when they turn 12 years of age. Then let them undergo the procedure for free to reverse it after age 21 if they choose to do so. I will bet you that 90% will prefer to not have kids. Keeping young teens from ruining their lives by having kids is important, teens will hump like rabbits, it's in their nature. Lets not let them ruin their lives because a bunch of backwater uneducated hillbillies wont let the government give out birth control and educated kids in the use of birth control.

Re:Easy way to solve robots taking jobs

[TapeCutter]

Why is it either/or and not neither/nor?

Exactly, I had just turned 21 when my 18yo wife had her first son in 1980, he was no accident. Neither side of the family offered any kind of financial help and a tax break on fuck all is obviously less than fuck all. Having kids early ruined my finances, not my life, it gave life a purpose and bone-headed determination that non-parents have great difficulty understanding, I was no longer "working for the weekend" I was "putting bread on the table" and I was doing it the hard way, as a high school drop out. Neither of my kids followed their parents lead and dropped out of HS, and neither will my three grand kids.

Re:Easy way to solve robots taking jobs

[hawguy]

Oddly enough, I think I find the idea of mandatory parenting classes/standards more disturbing then mandatory contraception. I shutter to think what kind of standards boards might exist to decide what 'proper' parenting might be. Family law is a pretty horrible domain, and I have seen all sorts of things used as examples of why one parent or another should not have custody including 'improper' sexuality, religion, political allegiance, hobbies, career, relationship structures, lifestyle.. and the idea that such standanders could potentially leak in to deciding if you can even have a kid in the first place is kinda chilling.

My wife works at a subsidized (i.e. low income) preschool and you'd be surprised how few parents actually know how to parent. They do offer parenting classes (optional, but encouraged), and they don't touch on any of the controversial issues you're worried about, but cover basics like diapering, feeding/nutrition, what do to when the baby cries, how to cope when the baby won't stop crying, when to seek health care, other outside resources for help with parenting, etc. Yet every year, they still have to call child protective services to investigate at least one family due to child abuse, malnutrition, etc.

Parenting in modern society is not instinctive, is not always passed down from mother to child, and there are many skills that can be taught without offending most people's ideals (there will always be the fringe that object to any mention of breast feeding versus formula, corporal punishment, etc).

IR Dates all Wrong

[tjstork]

Let's see, he cuts off IR#1 at 1830, which pretty much misses the entire steamship revolution and the invention of so many consumer goods of the 19th century, not to mention, the facilitation of mass immigration to the USA by all those steamships, the openning of the west due to practical railroads.

Then, he cuts off the next IR at 1900, and thus misses aircraft, the widespread adoption of the telephone and radio, and consumer appliances.

And then, having decided that aircraft, telephones, radio and steamships were useless, he says that the next 60 years of IT will mean absolutely nothing.

I would be inclined to think he is totally wrong.

Re:hmm

[cheesybagel]

I have always found the idea of technological revolutions being restricted to specific timeframes interesting. It is mostly a bunch of bullshit created by people who excessively attempt to categorize things. Notice how his time periods for the revolutions don't include: Bessemer process, refrigeration, antibiotics, polymers (e.g. nylon), jet engine, solar cells, nuclear power, etc. Do you honestly think transatlantic flight was less an important transportation achievement than steam ships? The mind boggles.

Another example is the period formerly known as the Dark Ages or Middle Ages. Crop rotation, wind mills, boats with a keel like longships and knarr, glass lenses, gunpowder, compass, paper currency, etc are all seemingly trash for these people. You often hear flamethrowers were invented in WWI. The truth is people were fighting with flamethrowers back in the Crusades during the Middle Ages.

Re:Mr Krugman is an Economist not to be dismissed

[dkleinsc]

However, modern Science shows Keynes and Socialism to have deleterious effects on the smooth functioning of economic behavior.

Exactly what evidence do you have of that?

Consider that there is not insignificant evidence that your "deleterious effects" (which I notice are not defined anywhere) simply aren't there. For example, European countries that have cut government spending have seen unemployment rise, sometimes precipitously, exactly as Keynes predicted.

Another thought for you: What would have happened if the US government had, instead of paying out billions in unemployment benefits, instead paid out billions to repair highway bridges or build a high speed rail network?

Re:Krugman

[Mr Bubble]

You should probably read the article. Krugman is not saying these things, Gordon is. Krugman disagrees with him.

What Gordon then does is suggest that IR #3 has already mostly run its course, that all our mobile devices and all that are new and fun but not that fundamental. Itâ(TM)s good to have someone questioning the tech euphoria; but Iâ(TM)ve been looking into technology issues a lot lately, and Iâ(TM)m pretty sure heâ(TM)s wrong, that the IT revolution has only begun to have its impact.