Slashdot Mirror
Digital Revolution Will Kill Jobs, Inflame Social Unrest, Says Gartner
dcblogs writes "Gartner says new technologies are decreasing jobs. In the industrial revolution — and revolutions since — there was an invigoration of jobs. For instance, assembly lines for cars led to a vast infrastructure that could support mass production giving rise to everything from car dealers to road building and utility expansion into new suburban areas. But the "digital industrial revolution" is not following the same path. "What we're seeing is a decline in the overall number of people required to do a job," said Daryl Plummer, a Gartner analyst at the research firm's Symposium ITxpo. Plummer points to a company like Kodak, which once employed 130,000, versus Instagram's 13. The analyst believes social unrest movements, similar to Occupy Wall Street, will emerge again by 2014 as the job creation problem deepens." Isn't "decline in the overall number of people required to do a job" precisely what assembly lines effect, even if some job categories as a result require fewer humans? We recently posted a contrary analysis arguing that the Luddites are wrong.
Yet stock market valuations increase, concentrating wealth in a lucky few.
Why can't companies pay better wages?
Wal-Mart increasing their wages to $12/hr. would increase their average item price by 1.1% --- perhaps then their workers could occasionally afford to shop somewhere else, or eat out at somewhere other than McDonald's.
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
I agree with the general thrust of the article, but comparing Kodak to Instagram is straight-up retarded. Instagram is not replacing Kodak. It does not do what Kodak used to do with only 13 people. It does almost nothing, and does nothing worthwhile.
This is a really difficult thing to predict, and either prediction could be true. With the industrial revolution there was a net increase in demand for jobs since the increased efficiency resulted in higher demand in general thus increased infrastructure requirements. Part of what made this possible was, even if you decrease the cost, manufacturing still required time, energy, materials, etc.
Something that makes tech a little different, esp when it comes to software, is the near zero cost of reproduction. If industrial revolution Ford got double the orders for cars it would not only require more assembly lines but part suppliers would need to ramp up as would production of raw materials. If Microsoft's demand for MSOffice doubles, they might need a bit more bandwidth but there is no real spiderweb of increased jobs. They just allow more downloads or print more copies.
The same way we no longer need to hunt and gather in today's society, most of us will no longer need to work in the future in order to keep goods and services being produced. The question is, how easy or difficult can we make this transition? To me , the worst thing that can be done is simply ignoring the problem and erroneously pointing fingers to the Luddite movement as a perpetual example why this would never happen.
The groaning of the economically illiterate, that is.
I hereby sentence everyone to "Economics in One Lesson", by Henry Hazlitt.
New technology and new production efficiencies certainly displace people who were tied to the old technologies and methods. Most people don't think too highly of the folks behind Standard Oil, but an honest assessment would suggest that they did more to save whales than anyone at Greenpeace -- by making whale oil a less cost effective heating mechanism.
This naturally caused a huge job loss for the whaling industry -- which at the time was of course a great social woe.
Whalers, buggy whip manufacturers, and people whos jobs can be trivially replaced by robots are all going to be displaced when technology improves.
What bad economics (and policy makers) repeatedly do, and what is covered in Hazlitt's book, is they focus on what is seen and ignore what is unseen.
What is easy to see when a buggy whip manufacturer loses their job is that Bob lost a job.
What is harder to see is that nearly everyone else in the society is some fractional percent wealthier. The automobile saved people time, which is why it replaced the horse. People who spend less time unproductively can create additional wealth for the rest of society to benefit from.
I think most people agree that a world where we all have handheld supercomputers that can take photos is a better world than one where the instant camera is the only cost-effective consumer device for seeing a photograph within 1 hour of having shot it.
What this analysis fails to "See" is beyond the 13 jobs at instagram. It's easy to see the loss of jobs at Kodak or polaroid. But add up all of the jobs that are tangentially related to digital photography. Flickr? People working on DSLRs? People working on Photoshop? People who write a 99 cent appstore app that is a filter for your iphone's camera?
Cast a wide net to "see" what bad economists aren't seeing.
The thing about these luddite arguments that really shows they don't hold water is that if the old way was really better, we'd go back.
We, in aggregate, like the new way better -- which is why we aren't giving up our smartphones and rushing out to buy film cameras.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Gartner, Forrester, etc. are the bane of my existence in IT, because they promote magical thinking among executives, but this time they're right about something.
No one is prepared to deal with the dirty little secret of the information age -- that there are going to be huge swaths of the population who will be out of work, with no prospects for future employment. The last time around, it was low-skilled factory workers. Now it's the middle class's turn! And when half the country has no money and no work, they're going to get angry.
I don't think the current generation of office workers is really thinking about how much less of them will be needed once companies get around to squeezing every single nickel out of every single business process. It's already happening on a huge scale, even in the IT sector. Anything rules-based is basically fair game for automation. Think back a couple of decades -- how many millions of bookkeepers, accountants, secretaries, low-level report-consolidation managers, etc. did large companies employ and pay a decent middle class salary to? Each one of those went out and bought those large companies' products, bought houses, cars and vacations. Now that strong base of consumers is disappearing, or they need to finance their purchases through debt because their wages don't keep up. Large numbers of corporate jobs can still be summed up as "I look at reports from this location, perform a few calculations and summarize the resulting numbers for my management by emailing them a spreadsheet." No one can tell me that the accountants haven't noticed this...
The vast majority of people in the middle class, in my opinion, are averse to social welfare policies simply because they don't think anything bad is ever going to happen to them. Worse, they think that if they support the richest people and just try really hard, they'll eventually be rich themselves. This thinking is going to backfire hard on them when their nice safe job is automated or no longer needed. For example, the most vocal opinions of the new healthcare law in the US are typically middle class families who get their insurance coverage through work and have never had to worry about not having it. Try explaining to them that there are a significant number of working individuals who can't afford insurance and you get, "But...but...socialism!!" All I can say is the next few years will be very interesting. If you believe the Star Trek TNG writers, it's going to take a massive upheaval to get to a post-scarcity utopia.
I remember a long time ago when I was young that some people were predicting a future where due to technology advances you only had to work a small number of hours to meet your basic needs. People were worried about what we would do with all that leisure time.
Of course, this was naive and while it is true that technology advances have made it possible to produce much more with less labor, all of the productivity gains have been captured by the corporations and the 1%.
We now have a situation where there is a surplus of capital controlled by the rich 1% and corporations and also a surplus of workers due to gains in productivity. Unfortunately, this leads to low wages and not enough jobs. Poverty and social unrest are the result.
One would think that different approach to society would correct these imbalances by first raising the pay for work which would allow people to work fewer hours and create more jobs. Also, the idle capital of the rich and corporations could be harnessed (taxed) to improve infrastructure and social services.
We could have a utopia if the capitalists weren't so firmly in control of our government. Instead we have a dystopia with poverty, disease and social unrest... perhaps that could lead to a better government but it will be messy and the outcome is far from certain.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
So, the guy didn't learn from the Industrial Revolution (and revolutions since) that all the fear of 'no more jobs for anyone' ended up being unfounded?
New technologies don't decrease the number of available jobs; wealth sequestration among the super-rich does. With the Middle Class having less and less money to spend, the demand for products -- and the jobs required to create them -- goes down. We've been seeing this over the past thirty years, which just happens to coincide with the rise of the computing industry.
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
Gartner says new technologies are decreasing jobs.
If this were actually true we would have seen a steady increase in the number of unemployed people over time during the past 20 years. Instead we had near record low unemployment until around 2008 when we had a banking (not technology) related financial crisis. Since then unemployment has been slowly but steadily falling back towards what passes for steady state norms. While it is true that people are not employed at the same companies they used to be, technology takes away some jobs and adds others. It also makes people more effective at the jobs they do.
But the "digital industrial revolution" is not following the same path. "What we're seeing is a decline in the overall number of people required to do a job,"
That's the entire point. It means you can get more done with the same number of people. It's called increasing productivity. Rather than having a room full of accountants entering journal entries by hand on a paper ledger we have one accountant keeping the books in some software and everyone else does something more productive. Instead of using switchboard operators we use computers to route calls. There is ZERO evidence that digital technology is eliminating jobs without replacing them with others. The number of jobs hasn't fallen due to technology but the skillsets required to fill them has changed.
Plummer points to a company like Kodak, which once employed 130,000, versus Instagram's 13.
I'm not sure they could come up with a more ridiculous example. Instagram is an add on feature to already existing social networks for sharing pictures. Kodak actually made critical parts of picture taking equipment. If you want to compare Kodak to something modern, compare them with CCD sensor manufacturers and camera makers which I assure you employ far more than 13 people.
So you are assuming the only costs Walmart has are from store labour? You know there are other aspects of the business don't you? Like rent, utilities, management, and that is just at store level. Then there is how many thousands they have to pay at head office in Arkansas. Then there are things like warehouses and distribution costs, and the cost of the goods they buy from CHINA. And I am sure there is a lot of other stuff that I am missing. Use your freakin' head, labour doesn't come out of profit, profit comes after ALL those other things, including labour, are taken into account against income earned.
Look, I have nothing against the argument that if you have no skills and never tried to get any (including dropping out of school), you shouldn't complain too much about low wages. On the other hand, if you never were given or never had the opportunity because of circumstances, well then I have some sympathy... not everyone's life is easy. But please don't shoot shit like that out your ass and ask us to believe it reflects reality.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Reducing the amount of work it takes to keep the human race alive, fed, and housed should be unambiguously good. The reason it's not is because we've structured our society around the idea that all adults must be employed in full-time jobs (or be married to someone who is) to qualify for a decent life. We have this idea, particularly in America, that (employment) work is a virtue in and of itself. Unemployed people are shamed and villainized.
If we all lived on isolated family farms, it would be obvious that reducing the total workload is better for everyone -- less work = more free time. But instead, we live in a complex, interconnected industrial society. It's going to take a lot of large cultural changes before we can handle the idea that some people might not work at all, or only work a few hours a week. For perspective, we still don't have a consensus on whether something as difficult and time-consuming as being a stay-at-home mom counts as a job.
Visit the