Posted on 01/01/2017 11:24:19 AM PST by Kaslin
In South Africa, people who speak Afrikaans use the word "robot" to mean the same thing it means in English. But it is also the word for "traffic light." Why? Before automated signals, motorists on busy streets were directed by police officers standing on platforms. Those cops were automated out of a job.
This bit of trivia comes from the dazzling new book "Bourgeois Equality: How Ideas, Not Capital or Institutions, Enriched the World," by University of Illinois at Chicago economist and historian Deirdre McCloskey. She points out that automation and robots are nothing new, that they are crucial to raising living standards and that the jobs they destroy are always replaced by better ones.
Today, cars are built partly by robots, which reduce the need for human workers. Notes McCloskey, "Compared with horses, cars themselves are 'robots.' Yet the advent of cars did not produce mass unemployment because of insufficient demand for the output of blacksmiths and horse traders."
Cars had many beneficial effects -- expanding the choices and improving the comfort of humans, who once had to rely on other types of transportation. The spread of the horseless carriage also created jobs for traffic cops, at least for a while. Maybe some of them later went to work in factories making traffic lights.
In the near future, Republicans plan to implement policies to unleash economic growth that allegedly has been hobbled by Barack Obama. They believe a simpler tax code, lower tax rates, fewer regulations, stern immigration enforcement and the repeal of Obamacare will lift the economy to dizzying heights. In the ensuing boom, Donald Trump would have us believe, unemployed coal miners, factory workers and other blue-collar Americans will find themselves in great demand.
They shouldn't get their hopes too high. To raise economic growth, not to mention wages, you have to make workers more productive. You don't make employees more productive by forcing them to work harder or demanding that they be smarter. You do it by providing them with advanced machinery, which lets each employee produce more in less time.
When you do that, though, the immediate effect is to destroy jobs, not create them. This process raises fears, illustrated by the late business consultant Warren Bennis' droll prediction. "The factory of the future," he said, "will only have two employees, a man and a dog. The man will be there to feed the dog. The dog will be there to keep the man from touching the equipment."
But pessimistic forecasts have been around a long time and have never come true. The process of change eliminates positions in one sector but creates them in others. In 1950, 20 million Americans lived on more than 5 million farms. Today, we have 2.1 million farms with just 3.2 million people.
Yet U.S. farms feed far more people than they did before. And millions of Americans whose parents or grandparents toiled in the fields now work at other jobs that didn't exist back then, making more money than their ancestors could have dreamed of.
Computers have had a similar effect on secretarial jobs, eliminating more than 3 million of them since 2001. But who would trade their laptops and smartphones in order to put people back to work typing, filing and answering phones?
American manufacturing has produced more and more with fewer and fewer workers. Since 2001, the number of manufacturing jobs has fallen by nearly one-third, while total output has risen by more than a quarter.
Conservative policymakers celebrate the vigorous growth of the Reagan years, which they intend to replicate. What they don't mention is that in the 1980s, manufacturing employment fell by 7 percent, and workers with no more than a high-school education suffered a decline in real earnings -- even as those with more education saw their pay increase.
The simple truth is that faster economic growth means more rapid change in the workplace, rendering old jobs and skills obsolete. For most people, over the long term, this process is clearly beneficial, but a significant number suffer. The answer is not to stop progress but to facilitate the movement of the displaced into new occupations or places where jobs abound.
The next administration may or may not succeed in speeding up economic growth or restoring jobs in old industries. But it can't succeed in both. To pretend otherwise is to write a check that can't be cashed.
As long as people come up with good ideas, there will be people that will have work.
First, the process of manufacturing job creation these days often results in the addition of service jobs that are in fact attached to the manufacturing economy even though classified as service jobs. For example, a computer data analyst in a geotechnical firm that processes ground surveys and rock samples for oil drillers need never get near an oil rig. Yet, even though in a service job, he can also be considered part of the oil industry.
Strictly speaking, today's greater efficiency in oil exploration and drilling due to data collection and analysis means that fewer rigs and field workers are needed to find and get oil out of the ground. Yet at least some of the "jobs lost" in that respect were not lost at all but simply booked to the service sector in spite an essential part of the system of support services for the oil industry.
Second, the demand for labor is diminished by increases in its price and decreases in its utility. Unions have spent decades forcing through increases in wages and benefits in manufacturing and more complicated and restrictive work rules. Inevitably, this has led to increased costs and decreased employment in manufacturing. Notably, manufacturing employment has grown in right to work states, which also tend to be have lower tax and regulatory burdens.
The bottom line is that broader measures of manufacturing output related to total employment should also be evaluated. Moreover, domestic policies as to taxes, labor pay and conditions of employment and general business taxes and regulations can have dramatic effects on manufacturing employment.
My jobs safe too, unless my employer figures out how to demean and humiliate a robot on a daily basis.
It is Big Farma.
The Federal government has been using laws and regulations to force independent farmers to sell out to the industrial farming corporations for decades.
Independent farmers tend to be conservative, but regardless, they exercise personal choice in crop and seed. Monsanto hates that, and the government is in bed with Monsanto just as it is with Google and Facebook.
We already have fascism, courtesy of the Uni-Party and the apparatchik class.
Doctor President Trump is here to help you out with that, Stevie lad!:
(What is happening to Townhall?)
which is why I thought they shouldn’t have bailed out the auto industry. Their legacy costs of retirees vs present employees is unsustainable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.