
Job destruction by robots could outweigh creation - JumpCrisscross
http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21599525-job-destruction-robots-could-outweigh-creation-mighty-contest
======
chroem
And water is still wet. Really, it doesn't make sense for robots to not be a
net drain on employment.

As a thought experiment, let's say that a company fires n workers because it
is in the process of automating their jobs. Now, let's also assume n workers
get hired, at the same wage as before, producing the automated systems which
had previously replaced them. How can it be economically viable to automate,
if instead of only paying your original n workers, you are now indirectly
paying n employees producing the equipment you are buying, _plus_ the capital
costs of automation? Since we know that it is in fact more cost effective to
automate, then the only remaining possibility is that there are either fewer
workers producing the automation equipment or they are being paid less.

~~~
meowface
Exactly. It would not make any sense for companies to automate anything if it
did not end up reducing how much they're paying for employment.

~~~
YokoZar
This isn't strictly true -- an automation could come alongside a (substantial)
productivity improvement, growing the firm to the point that it's total
headcount still rises.

If there's consumer demand for more (and cheaper) versions of whatever
product, then rather than a single company this form of automation can grow
the industry as a whole too.

Inevitably, however, there will be industries that don't really need to grow.
We'll just get what they make cheaper without buying much more of it. But then
we'll have extra money (and extra people willing to work) -- figuring out new
things for those people to do, possibly in wholly unrelated industries, is the
very essence of why most of us still have jobs despite centuries of
automation.

------
crazy1van
This strikes me as the same argument that comes up with every new automation
technology. Like all of the others, the automation will hurt people in a
specific field, but help society as a whole.

ATMs hurt bank-tellers specifically, but all of society has 24/7 access to
cash.

Email hurts the postal workers, but everyone can instantly communicate with
nearly anyone in the developed world.

Robotic car manufacturing hurt some auto workers, but all of society gets
cheaper cars.

Amazon.com hurts the mom & pop book store, but everyone gets cheaper books
conveniently delivered.

Netflix crushed video rental stores, but a whole county got cheaper, easier
access to video.

The list could go on forever.

~~~
firstOrder
> Robotic car manufacturing hurt some auto workers, but all of society gets
> cheaper cars

This is false. Over the past forty years, the rise in price for the median car
sold in the US has far exceeded inflation. The idea that "society gets cheaper
cars" is false, cars have gotten more expensive, even taking inflation into
account. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics keeps careful track of such things.

Obviously automating something will benefit someone. You have your facts mixed
up however, thus your conclusion that it benefits "society as a whole" can be
disregarded.

~~~
MartinCron
You could argue that we're getting _better_ cars (as in, more safety and
convenience features) for more-or-less the same amount of money.

~~~
crazy1van
I think if you take a car from today and tried to make it without automation,
it would cost much more. If automation wasn't the cheaper manufacturing
option, why do it?

------
afriday11
From the 1920-2014, technology progressed and made many jobs irrelevant, just
as improvements in robotics have put a lot of people out of work. So if
technology puts people out of work, then our unemployment should have
increased since the 20's. Let's take a look at some data from The U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Year Rate of Unemployment 1920 5.2 % 1928 4.2 1930 8.7 1932 23.6 1934 21.7
1936 16.9 1938 19.0 1940 14.6 1942 4.7% 1944 1.2 1946 3.9 1948 3.8 1950 5.3
1952 3.0 1954 5.5 1956 4.1 1958 6.8% 1960 5.5 1962 5.5 1964 5.2 1966 3.8 1968
3.6 1970 4.9 1972 5.6 1974 5.6% 1976 7.7 19781 6.1 1980 7.1 1982 9.7 1984 7.5
19861 7.0 1987 6.2 1988 5.5 1989 5.3 19901 5.6% 1991 6.8 1992 7.5 1993 6.9
19941 6.1 1995 5.6 1996 5.4 19971 4.9 19981 4.5 19991 4.2 20001 4.0 2001 4.7
2002 5.8 20031 6.0% 20041 5.5 20051 5.1 2006 4.6 2007 4.6 2008 5.8 2009 9.3
2010 9.6 2011 8.9 2012 8.1

This doesn't seem to be the case. As people lose jobs, new types of jobs are
created, just as they were in the past. The job market will continue to evolve
as the world changes.

~~~
sanxiyn
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

~~~
BHSPitMonkey
And the lack of a guarantee of future results is not something to panic about,
either.

------
WalterBright
As things get cheaper due to increased productivity, people want more things.
For example, due to the declining cost of air travel, people routinely fly
places, even commute by jet.

This was inconceivable not long ago.

Furthermore, vast industries have sprung up whose only product is
entertainment. Back when economies were less productive, there was no room for
such industries.

Even low end cars have what were once considered luxury only features. The
list covers every facet of our economy.

------
xwowsersx
How does this grossly misguided concern come up over and over again?! To quote
myself from the last time this came up:

"What's with this obsession with jobs? If all we wanted were "jobs", we could
create 100 million real quickly. Just go destroy a bunch of stuff and get
people to work, rebuilding everything again."

------
samstave
How about a robot tax: any profits made by companies employing robots are
taxed where that tax is put into a guaranteed wage pool.

Much like how Swiss have implemented a min guaranteed wage - feed that wage
payment by industry that benefit from implementing robotic workers...

~~~
sien
The Swiss have only collected enough signatures to get that initiative up to
be voted on this year.

[http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-16/inequality-f...](http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-16/inequality-
fight-swiss-will-vote-on-minimum-income)

It is yet to pass. Less than 50% of Swiss referenda pass.

------
tim333
The proportion of people working seems a bit unaffected by technological
change. A couple of centuries back most people were in farming and now that is
done by like 2% of the population the others have found things to do mostly
because people like doing stuff rather then because they's starve otherwise.
Even if robots make all the stuff I imagine people will busy themselves
teaching each other yoga and the like.

~~~
nandemo
> the others have found things to do mostly because people like doing stuff
> rather then because they's starve otherwise.

I've seen variations of this statement many times on HN, that is, "there's no
such thing as disutility of labor". I'm a bit skeptical. I believe a lot of
software people enjoy their jobs, and some keep working even though they don't
hve to, but I doubt that's the case for the bulk of the world's urban
population.

Also, people have many other material demands (sometimes called "needs")
besides food and shelter. Viz. the common complaint by SV developers that "a 6
digit salary isn't much".

------
hcarvalhoalves
More automation -> Less jobs -> Lower wages -> More jobs -> Less automation

I believe there's an equilibrium going on. I don't think we'll ever reach that
point of automation, it will only happen when (and if) demographic growth
turns negative. Until then, availability of cheap labour hinders "full
automation".

------
stretchwithme
Even if every possible task were automated and made super cheap, and somehow
you were able to deny access to super cheap products and services to large
numbers of people, these large groups of people would still be able to trade
with each other.

The robotic abundance/destitution scenario is inherently contradictory and
assumes some things stay exactly constant while others undergo complete
transformation.

We have advanced societies that are making great use of technology today. And
others that do not. Somehow these co-exist. A completely robotic United States
will still have Amish people not benefiting from robots. Anyone else that
cares to operate on the tech of 2014 will be free to do so. Or the tech of
2050 or 2100.

------
Schwolop
Argh! About 90% of the people mentioned in this article are Doctors, not
Misters. And approximately zero of them are introduced before their names are
first mentioned. Likewise acronyms. Who edited this crap?

------
xarien
Let's stop talking about jobs and talk about productivity. What's the net
productivity of automation? Let's also start talking about guaranteed minimum
income.

------
einhverfr
Certainly automation reduces the numbers of jobs required for production. This
has always been the case. This leads to overproduction problems, but the
answer is always the same:

hire more people in the public sector, and try to bolster consumption further.

It is the growth of the public sector that solves the overproduction crisis,
by throttling production. This time is no different.

Taken to its logical conclusion, if all production could be automated, every
one of us could work for the government...

------
autodidakto
Who needs a job when you have robots doing all the work for you?! Think of all
the other things you could be doing.

No, really. Think about it.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Who needs a job when you have robots doing all the work for you?!

Anyone who doesn't own productive capital and lives in a society where you
either need income from productive capital or income from labor to get the
necessities of life.

> Think of all the other things you could be doing.

Starving in the street?

------
QuantumChaos
The advocates of basic income are almost right on this issue.

 _If_ it were the case that we have a large surplus of labor, and there was
not enough work for people to do, then it would make a lot of sense to have a
basic income, which would be the most efficient way to deal with technological
unemployment.

 _However_ , right now, we really don't have a surplus of labor. If we did,
then the average standard of living would be really high. In order to raise
the standard of living of people around the world, people need to produce
things, which requires work.

That fact that we cannot provide a high enough average standard of living even
when the incentive to work is very high, proves that drastically lowering the
incentive to work would not provide a sufficient standard of living.

~~~
cookingrobot
You seem to be arguing as if "surplus of labour" means that as a whole the
world has enough good stuff, and having more people work won't add value.

What it actually means is that there are people who want more good stuff, and
are even willing to do work to get it - but that's not an option for them
because there are no jobs available. It's the sad state of people not being
organized to work to provide their own needs - and it's caused by wealth being
so concentrated in the smallest group at the top that economic activity is
frozen for everyone else.

A basic income would take wealth away from the few who have more than enough,
and thaw out economic activity for everyone else. Poor people would be able to
spend, AND work because others are spending.

All of this has nothing to do with robots. Except.. One of the fears of
robotics is that they'll work so well that even more wealth will be
concentrated to a few. Basic income is the antidote to that concern.

In the long term it gets even better.. Eventually when robots are doing most
of the work, a basic income will mean that work is optional for everyone, and
people will do work they find meaningful instead of necessary, or will just
spend time with their families.

~~~
Uehreka
First off, you really need to add a disclaimer to this comment. As a cooking
robot, your view is clearly biased.

That said, I mostly agree with you. However I was mulling all this over last
night, and I hit a snag: If everyone is unemployed and has no money, who will
patronize the services that are owned by the rich? Will it just be rich people
passing money around? Or is wealth redistribution actually in the best
interest of rich people, since it means more people will buy their goods and
services?

~~~
jjoonathan
> Is wealth redistribution actually in the best interest of rich people, since
> it means more people will buy their goods and services?

I believe the answer is a resounding "yes." However, that doesn't exclude the
possibility of a tragedy of the commons, and we all know how good markets are
at preventing _those_...

> If everyone is unemployed and has no money, who will patronize the services
> that are owned by the rich? Will it just be rich people passing money
> around?

It's still a problem if a sizable subset of people are unemployed and have no
money or ability to get money. It's not terribly difficult to imagine a system
with a underclass, a consumer class, and a "owner" class. Even if we automate
manufacturing, the consumer class will include mercenaries of the literal or
financial variety. In fact, I wonder if that's not precisely what Wall Street
is.

------
fixermark
That would be nice. I could stand to have fewer things to do.

