A Robot Army Is Destroying The American Workforce

[waas]

I didn't give birth to "new" industry, it just made things possible that weren't before. Rocket science, banking, and graphic art already existed. Computers just made these industries many times better and easier to do that than they were before. This is exactly what robots will do. We'll simply be able to do the same things faster and better, thus causing existing industry to expand tremendously. This expansion will create jobs, and even more jobs to support the robots that triggered the expansion.

And you're discounting the personal use tech industry as one that was born with computers?

 

[EagleAye]

And you're discounting the personal use tech industry as one that was born with computers?

I don't see how my statement discounted it, and no, I wasn't born with computers. Personal use could be be one of the the most prevalent uses of robotics, and each of these units would require maintenance and repair, thus insuring more jobs.

 

[waas]

I don't see how my statement discounted it, and no, I wasn't born with computers. Personal use could be be one of the the most prevalent uses of robotics, and each of these units would require maintenance and repair, thus insuring more jobs.

Yes, you did.

I[t] didn't give birth to "new" industry,

And it's pretty silly that you think there would be a net jobs gain from robots taking over the manufacturing industry. You'd have a loss of manufacturing jobs and an increase in robotics development, sale and repair jobs. Now, to my knowledge, there's no way to know the exact numbers, but the manufacturing industry is a pretty substantial one, so I have little doubt that we'd see a loss.

 

[EagleAye]

Yes, you did.

And it's pretty silly that you think there would be a net jobs gain from robots taking over the manufacturing industry. You'd have a loss of manufacturing jobs and an increase in robotics development, sale and repair jobs. Now, to my knowledge, there's no way to know the exact numbers, but the manufacturing industry is a pretty substantial one, so I have little doubt that we'd see a loss.

It was also predicted that computers would eliminate jobs, because they could replace the work done by hand. They didn't. People thought computers would eliminate paper use. They didn't. People thought machine manufacturing like the loom, would also put workers out of work. They didn't. History shows that labor saving devices do not put people out of work. The industry simply expands and in fact employs more people than before.

 

[RDS]

Labor saving devices will put masses out of work unless there is a strong emphasis on retraining and skills upgrading.

 

[waas]

It was also predicted that computers would eliminate jobs, because they could replace the work done by hand. They didn't. People thought computers would eliminate paper use. They didn't. People thought machine manufacturing like the loom, would also put workers out of work. They didn't. History shows that labor saving devices do not put people out of work. The industry simply expands and in fact employs more people than before.

It could also be argued that increased technology also increases necessary qualifications for workers. Harrington was famous for this hypothesis. Simply put, when the required skill set for workers is raised by a technological advance, - as our the topic of our discussion dictates - low-skill workers become unqualified and subsequently out of a job.

 

[Fisher]

I want a robot maid. I would never hire a real maid because that would require me to get dressed and stuff.

 

[waas]

I want a robot maid. I would never hire a real maid because that would require me to get dressed and stuff.

 

[UtahBill]

I don't see how my statement discounted it, and no, I wasn't born with computers. Personal use could be be one of the the most prevalent uses of robotics, and each of these units would require maintenance and repair, thus insuring more jobs.

but not necessarily more jobs than before....

Technological advances increase jobs at first, til the market is saturated.....
One robot on an assembly line displaces more people than the new technology needs to support it.

The cotton gin made slavery grow like crazy in the USA, but later inventions made slavery obsolete.

Times change, stuff happens.....adapt or suffer the consequences...

 

[What if...?]

I don't see how my statement discounted it, and no, I wasn't born with computers. Personal use could be be one of the the most prevalent uses of robotics, and each of these units would require maintenance and repair, thus insuring more jobs.

I don't know, adoption of an all electric vehicle fleet would eliminate a bunch of maintenance/parts manufacture jobs.

You'd have more electric motors and batteries being manufactured, but if they're built by machines the labor isn't absorbed.

If automation didn't cut labor costs, businesses wouldn't do it. So I'm not sure robot repair would absorb displaced workers. If it takes ten guys to maintain a machine that replaces ten workers, what would be the point of buying it in the first place? They'd just pay the ten lower skilled workers.

I'm not being combative. This is a real trend that real economists are aware of.

 

[ttwtt78640]

It could also be argued that increased technology also increases necessary qualifications for workers. Harrington was famous for this hypothesis. Simply put, when the required skill set for workers is raised by a technological advance, - as our the topic of our discussion dictates - low-skill workers become unqualified and subsequently out of a job.

They also become free to do other jobs.

 

[waas]

They also become free to do other jobs.

If those jobs are available. The point is that as technology advances, low-skill workers are left with fewer and fewer opportunities - as you can guess, this leads to a near immediate increase in human misery.

edit: This process also increases use of the welfare program.

 

[ttwtt78640]

If those jobs are available. The point is that as technology advances, low-skill workers are left with fewer and fewer opportunities - as you can guess, this leads to a near immediate increase in human misery.

Perhaps, yet that fails to explain the amazing fact that millions of very low skilled, non-English speaking, barely educated, illegal aliens enter the US and manage to find employment to sustain themselves and their families, yet many higher educated, English speaking, US citizens are "unable" to find work that pays more than UI benefits (extended ever longer) or "welfare" will provide. It is my opinion that the presense of suitable alternates to other work, rather than the lack of that other work, are a big part of the problem; certainly not the preferred solution. Look about you and you will see plenty of things needing attention, work to be done, yet not much effort is made to get that work done; we simply pay folks to remain idle rather than insist upon any productive work in return for a "paycheck".

 

[Ray410]

Perhaps, yet that fails to explain the amazing fact that millions of very low skilled, non-English speaking, barely educated, illegal aliens enter the US and manage to find employment to sustain themselves and their families, yet many higher educated, English speaking, US citizens are "unable" to find work that pays more than UI benefits (extended ever longer) or "welfare" will provide.

Wrong.

In 2009 (based on data collected in 2010), 57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 18) used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children.

Immigrant households’ use of welfare tends to be much higher than natives for food assistance programs and Medicaid. Their use of cash and housing programs tends to be similar to native households.

A large share of the welfare used by immigrant households with children is received on behalf of their U.S.-born children, who are American citizens. But even households with children comprised entirely of immigrants (no U.S.-born children) still had a welfare use rate of 56 percent in 2009.

Immigrant households with children used welfare programs at consistently higher rates than natives, even before the current recession. In 2001, 50 percent of all immigrant households with children used at least one welfare program, compared to 32 percent for natives.

Households with children with the highest welfare use rates are those headed by immigrants from the Dominican Republic (82 percent), Mexico and Guatemala (75 percent), and Ecuador (70 percent). Those with the lowest use rates are from the United Kingdom (7 percent), India (19 percent), Canada (23 percent), and Korea (25 percent).

The states where immigrant households with children have the highest welfare use rates are Arizona (62 percent); Texas, California, and New York (61 percent); Pennsylvania (59 percent); Minnesota and Oregon (56 percent); and Colorado (55 percent).

We estimate that 52 percent of households with children headed by legal immigrants used at least one welfare program in 2009, compared to 71 percent for illegal immigrant households with children. Illegal immigrants generally receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children.

Illegal immigrant households with children primarily use food assistance and Medicaid, making almost no use of cash or housing assistance. In contrast, legal immigrant households tend to have relatively high use rates for every type of program.

High welfare use by immigrant-headed households with children is partly explained by the low education level of many immigrants. Of households headed by an immigrant who has not graduated high school, 80 percent access the welfare system, compared to 25 percent for those headed by an immigrant who has at least a bachelor’s degree.

Welfare Use by Immigrant Households with Children | Center for Immigration Studies

 

[ttwtt78640]

Wrong.

In 2009 (based on data collected in 2010), 57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 18) used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children.

Immigrant households’ use of welfare tends to be much higher than natives for food assistance programs and Medicaid. Their use of cash and housing programs tends to be similar to native households.

A large share of the welfare used by immigrant households with children is received on behalf of their U.S.-born children, who are American citizens. But even households with children comprised entirely of immigrants (no U.S.-born children) still had a welfare use rate of 56 percent in 2009.

Immigrant households with children used welfare programs at consistently higher rates than natives, even before the current recession. In 2001, 50 percent of all immigrant households with children used at least one welfare program, compared to 32 percent for natives.

Households with children with the highest welfare use rates are those headed by immigrants from the Dominican Republic (82 percent), Mexico and Guatemala (75 percent), and Ecuador (70 percent). Those with the lowest use rates are from the United Kingdom (7 percent), India (19 percent), Canada (23 percent), and Korea (25 percent).

The states where immigrant households with children have the highest welfare use rates are Arizona (62 percent); Texas, California, and New York (61 percent); Pennsylvania (59 percent); Minnesota and Oregon (56 percent); and Colorado (55 percent).

We estimate that 52 percent of households with children headed by legal immigrants used at least one welfare program in 2009, compared to 71 percent for illegal immigrant households with children. Illegal immigrants generally receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children.

Illegal immigrant households with children primarily use food assistance and Medicaid, making almost no use of cash or housing assistance. In contrast, legal immigrant households tend to have relatively high use rates for every type of program.

High welfare use by immigrant-headed households with children is partly explained by the low education level of many immigrants. Of households headed by an immigrant who has not graduated high school, 80 percent access the welfare system, compared to 25 percent for those headed by an immigrant who has at least a bachelor’s degree.

Welfare Use by Immigrant Households with Children | Center for Immigration Studies

Are you kidding me? You are simply saying that because "alternative" income sources are made available, that they are used, nothing more. That was precisely my argument. The fact that you related lack of education, and having more children than ones marketable skills can support, to poverty has no bearing on whether work remains to be done. The existance of alternatives to work is intentional, as is the gov't establishment of a defacto "living wage" yet requiring no employer to actually pay it directly. These illegal (or legal) immigrants know a good deal when they see one, thus they are here, rather than in their countries of origin. When you separate the need to get educated and produce from the ability to support yourself and raise a familiy, it should come as no great shock that many will seek that path.

 

[EagleAye]

Technological advances increase jobs at first, til the market is saturated.....
One robot on an assembly line displaces more people than the new technology needs to support it.

The cotton gin made slavery grow like crazy in the USA, but later inventions made slavery obsolete.

Times change, stuff happens.....adapt or suffer the consequences...

If automation didn't cut labor costs, businesses wouldn't do it. So I'm not sure robot repair would absorb displaced workers. If it takes ten guys to maintain a machine that replaces ten workers, what would be the point of buying it in the first place? They'd just pay the ten lower skilled workers.

I'm not being combative. This is a real trend that real economists are aware of.

If those jobs are available. The point is that as technology advances, low-skill workers are left with fewer and fewer opportunities - as you can guess, this leads to a near immediate increase in human misery.

What I see is that with labor saving devices, industry does not maintain it's previous size. It grows significantly. So industry specialists are not easily saturated. A product, once expensive before, now becomes economically viable for a great many more people. More orders are made, requiring more factories, requiring more workers. The industry grows, and thus more people become employed. Labor saving devices may temporarily put people out of a job, but they are quickly re-absorbed into other tasks as more hands are required support a growing industry.

For every "skilled" worker, a number of "non-skilled" workers are required to help them. If a small town once only had a tractor factory, suddenly becomes the site of a robotics factory, that town will grow by leaps and bounds. The "skilled" workers may have to be shipped in from out of town, but now new houses/apartments must be built to house the workers. Grocery stores must be staffed by "non-skilled workers" to stock the shelves and work the registers. "non-skilled workers" must staff the movie theaters and restaurants. Shopping malls must be opened and staffed by "non-skilled workers." Even people that are specialists in robot maintenance must be supported by "non-skilled workers." And then there's customer service reps who may not know anything about robots, but still must be available to handle phone calls and queries and "help desk" operations. One skilled worker triggers employment for many "non-skilled workers."

Lastly, "non-skilled workers," are NOT a caste that a person is stuck with for the entirety of their life. They "can" be trained to be "skilled" workers in new fields. Human misery would only expand if all human education of any kind is halted completely. This is not the case. 30 years ago performing 3D computer graphics would have required a genius operator and exorbitantly expensive software and equipment. Today, the software is so advanced, you don't have to be a computer genius to operate it. Even an "artist" can use the "artist software" and much of the software is also affordable for individuals to re-train themselves or learn relatively cheaply at a trade school.

 

[waas]

Are you kidding me? You are simply saying that because "alternative" income sources are made available, that they are used, nothing more. That was precisely my argument. The fact that you related lack of education, and having more children than ones marketable skills can support, to poverty has no bearing on whether work remains to be done. The existance of alternatives to work is intentional, as is the gov't establishment of a defacto "living wage" yet requiring no employer to actually pay it directly. These illegal (or legal) immigrants know a good deal when they see one, thus they are here, rather than in their countries of origin. When you separate the need to get educated and produce from the ability to support yourself and raise a familiy, it should come as no great shock that many will seek that path.

The point is that immigrants(illegal, or otherwise) often don't have the necessary skill sets for the American job market. For this reason, their jobs tend to be very low paying - that is, if they're employed - and their use of the welfare program heightened.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The point is that immigrants(illegal, or otherwise) often don't have the necessary skill sets for the American job market. For this reason, their jobs tend to be very low paying - that is, if they're employed - and their use of the welfare program heightened.

Exactly, yet making that "skill set" not be a prerequisite to getting public assistance simply has no benefit to society at all. Rewarding/subsidizing something makes it grow, taxing something makes it shrink; yet we continue to reward/subsidize low eduction/skill (out of wedlock childbirth?) and tax wages and marriage.

 

[waas]

Exactly, yet making that "skill set" not be a prerequisite to getting public assistance simply has no benefit to society at all. Rewarding/subsidizing something makes it grow, taxing something makes it shrink; yet we continue to reward/subsidize low eduction/skill (out of wedlock childbirth?) and tax wages and marriage.

Which is why we need to provide incentive for workers to advance their skill sets. Whiter that means artificially discounted education for full-time workers, replacement of the welfare state with a jobs guarantee program(see the CCCs of the new deal), or free training in fields that benefit the economy.

You're completely right in saying that rewarding and subsidizing causes growth - taxation should only be a means of allowing this. If we as a country could use government programs to spur growth instead of allowing stagnation, we'd be far better off.

 

[What if...?]

What I see is that with labor saving devices, industry does not maintain it's previous size. It grows significantly. So industry specialists are not easily saturated. A product, once expensive before, now becomes economically viable for a great many more people. More orders are made, requiring more factories, requiring more workers. The industry grows, and thus more people become employed. Labor saving devices may temporarily put people out of a job, but they are quickly re-absorbed into other tasks as more hands are required support a growing industry.

For every "skilled" worker, a number of "non-skilled" workers are required to help them. If a small town once only had a tractor factory, suddenly becomes the site of a robotics factory, that town will grow by leaps and bounds. The "skilled" workers may have to be shipped in from out of town, but now new houses/apartments must be built to house the workers. Grocery stores must be staffed by "non-skilled workers" to stock the shelves and work the registers. "non-skilled workers" must staff the movie theaters and restaurants. Shopping malls must be opened and staffed by "non-skilled workers." Even people that are specialists in robot maintenance must be supported by "non-skilled workers." And then there's customer service reps who may not know anything about robots, but still must be available to handle phone calls and queries and "help desk" operations. One skilled worker triggers employment for many "non-skilled workers."

Lastly, "non-skilled workers," are NOT a caste that a person is stuck with for the entirety of their life. They "can" be trained to be "skilled" workers in new fields. Human misery would only expand if all human education of any kind is halted completely. This is not the case. 30 years ago performing 3D computer graphics would have required a genius operator and exorbitantly expensive software and equipment. Today, the software is so advanced, you don't have to be a computer genius to operate it. Even an "artist" can use the "artist software" and much of the software is also affordable for individuals to re-train themselves or learn relatively cheaply at a trade school.

I hear you, and I'm not disagreeing completely.

One issue I see is that IME, creative and highly adaptable people are a minority of the population at large.

So the "idea economy" isn't always accessible to all.

The real solution is to re-evaluate our system to accept fewer hours for a full time lifestyle.

It's a trend that has been advancing with each "revolution".

Capital is presently enjoying the lions share of the benefits, and will fight to continue to do so.

 

[Goshin]

The good news is manufacturing is making a strong comeback from China and the robots can match China's wages. The bad news is there will be even more job losses with automation. So what do you do with the jobless people?

My job, that I've held for 13 years, is about to end within the year due to automation.

 

[EagleAye]

I hear you, and I'm not disagreeing completely.

One issue I see is that IME, creative and highly adaptable people are a minority of the population at large.

So the "idea economy" isn't always accessible to all.

The real solution is to re-evaluate our system to accept fewer hours for a full time lifestyle.

It's a trend that has been advancing with each "revolution".

Capital is presently enjoying the lions share of the benefits, and will fight to continue to do so.

I'm not sure that shorter work hours would necessarily be a help in dealing with the effects of automation. But I would agree that creative and adaptable people are in the minority. An "idea economy" is most of what the US is. The reason it works is you only need a few people to create ideas (a minority), but you need a LOT of people to "build" the idea. That goes from manufacturing, to truckers shipping the product, to warehousemen storing the product pre-sale, to the retailers who actually sell the product. This is many, many jobs that stem from one single idea.

Just look at a Hollywood movie. We all focus in on the leading man (Jason Stratham, for instance) and think about how HE made the movie. But he was only one small part of a very large army of workers from makeup artists, to stuntment, to fight choreographers, to wardrobe specialists, gaffers, and many many more positions. The creation, distribution, and sale of an ordinary mousetrap requires hundreds of direct and indirect job positions just to get a simple tool on the retail shelf. The creation of robots to assemble an alarm clock may eliminate a few key jobs, but this device will suddenly drop in price which will create an increased demand which will require more peripheral employment. It all balances out, and more than likely creates more jobs. When I was a kid, almost nobody did work on computers. They were so highly specialized that only a rare few could do it. Now everyone knows something about computers. We didn't all magically become computer geeks. We simply learned because it became necessary and later essential for normal life. The advent of advanced robotics will simply create a similar lifestyle paradigm shift.

 

[RDS]

My job, that I've held for 13 years, is about to end within the year due to automation.

Not to worry. The sky is the limit for a man of your calibre.

 

[imagep]

Wages don't have to necessarily increase, with increases in productivity.
Especially if the machine is doing most of the work.

In theory, either wages would increase, or prices would decrease, either way, the amount of goods that one could purchase from an hours worth of labor should increase.

The reason that it hasn't been working out that way is because more and more of the fruits of our increasing productivity have been going to the rich. With the consumer/worker class having stagnent our declining purchasing power, demand can not keep up with productivity, and thus we have fewer jobs. With fewer jobs, the consumer class purchases less, businesses become less profitable, chart this out another hundred years and even the rich will be poor.

If the worker/consumer class hadn't been able to share in the rewards of becoming more productive, we would still all be living like it is 1866, with no running water, no electricity, nothing but a horse for transportation, etc.

Whats the point in becoming a more productive society if we can't reap the rewards of productivity?

 

[imagep]

More productivity means cheaper products, which means people can afford more and more, even with decreased wages. Fact is, because of all these robots, even the poor people can afford tvs, refrigerators and smart phones now. Poor 40-50 years ago was nothing like the poor of today.

Most of that wage growth of the worker/consumer class in relationship to the cost of products happened prior to 1980. Since then, not so much. What changed?