

Is Your Job an Endangered Species? - petethomas
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703439504576116340050218236.html

======
A1kmm
The article doesn't properly distinguish between simple changes in the type of
work that is done and structural changes.

Generally the change is n jobs paying $w / hour doing X being replaced by p _n
jobs paying $r_ w / hour doing Y. The markets generally ensure that p*r < 1
long term (for constant market size); however, the values of p and r, and the
economies of scale of new technologies have a profound impact on their overall
impact on important societal outcomes like inequality.

For example, consider a technological advance which has relatively low
barriers to entry, such as voice over IP. In this case, r < 1 (people doing
VoIP work get paid less, on average, than people at telcos before) but p > 1
(access to telecommunications technology is easier, so more people do it, even
at fixed same market size). This creates more jobs and reduces income
inequality.

However, in other cases, new technologies have higher barriers to entry than
the existing manual option, p < 1, r < 1; medical equipment that is
prohibitively expensive to manufacture and operate except for big players;
small clinics close down and a few mega-clinics open up; while production is
more efficient overall, the market is less efficient, and profits are higher
for the few that remain in business. There are less jobs and more inequality.

The best possible outcome is when technology that makes jobs obsolete is low-
cost and accessible to everyone; jobs are lost, but people don't need to work
as much to make ends meet.

The worst is where new technology creates economies of scale that mean few big
companies control major production but don't need many workers, but still
charge only marginally less than the more labour intensive alternative; jobs
are lost but prices don't go down by much. The only solution to maintain
income equality is government taxation of those big companies combined with
government public good expenditure (e.g. hiring the people who lost their jobs
to do research).

~~~
yummyfajitas
_The best possible outcome is when technology that makes jobs obsolete is low-
cost and accessible to everyone; jobs are lost, but people don't need to work
as much to make ends meet._

This is tricky because we constantly move the goalposts. What counted as
"making ends meet" in 1950-1970 era is now counted as "poverty" today, and is
mainly limited to a few unlucky souls living on Indian reservations and other
such depressed areas.

(This report from the census makes that exact comparison:
[http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:fuZGrQqyd9QJ:w...](http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:fuZGrQqyd9QJ:www.census.gov/apsd/www/statbrief/sb95_9.pdf+indoor+plumbing+1950+usa&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgWgD4J1TSjrFebCwZX5tuY6G1ARvizkLhGyclPfIR6dag1cG4LeDEIaT5DJwgmoGtaQTuMQ3k9PmYxlZ9XJXrMQHHXnPnYwN64RSOodAbrr8yzJ7w0DaR4ERd2c2PqcEyDfP8Z&sig=AHIEtbSiu12SP12LYDhTfU-
GEsc-X-Vuug) )

If you truly want to make ends meet 1970's style, you don't need to work more
than 26 weeks/year. Millions of people do this.

~~~
crpatino
Would you care to elaborate on your point? If at all the US Census does not
agree with the affirmation that "making ends meet is now easier than in the
1950's-1970's".

Median income per household (in 2008 CPI-U-RS adjusted dollars.) [[2008 :
$50,303], [1968 : $41,995]] +19.8%

Consumer Price Index (CPI-U-RS) [[2008 : 316.2], [1968: 58.3]] +442.7%

To be honest, people below poverty line has not changed _that much_... [[2008
: 13.2%], [1968 : 12.8%]] +3.125%

source: <http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-236.pdf>

~~~
yummyfajitas
Using CPI-adjusted dollars is an incorrect way to measure inflation. We know
CPI overstated inflation a LOT (the Boskin report says about 1.3%/year, up to
1996). Correcting your figures for this, we find CPI+Boskin adjusted median
household income is actually up 72%. (This assumes CPI was not overstated
after 1996.)

<http://www.ssa.gov/history/reports/boskinrpt.html>

We might have 13.2% of people below the poverty line, but on the other hand
virtually all the people currently below the poverty line have flush toilets.
That wasn't the case in 1968 (see the link in my previous post). In fact,
people below the poverty line in 2007 have a standard of living comparable to
the middle class of 1968. Most of the poor live in a house with < 1 person per
bedroom, a complete kitchen, 1/3 have a dishwasher, 2/3 have a washing
machine, about half have AC, most have a car.

<http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf>

My grandparents were middle class, and they didn't come close to that level of
prosperity.

And the majority of people below the poverty level work less than half the
year (by choice). Only 15% of poor adults work full time, 50 weeks a year.

<http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf>

------
mikx
Creative destruction is a sign of great progress. There was a time when
America was almost all factory workers and a time before that when America was
mostly farmers.

While it is scary to be in the middle of a shifting trend in with a massive
decline of old jobs, there will be a future that will take us completely by
surprise. It will be unimaginable.

If you told someone from the industrial revolution that one day that people
would pretend to be real people and then displayed in tiny little boxes and
become the wealthy and elite of the world, they would think you were insane.
The same would hold true if you told them that one day we would be able to all
send our kids to schools and that they would start working in their mid 20's
because their parents and the government could support and fund their
development.

~~~
IsaacL
I partially agree with you. You're definitely right about the industrial
revolution, and I hope you're right about the information revolution.

However, I think there's a real possibility that, in the near future,
automation will lead to a permanent increase in unemployment. Even if general
AI proves to be a long way away (which I think it is), a lot of service jobs
are algorithmic enough that they could became automated in the next few
decades. If true, you end up with a small elite business/management class
which finds themselves far wealthier than before; a few people who managed to
hold onto their old jobs (domestic cleaners, plumbers, etc) or find new
'creative' jobs; and a vast unemployed underclass.

In theory with all our new machine-created wealth the entire underclass could
live very comfortably on welfare. However, the way most societies are set up,
that's unlikely to happen. The economic pie gets bigger but the people at the
top suddenly find themselves with even more power and get an even bigger
slice, and the people at the bottom get screwed.

I think this guy makes a fairly convincing argument:
<http://www.marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm>

If you have the time, his scifi novella about the social impacts of mass job
loss due to automation is also OK (like a lot of amateur scifi, some of the
writing and characterisation is pretty bad, but the ideas are interesting).
Worth a read if you have the time. <http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm>

Season 2 of the Wire also touches on similar themes. (It's obviously not sci-
fi, but it made me rethink my belief that "automation is fine, people just
need to not be so picky about finding new jobs").

~~~
yummyfajitas
_The economic pie gets bigger but the people at the top suddenly find
themselves with even more power and get an even bigger slice, and the people
at the bottom get screwed._

So far, the exact opposite of this has occurred. The economic pie has gotten
vastly bigger, inequality has increased significantly, and welfare has done
nothing but grow.

------
michaelpinto
I have never met a medical doctor or a nurse who was worried about not having
a job — in fact this may be one of the few professions where they'd kill to
work less. Even if efficiencies boomed in healthcare thanks to technology you
still have to deal with increased needs of a booming elderly population. On
the other hand I've met many folks with law degrees who look like they've made
a bad career choice...

------
mkramlich
i disliked the author's frequent right-ist propaganda memes like "all
regulation is bad", and "government just prints up money" (as opposed to
selling treasury notes to voluntary buyers; in essence, borrowing). came off
as a crank or shill with an agenda.

~~~
archgoon
I was put off by the derogatory terms for people doing legitimate work. If you
feel these jobs are being obsoleted by technology, fine. Don't insult people
who have them.

~~~
forgotAgain
I agree. It was unnecessarily hostile. Seems like someone trying to establish
his blogging brand.

------
Stormbringer
"They're stealing our jaerbs!"

I ran the numbers, assuming a work force of _waves hands_ 150 million, a 4
million turnover represents 2.666% So if we apply that annually, the chance
that you will keep your job each year is only 72.3% (NB: if you're going to
tell me my math is wrong (a) don't bother and (b) you need to take into
account that some people will lose more than one job in a year)

That might not seem too bad, but take a two year time span, and it looks more
like only 52.3% of having continuous employment with a single employer.

However, even leaving aside the issue of calculating the size of the job
seekers market (e.g. some people will have given up and not even register
anymore), it doesn't take into account people leaving the job market due to
retirement, people leaving the job market for other miscellaneous reasons
(births, deaths, moving overseas) and people entering the job market for the
first time or re-entering.

It just seems like a gross over-simplification to take only these two numbers
in isolation, without even providing context.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
And from the personal point of view, really, its how long you are without a
job that counts. If you bridge, ok. If you lose your house and card, disaster.
Matters more than what jobs exist and where.

~~~
Stormbringer
_"The death of one is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic"_

I was talking to a bloke today, nice guy, very capable. But he's out of work
and his licence was suspended for excessive speeding. He says it is simply not
worthwhile looking for work at the moment because without transport it is just
too impractical.

Now, the Libertarian in me wants to say that the sequence of bad events that
happened to him is simply the result of the consequences of his bad choices.
Perhaps I would feel differently if he and his partner were in a truly
desperate situation (they're not starving, they're not going to lose their
home). Perhaps I'm less sympathetic because of his obvious bad choices that
led him to this.

But what if the things that led him to this point weren't (or weren't so
obviously) his fault? Bad things happen to good people too. The rain falls on
the righteous and the wicked alike.

Of my circle of acquaintances, I think every single one of the blokes has been
unemployed at some time in the last year except for this one guy who somehow
hangs on despite having a really terrible boss.

On the other hand, of the working women that I know, _none_ of them have been
unemployed in that same time span (some have taken maternity leave and then
come back to work at reduced hours).

This gives me pause. Because in the workplace, especially large corporations,
I always see the women being given the shitty demeaning jobs. Go post some
letters for me, go get the birthday cake etc. It is never a bloke that gets
sent to buy the birthday cake.

Oh, no, wait, there is one girl who keeps losing her job, but she is a
mentally handicapped.

Anyway, the moral of the story is; unless you're willing to tug forelock and
suck up to the man start your own business (doesn't mean you are immune to
being fired, but generally if you do a good job the golden parachute is a
better option than the leather boot on the neck).

------
mikecane
What the article overlooks and seems to smuggle in is the idea that we don't
have any problems to solve that actually _require_ jobs of the non-IT sort.
Look around and see crumbling infrastructure everywhere. We need bridges
replaced, highways mended, etc, etc. That represents millions of physically-
intensive jobs.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_Look around and see crumbling infrastructure everywhere._

This is a common meme, but I just don't see it. Where is our crumbling
infrastructure? At least in my area, the infrastructure works fantastically.

We had one bridge collapse due to a design flaw, which was so surprising that
it became national news. Now we need to replace every bridge, potentially
introducing new design flaws in the process? Seems like a massive overreaction
to me, probably on the same scale as our overreaction to 9/11.

~~~
almond
We shouldn't wait until after a piece of infrastructure collapses to fix the
cracks in the foundation. The public capital stock has been allowed to age
much more than the residential and private stock:

[http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2010/12/age_americas...](http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2010/12/age_americas_infrastructure)

~~~
yummyfajitas
Measuring age is not necessarily relevant - if a bridge has a lifetime of 50
years, but the average age is 23 years (up from 16), we have a long way to go
before it becomes a problem. Your chart is interesting, but hardly conclusive.

------
bitwize
> But eDiscovery is the hottest thing right now in corporate legal
> departments. The software scans documents and looks for important keywords
> and phrases, displacing lawyers and paralegals who charge hundreds of
> dollars per hour to read the often millions of litigation documents.
> Lawyers, understandably, hate eDiscovery.

Sounds like a job for Watson & Watson, LLP.

And lawyers don't have much to fear. They will win in the end; they always
do...

------
portman
If you liked this article and enjoy Andy Kessler's writing, you'll probably be
happy to know that he wrote a novel called "Grumby":

<http://www.amazon.com/dp/098271632X>

It's about a hacker who reprograms a Furby, finds that he's created the New
New Thing, and then hangs on for dear life as his startup rises and falls.

It's "creative destruction", as told through a work of fiction.

------
yoyar
I suppose if we got rid of all the pesky technology going around we could all
go back to subsistence farming or better yet hunting and gathering and then
we'd have pretty much 100% employment. Would that make the wsj happy?

------
adamc
Obnoxious set of labels for the jobs. But for that I would have enjoyed it
more.

~~~
bitwize
"What is the difference between a man and a parasite? A man builds; a parasite
asks, 'Where is my share?'"

------
known
Abolish income tax and impose/increase wealth tax. This will create jobs in
the economy.

~~~
gjm11
[citation needed], as they say.

How do you know that this would create jobs? How would you actually go about
imposing a wealth tax? Do you believe you could make such a scheme revenue-
neutral? (Or, if you don't want to, have you considered the effect on public-
sector jobs and on people who are currently benefited by what the public
sector does?) Is anything remotely like this politically feasible? Do you have
any actual economic analysis behind this, or is it just idle sloganeering?

~~~
known
You failed to suggest any alternative to current economic crisis?

~~~
gjm11
True, though it would be more accurate to replace "failed" with "didn't see
any need". Why would that invalidate my criticisms?

(A patient is feeling sick. Someone comes by and says "Recite a prayer over
him, and paint his face green; that'll make him feel better". Do I need to
have an alternative treatment in mind in order to say "You've given no reason
to think that that will work. And if prayer is going to do any good, surely it
matters just what sort of prayer to what deity." ?)

