More on job loss due to automation

[Loren Pechtel]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/21/upshot/the-long-term-jobs-killer-is-not-china-its-automation.html

A simple example:

Take the steel industry. It lost 400,000 people, 75 percent of its work force, between 1962 and 2005. But its shipments did not decline, according to a study published in the American Economic Review last year.

That's where the good jobs of the 50s and 60s went!

 

[RVonse]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/21/upshot/the-long-term-jobs-killer-is-not-china-its-automation.html

A simple example:

Take the steel industry. It lost 400,000 people, 75 percent of its work force, between 1962 and 2005. But its shipments did not decline, according to a study published in the American Economic Review last year.

That's where the good jobs of the 50s and 60s went!

Red herring fallacy.

Automation does not matter at all to the wealth of the nation. Sending jobs to China does. If more jobs are lost to automation than by China stealing them that is perfectly fine. Automation will be the same throughout the globe and both countries will still be at the same level.

If NO jobs had gone to China (from the US) over the last 30 years, what you would have seen in the US is productivity gains that would have been shared with workers. We would probably be putting in a 30 hour workweek for the same pay check. Yes, the people of China would still be in poverty, but I don't care because I don't live there and the world we live in is not fair anyway.

Trump is right about this and hopefully you will see after he actually takes office.

 

[dismal]

Um, so do we smash the looms or the Chinese?

 

[LordKiran]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/21/upshot/the-long-term-jobs-killer-is-not-china-its-automation.html

A simple example:



That's where the good jobs of the 50s and 60s went!

Red herring fallacy.

Automation does not matter at all to the wealth of the nation. Sending jobs to China does. If more jobs are lost to automation than by China stealing them that is perfectly fine. Automation will be the same throughout the globe and both countries will still be at the same level.

If NO jobs had gone to China (from the US) over the last 30 years, what you would have seen in the US is productivity gains that would have been shared with workers. We would probably be putting in a 30 hour workweek for the same pay check. Yes, the people of China would still be in poverty, but I don't care because I don't live there and the world we live in is not fair anyway.

Trump is right about this and hopefully you will see after he actually takes office.

A job lost is a job lost. You can argue one has additional effects that the other does not, but for the person who is no longer employed, the outcome is the same.

The truth is that these jobs that went overseas only occurs because it is still cheaper to pay them pennies than it is to build machines to do the same work. In either case, that factory worker's career is over no matter what you do.

Also it's pretty silly to count the wealth of a globe spanning conglomerate as the wealth of any one nation. Just thought you should know that.

 

[RVonse]

- - - Updated - - -

Um, so do we smash the looms or the Chinese?

The Chinese.

Bring in all the automation that is possible but make sure that the US keeps what we invent.

 

[RVonse]

Red herring fallacy.

Automation does not matter at all to the wealth of the nation. Sending jobs to China does. If more jobs are lost to automation than by China stealing them that is perfectly fine. Automation will be the same throughout the globe and both countries will still be at the same level.

If NO jobs had gone to China (from the US) over the last 30 years, what you would have seen in the US is productivity gains that would have been shared with workers. We would probably be putting in a 30 hour workweek for the same pay check. Yes, the people of China would still be in poverty, but I don't care because I don't live there and the world we live in is not fair anyway.

Trump is right about this and hopefully you will see after he actually takes office.

A job lost is a job lost. You can argue one has additional effects that the other does not, but for the person who is no longer employed, the outcome is the same.

The truth is that these jobs that went overseas only occurs because it is still cheaper to pay them pennies than it is to build machines to do the same work. In either case, that factory worker's career is over no matter what you do.

Read what you quoted from me again. A job lost from China is NOT a job lost from automation. They are completely different in net effect to the wealth of the US.

If you are too stupid to listen to what I have just said, then ask yourself this question: Why did the wealth of the US accelerate during the industrial revolution but decrease during the last 30 years?

 

[LordKiran]

A job lost is a job lost. You can argue one has additional effects that the other does not, but for the person who is no longer employed, the outcome is the same.

The truth is that these jobs that went overseas only occurs because it is still cheaper to pay them pennies than it is to build machines to do the same work. In either case, that factory worker's career is over no matter what you do.

Read what you quoted from me again. A job lost from China is NOT a job lost from automation. They are completely different in net effect to the wealth of the US.

If you are too stupid to listen to what I have just said, then ask yourself this question: Why did the wealth of the US accelerate during the industrial revolution but decrease during the last 30 years?

What does it mean for "The wealth to decrease"? Perhaps if you avoided vague and non-specific language like this then there'd be less of a misunderstanding?

Anyway, as I said already, it is folly to confuse the wealth of a multi-national conglomerate as being the wealth of one specific nation. We are not China. Our companies are not Government owned.

 

[dismal]

A job lost is a job lost. You can argue one has additional effects that the other does not, but for the person who is no longer employed, the outcome is the same.

The truth is that these jobs that went overseas only occurs because it is still cheaper to pay them pennies than it is to build machines to do the same work. In either case, that factory worker's career is over no matter what you do.

Read what you quoted from me again. A job lost from China is NOT a job lost from automation. They are completely different in net effect to the wealth of the US.

If you are too stupid to listen to what I have just said, then ask yourself this question: Why did the wealth of the US accelerate during the industrial revolution but decrease during the last 30 years?

Perhaps your points aren't as convincing as you imagine.

For example, I can't think of a reason why if I had a factory with 20 high skilled workers making widgets and I invented a machine that would replace all of them with one guy pushing a button, that one guy pushing a button would get paid 20x what those skilled workers got paid. My bet is he'd make less than one of them made. Regardless of the productivity.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

... what you would have seen in the US is productivity gains that would have been shared with workers...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA

ah


HAHAHAHHHHHAAAA

aa

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Um, so do we smash the looms or the Chinese?

We need to go to war with the robots to make America great again.

 

[Axulus]

Um, so do we smash the looms or the Chinese?

We need to go to war with the robots to make America great again.

I propose a 35% tariff on all robot produced goods.

 

[ZiprHead]

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/steel-production

 

[Loren Pechtel]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/21/upshot/the-long-term-jobs-killer-is-not-china-its-automation.html

A simple example:



That's where the good jobs of the 50s and 60s went!

Red herring fallacy.

Automation does not matter at all to the wealth of the nation. Sending jobs to China does. If more jobs are lost to automation than by China stealing them that is perfectly fine. Automation will be the same throughout the globe and both countries will still be at the same level.

Automation increases the wealth of a nation. Less labor for the same goods means you have labor that can (and usually will) make other goods. It's the same thing that's been going on since the industrial revolution.

If NO jobs had gone to China (from the US) over the last 30 years, what you would have seen in the US is productivity gains that would have been shared with workers. We would probably be putting in a 30 hour workweek for the same pay check. Yes, the people of China would still be in poverty, but I don't care because I don't live there and the world we live in is not fair anyway.

Trump is right about this and hopefully you will see after he actually takes office.

The problem with this assumption is that we would have been competing against cheaper foreign imports. The US jobs vanish pretty much the same whether they are outsourced or lost to competition.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

View attachment 9213

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/steel-production

And this is supposed to show what? That the demand for steel varies with the economy? And with the size of cars people want?

 

[ZiprHead]

View attachment 9213

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/steel-production

And this is supposed to show what? That the demand for steel varies with the economy? And with the size of cars people want?

Because you cited this in the OP. "Take the steel industry. It lost 400,000 people, 75 percent of its work force, between 1962 and 2005. But its shipments did not decline, according to a study published in the American Economic Review last year."

 

[dismal]

It seems a pointless quibble. Why should I care if US steel production declines because I can get it cheaper elsewhere? Do you personally make all the steel you use?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And this is supposed to show what? That the demand for steel varies with the economy? And with the size of cars people want?

Because you cited this in the OP. "Take the steel industry. It lost 400,000 people, 75 percent of its work force, between 1962 and 2005. But its shipments did not decline, according to a study published in the American Economic Review last year."

The point is there is no relationship between your steel production graph and the number of steel jobs.

 

[ZiprHead]

Because you cited this in the OP. "Take the steel industry. It lost 400,000 people, 75 percent of its work force, between 1962 and 2005. But its shipments did not decline, according to a study published in the American Economic Review last year."

The point is there is no relationship between your steel production graph and the number of steel jobs.

How could shipments not decline if production is significantly lower unless the shipments themselves are significantly smaller? Significantly lower production requires significantly fewer workers.

 

[RVonse]

Red herring fallacy.

Automation does not matter at all to the wealth of the nation. Sending jobs to China does. If more jobs are lost to automation than by China stealing them that is perfectly fine. Automation will be the same throughout the globe and both countries will still be at the same level.

Automation increases the wealth of a nation. Less labor for the same goods means you have labor that can (and usually will) make other goods. It's the same thing that's been going on since the industrial revolution.

But automation can not increase the wealth of the nation if the automation is NOT taking place in that nation. Increases in productivity will do nothing for a nation (like ours) that has given away all its manufacturing base. The increases in production are taking place outside the US and not benefiting the US.

If NO jobs had gone to China (from the US) over the last 30 years, what you would have seen in the US is productivity gains that would have been shared with workers. We would probably be putting in a 30 hour workweek for the same pay check. Yes, the people of China would still be in poverty, but I don't care because I don't live there and the world we live in is not fair anyway.

Trump is right about this and hopefully you will see after he actually takes office.

The problem with this assumption is that we would have been competing against cheaper foreign imports. The US jobs vanish pretty much the same whether they are outsourced or lost to competition.

The nation with the technology and automation has a leg up on the nation that just has the cheap labor. So all other things equal the foreign imports would NOT be cheaper except for the fact we gave away the technology to them.

 

[RVonse]

We need to go to war with the robots to make America great again.

I propose a 35% tariff on all robot produced goods.

Not sure if that is a serious proposal from you....but it is actually something that may have merit to reduce poverty and increase employment. The problem I see is the same as with the carbon tax.....and that is that other countries would not participate.