=====================
Industries come and industries go. Jobs come and go, and they morph. ?Perhaps we should take heart that politicians don’t change. ?Most still think that certain types of jobs need to be preserved and protected. ?Also, politics doesn’t ever seem to have productivity improvements, such that the same things could get done (or not) with fewer people.
Looking at the history of the past 200 years, and the?jobs that existed then and exist now, you would conclude that less than 10% of people working in the US today occupy jobs remotely similar to what was done 200 years ago. ?(I exclude homemakers who do valuable work for their households that is blissfully untaxed.)
There are places that had prosperity for a time because an industry grew large, and then that industry went into decline, or at least, increased labor productivity reduced employment in that industry. ?I’ll toss out a few:
- Agriculture generally
- Coal mining
- Iron ore mining
- Steel
- Auto production
- Construction
- Newspapers
- Magazines
- Bookstores
- Textiles
- Telephones
- Apparel
- Family farms
- Many industrial jobs
The last two are notable for the passion that they generate. ?Politicians will say that family farms have to be protected and that we need more good industrial jobs. ?Both are hopeless causes. ?Farms benefit from scale in general, though small farms can do well if they have a specialty where?people are willing to pay up to gain the quality of the product.
Industrial employment is going down globally. ?The application of information technology to industrial processes allows as much or more to be made, while hiring fewer workers.
The politicians may as well beg that we could stop time or reverse it. ?Absent some astounding catastrophe it is hard to see how productivity would decline such that more workers ?are needed in industrial jobs. ?”Ned Ludd” lost that war over 200 years ago.
Politicians might be able to shift where jobs are located, but not the total amount that gets produced or the number hired globally. ?Anytime you hear them say that they will increase the quantity, quality or pay of jobs, it is best to ignore the politicians. ?They are?promising something that they can’t control. ?The same is true of central bankers; if they can do anything about the number of jobs, it is highly transitory, as policy loosens and tightens; jobs flow and ebb.
Anyone looking seriously over the last 200 years should conclude that in this modern world with the extended division of labor that jobs will continue to morph, appear, and disappear. ?The internet has led to the disappearance and creation of many jobs, and I don’t think that that trend is complete yet.
My best advice to you is this: learn, grow, be flexible, and be willing to work in ways that you never imagined. ?The clock will not be turned back on technology, which is the main factor affecting employment. ?You must be your own defender, because the factors affecting employment are bigger than that which governments can control. ?Finally, as an aside, don’t trust the politicians (from any party) who say they will improve your economic prospects. ?Aside from reducing what the government does, they haven’t succeeded in the past; they will not succeed in the present.
“My best advice to you is this: learn, grow, be flexible, and be willing to work in ways that you never imagined. The clock will not be turned back on technology, which is the main factor affecting employment.”
You’ve just written a wonderful post about my brother, who is a “machinist.” His background is similar to a lot of machinists; smart, but hated school and partied out of college midway trough the first semester. He started off with a job that had him coming home every night smelling like the lubricating oil that was used on the machines, then on to water cutting, then lasers. We had dinner with him after he got his most recent job, and he said “Man, it’s so cool. Each of these machines is as big as my house. I just program the numbers and then feed in the raw materials. Whatever we’re cutting pops out of the other side.” I congratulated him on making the transition from machinist to computer programmer.
The problem with ever increasing automation is that the distribution of resources is tied to employment. We have managed so far, but a true AI/robot revolution might be problematic. If we can figure out a way to distribute resources reasonably without employment, but not kill the incentive structure we may be on the cusp of something great.
Nick de Peyster
http://undervaluedstocks.info
What would be interesting is if robots/AI ever became cheap enough and general enough where every man owned his own robot/AI, and used it to augment his own abilities. That is what happened with “democratic” technologies that benefited labor returns more directly.
Or, as I might say to some who complain about tech, trade and low wages: “Try setting up your own firms and employ robots yourselves. Set up your own subsidiaries in low wage countries; let’s lift the whole world out of poverty, and not just our little piece of it.”
There’s a lot of potential for good here, and it gets missed by many.
You’re spot on but for the fact that many of the semi-skilled and unskilled workers who are at risk of being replaced by a robot are themselves largely bereft of capital. I found Ford’s recent book, “Rise of the Robots,” an outstanding read on the subject.
History indicates that the automation revolution is unlikely to result in widespread unemployment. While it may eliminate a large number of the jobs that currently exist (factory jobs, fast food jobs, anything repetitive that is done on a large scale), new ones will take their place (e.g., more programming and engineering jobs, plus whatever new industries arise from this technology when it’s fully developed).
This is what always happens whenever a disruptive new technology comes on the scene. Computers have been eliminating all kinds of jobs for a long time now, but new ones in the computer industry have taken their place. The transition may be painful at times as large numbers of people have to either acquire new skills or fall out of the workforce, but in the long run it will only be another economic transition like many we have seen before.