Slashdot Mirror
WSJ Columnist: Robots Aren't Destroying Enough Jobs (foxbusiness.com)
An anonymous reader writes:
Will millions be unemployed after a job-destroying robot apocalypse? That's "starkly at odds with the evidence," argues a Wall Street Journal columnist, who says the real problem is robots aren't destroying enough jobs. "Too many sectors, such as health care or personal services, are so resistant to automation that they are holding back the entire country's standard of living." Noting that "churn relative to total employment" is the lowest it's ever been, he writes that "The pessimism would be more plausible if the evidence weren't moving in exactly the opposite direction...
"In April, nonfarm private employment rose for the 86th straight month, the longest such streak on record. Monthly job creation has averaged 185,000 this year, more than double what the U.S. can sustain given its demographics. This has driven unemployment down to 4.4%, a 10-year low and below most estimates of 'full employment.' Growing labor shortages have boosted the typical worker's annual wage gain to more than 3% now from 2% in 2012, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. Instead of worrying about robots destroying jobs, business leaders need to figure out how to use them more, especially in low-productivity sectors... The alternative is a tightening labor market that forces companies to pay ever higher wages that must be passed on as inflation, which usually ends with recession.
"That is a more imminent threat than an army of androids."
"In April, nonfarm private employment rose for the 86th straight month, the longest such streak on record. Monthly job creation has averaged 185,000 this year, more than double what the U.S. can sustain given its demographics. This has driven unemployment down to 4.4%, a 10-year low and below most estimates of 'full employment.' Growing labor shortages have boosted the typical worker's annual wage gain to more than 3% now from 2% in 2012, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. Instead of worrying about robots destroying jobs, business leaders need to figure out how to use them more, especially in low-productivity sectors... The alternative is a tightening labor market that forces companies to pay ever higher wages that must be passed on as inflation, which usually ends with recession.
"That is a more imminent threat than an army of androids."
"Too many sectors, such as health care or personal services, are so resistant to automation that they are holding back the entire country's standard of living."
To which I reply with this:
“When the Englishman speaks of national wealth he means the number of millionaires in the country". - Oswald Spengler
As Spengler was writing nearly 100 years ago, for "Englishman" we may conveniently substitute "American"; and for "millionaires", "billionaires".
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Very entertaining the way the summary seems to recoil in horror at the thought of hiring people and paying them a decent wage.
How can an economy like that ever hope to thrive?
Or more likely person with an agenda that stands to profit from distributing alternate facts. 86 months is just 7 years and _not_ a long-term trend that can be used to predict what is going to happen in 5, 10, 20 or 50 years. Also, much of what is already used in automation these days is in an experimental phase or in its first, limited deployment.
Anybody that believes "new" jobs will replace the ones lost to automation long-term is completely disconnected from reality and deeply stupid. Of course, there are many people around that are adequately described by these two characteristics.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Except that this time around there is nowhere to go. When farming got automated, people moved into towns to the emerging industries. That came with its own social problems, but at least people had somewhere to go. When industrial automation happened, people were able to move into the emerging service sector.
There is no new sector to go to for the displaced workers this time. Whatever you could come up with is just as susceptible to automation as the job you just eliminated with automation.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's pretty much exactly that.
If wages outpace inflation*, it encourages a bubble in consumer confidence, as consumers have literally more money than they know what to do with. That in turn lowers saving rates, as people finally splurge on the luxuries they've wanted, without thinking much about how temporary their windfall is. That increases risk to future economic downturn when the income stops and they're now in debt and used to a comfortable life. In short, think of 1925, but with rampant money instead of uncontrolled debt.
Of course, there are other issues with inflation outpacing wages for too long, as consumer confidence drops and they stop spending on the luxuries they can afford. That leads to a collapsing market for anything beyond survival, cutting employment rates and pushing wages further downward, which pushes prices up, reinforcing the inflation.
Economics: The field where everything is bad for complex reasons, and you're never right about just how bad it will be.
* Note that I'm not claiming any particular wage as good or bad, just that there are risks when they don't match.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Except that this time around there is nowhere to go.
Except that is what people said last time, and the time before that.
Except that this time around there is nowhere to go
This is an argument from ignorance. Right now, jobs are being automated, every day. Those people are finding new jobs. You don't see how they are finding new jobs, so you assume they aren't.
We've had entire classes of jobs disappear in the last 30 years. We've had completely new jobs pop up in that time, and every time new automation comes, new jobs pop up.
Now, I think it would be great if AI replaced all our jobs, and we got a basic income in the six digit figures range, but that kind of technology is a long way from today.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Simple, when 90% of the population starves and dies, then the people that remain inherit it all and enjoy increased standard of living. (duh)
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
His workers were paid enough to afford to buy the cars they were building.
But that's not why he got rich. He paid what he did in order to get the best workers. So, yeah, if you can identify the most productive workers in society, and use higher wages to get them all working for you, you will absolutely be well-positioned to beat your competitors. That's not the same as saying that raising the general level of wages will somehow automatically increase productivity. The best workers aren't going to stick around and deal with your demanding schedule if they can get the same amount of money for less work at another business down the street.
Nature tends towards the most efficient use of resources. It has no preferences because it's not sentient, but it does have tendencies.
What about the 92 million unemployed Americans who are waiting for new coal mining jobs?
I find it so sad that the rest of the world is rapidly moving towards renewable technologies, building entire industries, and America is stuck looking backwards on a dead-end technology (carbon capture, notwithstanding). It's as if America has given up on competition with China and Europe, even as the president argues that we can and should compete.
Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates