"American society has 'an irrational belief in work for work’s sake,' says Benjamin Hunnicutt, [a] post-workist and a historian at the University of Iowa, even though most jobs aren’t so uplifting. A 2014 Gallup report of worker satisfaction found that as many as 70 percent of Americans don’t feel engaged by their current job. Hunnicutt told me that if a cashier’s work were a video game—grab an item, find the bar code, scan it, slide the item onward, and repeat—critics of video games might call it mindless. But when it’s a job, politicians praise its intrinsic dignity. 'Purpose, meaning, identity, fulfillment, creativity, autonomy—all these things that positive psychology has shown us to be necessary for well-being are absent in the average job,' he said.... The post-work proponents acknowledge that, even in the best post-work scenarios, pride and jealousy will persevere, because reputation will always be scarce, even in an economy of abundance. But with the right government provisions, they believe, the end of wage labor will allow for a golden age of well-being. Hunnicutt said he thinks colleges could reemerge as cultural centers rather than job-prep institutions. The word school, he pointed out, comes from skholē, the Greek word for 'leisure.' 'We used to teach people to be free,' he said. 'Now we teach them to work.'"
From an Atlantic article by Derek Thompson, "A World Without Work/For centuries, experts have predicted that machines would make workers obsolete. That moment may finally be arriving. Could that be a good thing?"
June 24, 2015
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
78 comments:
But with the right government provisions
Oh, it's about using force to impose his view of the world (and how it should be) on others. Ok then.
Because life is a video game.
And what of, "idle hands are the devil's playground"? His quickness to label something he doesn't agree with "irrational" is irrational and indicative of an unreliable and dangerous mindset.
The reason we teach them to work is so they can attain a standard of living. Otherwise, the alternative is what - welfare?
He already has a no show, no work paying job. The kind the Sopranos got for their privileged "earners."
I think the intrinsic value of work that people mostly talk about is that you are supporting yourself and/or your family even if the work is dull.
Also, do-it-yourself type hobbies like house and car repair, etc. can provide people with some of the other intrinsic value, as can doing volunteer work, reading, etc.
When young men aren't working, they often are not learning how to write software programs or play the piano. Nor are the attending free lectures on Ezra Pound's Cantos.
There will be no Golden Age of leisure for young men. We see right now what they are doing when they are unemployed with few skills.
For the poet to sit in the coffee house pondering life, the guy who works at the sewage treatment plant has to get his ass out of bed to run the plant so all that prose-inspiring coffee has somewhere to go.
And to pay the taxes to pay the sewage plant worker, the cashier has to do the same thing.
All so the poet, or other post-workist, can deride the pointlessness of work.
A land where resources are not finitely available and accessible, and humans are aborted to reduce their inconvenient and unwanted footprint. A veritable progressive utopia. It sounds vaguely familiar. Perhaps they can reframe their vision to avoid ghastly association with past efforts. That flag has been torn down and shredded, but has an uncanny ability to resurrect the rites it represents.
A cashier gets to talk to different people all day. I am not sure that is such a terrible job. Especially compared to what it was 40 years ago, where it was a skilled position that required concentration on the task itself.
Doing it alone in a room would be pretty horrifying though.
Hunnicutt told me that if a cashier’s work were a video game—grab an item, find the bar code, scan it, slide the item onward, and repeat—critics of video games might call it mindless.
That reminds me of the aphorism: There are only two kinds of video games. Addictive and boring.
(Mindless can be either.)
I hate people who seem to brag that they work super long hours. "I was at the office until 8 tonight!"
I sometimes ask: "Why? Couldn't things get done during the normal work day?"
When I'm stuck at work late, it is because Something Has Gone Wrong. Not because I want to be there. It would be great if people could Smart Work, and learn to balance their lives better. A lot more people could be happy that way.
The dignity is that you're doing something for somebody else.
The attraction is that you come out ahead too.
Free market, voluntary transactions.
n, "A World Without Work/For centuries, experts have predicted that machines would make workers obsolete. That moment may finally be arriving.
We're either no where near this point or 200 years into it without seeing the effect he's concern trolling. So I think we're safe in putting off reordering society based on it. I'm sure it's only pure happenstance that his reordering aligns with the political left's views of proper society.
Get a play-for-pay job.
I recommend mathematical physics.
I am unable to make a cogent comment because I can not force myself to read this kind of BS.
@rhhardin
Smart people always do fine. They just don't necessarily do what the control freaks and freedom haters want them to do.
Free market, voluntary transactions.
Millions and millions of voluntary transactions, with no input from the central planners. And that's what irks them.
Okay, so we get to the point that robots do all sorts of stuff and many people can do whatever they want.
Still, not every menial, boring and repetitive task can be done by a robot or is economical for robots to do -- thus requiring people to do stuff.
Just how will those people be viewed by a majority of society that feels entitled to do nothing?
Plenty of folks already dismiss those who work with their hands, etc. What keeps more from doing that is that most people have to do something to earn a living and respect that others do to. End that respectful relationship and bad things are going to happen.
""American society has 'an irrational belief in work for work’s sake"
American socialsms have an irrational belief in money growing on trees. or Benefits for benefits sake.
If they got over their irrational belief they might get back to work.
5-Star P & H are re-piping my neighbor's house at the moment (polybutylene existing).
It is hard work and it is not dull.
In fact, after 50 years as a CE, I still love to go in the field if I get a chance. There is always something else happening.
I would not mind if the world were such that each person wanted for nothing and had the time to pursue their own whimsy. The world has always had some such. They either lived in abject poverty and "suffered" for their muse, they obtained a benefactor that looked after them, they were born into wealth and did not have to expand effort on survival, or they were able to balance that with the right skills to turn their musings into wealth (a la Edison).
The world as it is can only support so many of these "free" souls. Someone has to keep the lights on, the water running, and the sewer processing. If we ever actually do come to a time where one one must toil for their survival and everyone is completely free to sit on their asses or follow their whimsy, what will become of us? Most advances come from trying to solve a problem, make something easier, resolve a conflict. If there is no need for any of that, who truly has the will to persevere against a perceived problem when everyone else is happily sitting in front of the TV with all desires filled? Would that be the end of us?
More leftist nonsense.
Yes, work can be tedious and unenjoyable. Duh.
After 30 - 40 years of working, yes, you get burned out. Duh.
Historically in America, the reason men work is to: (1) earn money to (2) support their families.
And, the beauty of American capitalism, was that you could work, save, invest, buy a house and live a nice middle-class lifestyle. That made work worth it.
There is no viable alternative to this.
Lazy people, don't want to work. We get this.
Socialists want someone else to work, and want to enjoy the fruits of someone else's labors.
Feminists want to work too, but not to be breadwinners for their families. Women usually don't like men who don't work.
In San Francisco, the first question at a cocktail party is, "What do you do?" which means, "Where do you work?" An uninspiring answer here, will end the conversation.
The Left really is all bolloxed up on simple conceptual matters.
Though with 5 thumbs on each hand and a bad back,I could never do the work these guys do.
That's why my mom said, "Be sure you get an education Hagar! There is now way you can earn a living doing honest work!"
Our jobs provided all of the "purpose, meaning, identity, fulfillment, creativity and autonomy" we could handle back when we were hunting and gathering in the Pleistocene.
Ah this piece of fluff is in the glorious tradition of the Los Angeles Times article on people out of work during the first year of our Lord Obama's reign.
They had no jobs. What they had was "funemployment".
As for the thought of colleges becoming, in the future land of free Bubble Up and Rainbow Stew, "cultural centers"? Sorry Charlie, that train has long left the station. Colleges will first have to go to re-education centers to shed their current status as "centers of indoctrination" before they can be rehabilitated into "centers of culture". And frankly, I don't think that current academia has the stones to make that Great Leap Forward.
I can't imagine not working. I can't imagine retiring even if I had the money.
I spend my life going into interesting factories and talking with interesting people and working with interesting machinery and processes. Never the same twice.
Just went to Italy last week, all paid, to see the intro of a new robot. Also got to see Milan, the Maserati factory and an interesting, if bizarre, art museum in the ancient Castello di Rivoli.
http://www.packagingdigest.com/robotics/new-racer-robot-pursues-packaging-applications1506
If I didn't get paid for doing what I do, I'd pay people to let me do it.
Articles like this are bullshit. As someone mentioned, look at the factory jobs of yesteryear. Or even many factory jobs of today. They are shitty jobs, many of them, and don't pay all that well. Even union jobs may pay a high hourly rate but if you look at 5 year earnings, unskilled factory work doesn't pay much better than Walmart.
John Henry
The reason we teach them to work is so they can attain a standard of living. Otherwise, the alternative is what - welfare?
Yes. We're going to need to do a lot of rethinking about what that means.
I think it's plausible that Walmart and Amazon are the tip of a spear. They are awesome companies, largely because they do more with fewer workers. (Watch this video of Amazon's pick/pack system. One person is doing the work of ten, and it won't be long before that person isn't there.) This will continue in all fields. We are automating away all of the jobs. We automators will not be immune, either. Within one generation, we may experience unprecedented wealth and ease, but with far fewer available jobs than people.
If we insist on people "working" to obtain a piece of this pie, scarcity of those positions will drive wages down and hours up.
This could mean utter dystopia, where supporting your family means full-time separation from them at slave wages. And poverty for the majority.
The old "protestant work ethic" is not going to know what to make of that, but there it is.
Bay Area Guy:
The value of capitalism is that it reflects personal labor and ingenuity, and builds competing interests. The heart of American capitalism is a recognition of individual dignity and effort at corruption mitigation.
That said, intrinsic value moral axiom has conservation implications, but it does not supersede the individual dignity moral axiom. The two must be reconciled in a consistent and sustaining manner.
A society built on redistributive change, and worse, retributive change, serves to establish minority-controlled monopolies and behaviors, sponsors corruption of both redistributors and recipients, and denigrates individual dignity. It is a poor reconciliation of individual dignity and intrinsic value, and reduces the people's ability to peacefully prevent narcissistic individuals from running amuck.
Todd Flanders: Daddy, what do taxes pay for?
Ned Flanders: Oh, why, everything! Policemen, trees, sunshine! And lets not forget the folks who just don't feel like working, God bless 'em!
"I recommend mathematical physics."
Sounds like a gateway drug to me. Soon you'll move on to doing theory. And before you know it you're looking through a keyhole at a cat in a box that's both there and not there. Down upon your knees.
The plumbers have work to do; economy or no economy.
I don't.
The old "protestant work ethic" is not going to know what to make of that, but there it is.
With all due respect, just because you don't know what to make it, doesn't mean the work ethic won't. Needing to provide for yourself and your family has always focused the mind. There are workforce/economy dynamics we haven't even dreamed of yet.
Hunnicutt told me that if a cashier’s work were a video game—grab an item, find the bar code, scan it, slide the item onward, and repeat—critics of video games might call it mindless. But when it’s a job, politicians praise its intrinsic dignity. 'Purpose, meaning, identity, fulfillment, creativity, autonomy—all these things that positive psychology has shown us to be necessary for well-being are absent in the average job,' he said...
Obviously, he's never met the Target Lady.
https://screen.yahoo.com/target-lady-000000609.html
But when it’s a job, politicians praise its intrinsic dignity.
Yes, because supporting yourself through remunerative work is dignified, even if it's also boring and "not engaging".
"Hunnicutt told me that if a cashier’s work were a video game—grab an item, find the bar code, scan it, slide the item onward, and repeat—critics of video games might call it mindless. But when it’s a job, politicians praise its intrinsic dignity. “Purpose, meaning, identity, fulfillment, creativity, autonomy—all these things that positive psychology has shown us to be necessary for well-being are absent in the average job,” he said."
-- It's this sort of elitism that really pisses me off. That person doing that scanning/bagging for you isn't getting fulfillment/creativity/identity out of that activity. They're getting it out of what that activity lets them do. People work to live, they don't live for work.
Also, the fact Hunnicut doesn't see the difference in what a JOB is supposed to provide and what a VIDEO GAME is supposed to provide worries me. Would he think that running around shooting each other with rocket launchers is fulfilling, since a lot of well-reviewed games have people do exactly that?
He's dumb. Also: "Paid labor does not always map to social good. Raising children and caring for the sick is essential work, and these jobs are compensated poorly or not at all."
-- Doctors get paid a lot of money. Insurance gets a lot of money. Fancy daycares are expensive. When people do it themselves, they are essentially not paying these costs and saving a lot of money. That's how spending/not spending works.
A world without work won't happen. The natural brake on that is going to be the inherent nature of young men. I don't think most people really understand just how destructive young men without attachments to wives, children, and work can be. The modern view is the 24 year-old in the basement of his mom's home playing video games. The truth is actually far more terrifying.
We are automating away all of the jobs. We automators will not be immune, either. Within one generation, we may experience unprecedented wealth and ease, but with far fewer available jobs than people.
If we insist on people "working" to obtain a piece of this pie, scarcity of those positions will drive wages down and hours up.
This could mean utter dystopia, where supporting your family means full-time separation from them at slave wages. And poverty for the majority.
This is Paul Erlich-level bullshit, but for jobs instead of the environment. Like Erlich's take on the environment, it completely ignores human capacity for innovation and the rise of new innovations and markets driven by new needs and wants.
"But when it’s a job, politicians praise its intrinsic dignity...
...'We used to teach people to be free,' he said. 'Now we teach them to work.'"
How can he have it right in his hands and still get it ass-backwards. Yes, the young are taught to work, and yes, it's indeed for dignity's sake. The dignity comes from controlling your own destiny and not be a ward - a literal "child" to be taken care of - by the state. It's also where the freedom comes from.
Why academics continually miss this point is beyond me, but it's been a mistake intellectuals have been making for longer than I've been alive.
There are workforce/economy dynamics we haven't even dreamed of yet.
I see CJinPA beat me to it.
Bay Area Guy said...
More leftist nonsense.
Yes, work can be tedious and unenjoyable. Duh.
After 30 - 40 years of working, yes, you get burned out. Duh.
Historically in America, the reason men work is to: (1) earn money to (2) support their families.
And, the beauty of American capitalism, was that you could work, save, invest, buy a house and live a nice middle-class lifestyle. That made work worth it.
There is no viable alternative to this.
Lazy people, don't want to work. We get this.
Socialists want someone else to work, and want to enjoy the fruits of someone else's labors.
Over the years, I've had some wonderful conversations with Aussies. Terrific people. They tell me, "You Americans live to work. We work to live." It's an interesting attitude.
In Vietnam, my guide said, "After Reunification, we were a socialist country. Do you know what socialism is? It's where if I work hard and you don't, we both get the same thing. So no one worked hard. Years ago, the government changed the rules. Now, if you work hard, you can prosper. Things are much better now."
It isn't surprising that the idea of socialism survives, especially in academia. They like the idea of getting the same as people who work hard with no effort on their part. Over 90 million American adults are not working. They aren't starving, so they're getting their money from someone else. This group represents a political tipping point. When they outnumber working people, then they'll be able to permanently give control of government to those who promise them more free stuff. We're already spending over a trillion dollars every year (from the federal government alone) on entitlement programs not including Social Security and Medicare. While all of this is going on, Obama is letting large numbers of illegal immigrants come into the country to take jobs from the lowest income American workers. It's all part of his promised fundamental transformation of America. It'll take years to decades to undo the damage he's doing, if in fact it isn't too late to turn things around. That would depend on electing people who actually wanted to turn things around and there aren't very many of them on either side of the political spectrum.
I'm with Roost On The Moon about this. Indeed, just what does happen to all the factory workers when all that is required is Bob to run the computerized equipment and Jake to keep the machines well-oiled? Previous advances in automation simply meant that the displaced worker walked down the street and worked at the assembly-line producing the machines that made him unemployed in his previous job. That formula no longer exists as assembly lines for essentially unskilled labor are increasingly few and far between and who is going to absorb the health-care and pension costs for an age 50+ laid-off worker?
Hunnicutt said he thinks colleges could reemerge as cultural centers rather than job-prep institutions. The word school, he pointed out, comes from skholē, the Greek word for 'leisure.' 'We used to teach people to be free,' he said. 'Now we teach them to work.'"
Colleges are for studying culture, not creating it. When was this Golden Age when "[w]e used to teach people to be free"? In the old days -- before the Civil War in the US -- a college education was a finishing school for the wealthy, who did not have to work, or a prep school for a career in law.
The government subsidized, land-grant colleges most people attend were created explicitly to provide vocational training for the children of "farmers and mechanics."
Arbeit Macht Frei. Especially from slave laborers like the Roman Empire where 80% were slaves.
We are talking about the utopia of today's World government guys. Slaves, slaves and more slaves with a 1% Master Class ruling the place with computer implants. It will need Rome's World Wide(Catholic) Religion of Gaia's environmental focused sacrament selling Priests to keep the slaves peaceful.
We finally understand that slavery, which has always been seen as the best of the best ways to run a civilized society for the slave Masters, has been Obama's gang's goal. And no one else counts unless there is an ongoing informed voter elections honestly held and counted at regular free,secret ballots elections.
The question is what disaster will Obama use to fundamentally transform that election system using martial law.
This is bullshit.... it completely ignores human capacity for innovation
You're the one ignoring innovation. We are becoming able to provide the basic necessities with less and less human effort. Of course there will be new jobs. But there will be fewer and fewer of them, and they will require more and more skill.
I'm an optimist. I think the next century could be incredibly prosperous. I'm not saying new markets won't arise. But they won't if we insist that anyone without "a job" lives in poverty.
But they won't if we insist that anyone without "a job" lives in poverty.
Who is insisting that? And do you mean actual poverty or modern poverty? That is, living in poverty, with support for food, shelter, health care etc. - modern poverty - is draconian for those who don't work?
The natural brake on that is going to be the inherent nature of young men. The truth is actually far more terrifying.
I agree that this is the thing to worry about. Young men with no commitments. But if joblessness=desperation, that is the fast track there.
We can automate prison, too, and make poverty more like it. But what a hellish waste that would be.
We are becoming able to provide the basic necessities with less and less human effort
The vast majority of jobs that exist today do not exist to provide basic necessities. Therefore, your most basic assertion is flawed.
Twenty years ago I received a programming assignment. I worked for a credit card company. The assignment was to replicate the work that was done in a building across the street. What went on there was that all of those paper signatures we used to sign whenever we used a credit card were filed in that building, and if you had a question about a charge, they would retrieve the paper signature by hand. This job was done by dozens, if not hundreds of women. Ninety percent of them were black.
I went over to talk to them and they were delightful people. They enjoyed their jobs socially in a way that we rarely did over on the programming side of the house. They enjoyed showing me how they did their jobs. It never occurred to me that when I was done, they would have no jobs. I was pretty stupid. But it wasn't my decision, they would have gotten somebody else, and if they didn't do that, they would have been forced out of business.
I was very proud when the process I had designed went into production. Less so when the company sold the building where all of those ladies used to work.
I think of those ladies often when I digitally sign for a purchase. I guess that they were gooping up the whole system, slowing down the growth and increasing the cost of credit card transaction.
That's why I think that these "end of work" essays are important. End of work showed up for those ladies, who were, probably to a person, very hard working, showed up on time every day, tried their best to not make mistakes. They were simply no more a match for computers than John Henry the Steel Driving Man was for that track laying machine in the song.
People can still be "free" and not have to work. But these days those folks often live off, to some extent, the benefits provided by society and somebody's paying for that.
I would also make a distinction between working in the private sector v public sector.
True, there are honorable public sector "jobs" (teacher, cop, fireman). But these are much less important (and should be much fewer) than private sector jobs -- where wealth is created. The former is dependent on the latter -- not vice versa.
The true liberal pipe dream is to have a cushy public sector job, leave at 3:00 pm, get a zillion in free benefits, take no risks, and tax the crap out of the private sector employment to sustain it. But this will greatly strain and eventually kill the golden goose. On a T-Bone steak, the private sector is the meat, the public sector is the bone -- both are necessary, but one is obviously more important (and tasty).
A presidential candidate who can intelligently discuss why and how creating private sector jobs is the key to widening the middle class for millions of Americans will win the election (in my opinion.)
The Cadillac Super Bowl Ad said it best! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGJSI48gkFc
This is what WASP America is all about and why we were, until recently, the greatest country the world had ever seen. A lot of people hated the ad and they are winning; the emasculation of America proceeds and is accelerating. The Cadillac As is only about 17 months old and I do not think it would be broadcast today.
'We used to teach people to be free,' he said. 'Now we teach them to work.'
Work makes free. So to speak.
CJinPA,
I can't tell if you're initial question is sincere. The answer is: anyone who thinks there should be no welfare state. There are many in this very forum.
The sort of basic income I'm talking about would look quite a bit like what you call "modern poverty": Secure living space, good healthy food, basic medical care, and access to the information infrastructure.
If you think that already exists, or that it would be a shame if it did, then you are precisely the problem under discussion.
Roost in the Moon, the positive power of change is in your hands!
Find a poor, unemployed person, and work two jobs so you can provide them with "Secure living space, good healthy food, basic medical care, and access to the information infrastructure." Then you will no longer be "the problem under discussion."
Do it! It will be empowering!
Terry,
The point is that robots are doing the work. Like from cartoons. If you don't believe it's true, use your imagination, and then you can join in the conversation we're having.
You sure like to tell people what to do, Roost on the Moon!
And you really hate it when people tell you what to do. A common combination.
Virgil Hilts: Man, I do love me that ad...
I am a Silicon Valley native. My summer job was cutting apricots for sun drying. My daughters summer job was culturing a previously ungrowable brain cell type at a lab at Stanford. That is progress; that is a better life for everyone, even if apricots are now machine-cut and US employment in that field is nil.
Meade said...
"I recommend mathematical physics."
Sounds like a gateway drug to me. Soon you'll move on to doing theory. And before you know it you're looking through a keyhole at a cat in a box that's both there and not there. Down upon your knees.
My niece is teaching theoretical mathematical something or other at the University of Hawaii this summer. She isn't even 21 yet.
Seems like a lot of commenters here are refusing to deal with reality. Automation is replacing jobs, and new jobs that are being created require more and more intelligence. Half of our population has below-average intelligence - by definition. What kind of new jobs are being created that they can do? And how long will those jobs last till someone automates them?
And as time passes, automation will be able to replace people of higher and higher intelligence. For instance, much of diagnostic work by doctors can be already done by machine. This process will only continue.
We need to find solutions to this issue, pretending it isn't getting worse won't help, and I don't know if there is a decent solution.
"Then why don't you give them spoons instead of shovels?"
Methinks Hunnicutt needs to attend The University of Mike Rowe.
My first job was mowing the lawn of an elderly couple. Boring as hell, but someone had to mow that damn lawn. (I used the money I earned to buy a ten speed, which I used for years.)
So when Hunnicutt looks at his yard, drives down the street, buys groceries, turns on his light, has his appointments handled by a secretary, he should thank the world that there are people willing to work hard, even boring, jobs to make his life pleasant.
I seriously doubt Mr. Hunnicutt has ever really worked a day in his life. Yet another argument to get rid of universities.
Rusty said...
My niece is teaching theoretical mathematical something or other at the University of Hawaii this summer. She isn't even 21 yet.
6/24/15, 2:45 PM
Is it something like: real-time estimating of the optimum drag coefficient of a turbulent, non-pure Dihydrogen Monoxide mixture flowing against a parabolic semi-rigid surface combined with real-time optimum path plotting (i.e. surfing)?
Hagar said...
Though with 5 thumbs on each hand and a bad back,I could never do the work these guys do.
That's why my mom said, "Be sure you get an education Hagar! There is now way you can earn a living doing honest work!"
I once paid a guy so I could watch him Tig weld aluminum. Watch. Not teach. I learned a lot just watching somebody who was really good at their job.
The sort of basic income I'm talking about would look quite a bit like what you call "modern poverty": Secure living space, good healthy food, basic medical care, and access to the information infrastructure.
Yeah, that's about what's provided under modern poverty programs. I don't see that going away soon. I don't think you appreciate the causes of deep-rooted poverty. (SPOILER: It isn't lack of jobs.)
Your outlook sounds quite similar to the folks who are not bracing for a post-work society, but rather pining for it.
That guy is full of shit.
That is all.
"Yeah, that's about what's provided under modern poverty programs."
Have things changed in the last 20 years? That used to be true, but only for women with children. I guess just about everyone qualifies for food stamps these days, and you can get free internet at public libraries, but a guaranteed roof over your head? And transport? For a working age male without a family?
In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."
Reality is a bitch.
"Automation is replacing jobs, and new jobs that are being created require more and more intelligence."
It's not a matter of intelligence. You don't have to be particularly smart to use a computer instead of a typewriter.
"What kind of new jobs are being created that they can do? And how long will those jobs last till someone automates them?"
They'll last until it becomes profitable for someone to automate them.
And when you can employ human labor for less than the ongoing cost of maintaining the automation, they'll gradually stop being be automated.
If you artificially inflate the cost of human labor you make humans too expensive to employ. Stop doing that.
In Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith compared three economies: the American colonies (nationally poor, but high growth), Britain (moderately wealthy, moderate growth), and China (very wealthy, almost no growth). He found that common people were best off in the New World. In the Colonies, a carpenter typically had his own shop, and was able to make enough money to raise a family from his labor. The poorest carpenters were in the wealthiest country, China. In China, a carpenter had no home, his most valued possessions were his tools, and he would work from sun up to sun down for just enough food to live another day.
Smith showed that the American carpenter's relative wealth was a result of high economic growth, and that this growth came from greater marginal return on investment, and this in turn came from exploitation of natural resources.
In China's no-growth economy, there were no gains to be had from further exploitation of natural resources. The best farmland was already under cultivation, the best sources of mineral wealth were already tapped to the utmost, etc. Given this fact, the wealthy Chinese invested in exploiting labor. They didn't do this because they were evil, but because they had wealth to invest and driving down the cost of labor had a better return than, say, trying to create more farmland by irrigating a desert.
Food for thought.
And when you can employ human labor for less than the ongoing cost of maintaining the automation, they'll gradually stop being be automated.
That's when jobs go overseas.
My job is to automate jobs.
Mike R said:
Automation is replacing jobs, and new jobs that are being created require more and more intelligence.
true, though I would say "Automation has been replacing jobs for several hundred years." It is not something new.
Lost of people equate automation with robots but that is only a fraction of the automation that has been going on. Someone mentioned apricot picking having been automated out of existence. Pretty much all farming is now highly automated. Ford went a long way towards that 100 years ago with the Fordson tractor.
Boulton and Watt, with their steam engine allowed automation of industrial textile processes, of transport and many other things.
I am old enough to remember when everthing was typed, on typewriters, by typists and secretaries. How many people do not type pretty much all of their own work these days?
We have been automating the bejabbers out of everything for 300 years or more. Jobs go away but new jobs appear. We have more people in the world today by a long shot and more and more of them working than in the past. All have significantly better living standards, life span and so on.
No, automation creates jobs, it doesn't kill them. It creates both skilled and unskilled jobs and everything in between.
This story here is nothing new. I've been hearing it since the 50's. "You can be replaced by a button."
Hasn't happened yet.
I do confess a bias since I have been making my living with industrial automation for the past 40 years.
John Henry
That's a heck of a name, for someone in industrial automation!
Roost on the Moon said...
"That's a heck of a name, for someone in industrial automation!:"
I was told, recently, that I don't know the meaning of irony.
"American society has 'an irrational belief in work for work’s sake,' says Benjamin Hunnicutt, [a] post-workist" That this fool can get paid for such nonsense makes me wonder if this country is too rich, so rich that we can afford to pay for such nonsense.
When machines get paid, pay taxes and spend money that will be the time to start worrying. Until then there are real issues to worry about.
'We used to teach people to be free,' he said. 'Now we teach them to work.'"
Perhaps Hunnicut has gone full fascist. He sees the radiant world ahead of us, drawing us in, as the recreation of a mythical golden age, when we taught people to be free, instead of to work.
Post a Comment