Well, Scott, where are you? The attack on “automation” and “robots” has happened in parallel with the attack on free trade. I think it is perfect for the very same reason. In 2008, there was a deep recession and a very significant upsurge in unemployment. The recovery that started in 2009 was very steady and has only lately resulted in a go back to full employment. Extended periods of time with vulnerable labor markets lead to the development of bad financial ideas. Students at Friday’s meeting of The Citadel Libertarian Society mentioned with complete self-confidence that robots will lead to mass unemployment within the next thirty or forty years.
He explicitly stated that there is only so much that can be produced. Obviously, “numbers of jobs done by machines” versus “quantity of jobs available for humans” is typically not the ultimate way to think about growing real income and output credited to improvement in technology. It is fundamentally based on the fallacy of thinking of the number of jobs to be set and each job as providing a movement of income like manna from heaven.
If more of the careers are done by machines, then there are fewer jobs still left for humans. It is the same fallacy applied when considering those low wage Chinese workers taking “our” jobs through imports or the immigrants from central Mexico taking “our” jobs. If, instead, careers are named productive activity, then people working provide added output which is what creates their income.
Robots (or other equipment,) or Chinese in export sectors, or Mexican immigrants do not stop other people from working to produce output too. It might seem that the amount that can be produced is limited by demand. Sure we’re able to produce more shoes, but who need it them?
- 8 years ago from Birmingham, Michigan
- Tell me in regards to a technology company. Now tell me who they should acquire and why
- 2001 10-Year Stock Market “Forecast” vs. Actual 2001-2011 Results
- > 50% annualized standard deviation
- Student Loan Tax Deduction Calculator
- Total = [ P(1+r/n)^(nt) ] + [ PMT × (((1 + r/n)^(nt) – 1) / (r/n)) ]
There only a limited number of jobs needed to produce shoes. But the “cost of creation” can be an opportunity cost. The reason “costs” do and should limit the creation of shoes (and other things) is that labor and other resources must be taken from the production of other valuable goods and services. The complete issue of costly production is due to a need to use labor and other resources to produce other goods and services. Further, from a “macro” perspective, a rise in the result produces a matching upsurge in real income, which allows for a rise in the demand for shoes.
If we consider an increase in shoe result only, the added income for the whole economy is relatively small and the impact of that on shoe demand is also likely to be small. However when considering growing output throughout the economy and growing real earnings, the demands for all sorts of goods increases.