So About That Whole Tech-Eating-Jobs Thing

http://techcrunch.com/2015/07/04/so-about-that-whole-tech-eating-jobs-thing/

by zhuxuefeng1994 • 11 years ago

16 23 11 years ago

Corporations used to hire typists that could use a typewriter to type up copies of letters and memos. They'd have a room of 100 typists all typing away all day for 8+ hours a day for five days a week.

That is until the Word Processor and Laser Printer caught on and then they only needed 1 person to press 100 copies on the Word Processor after typing up the letter and memo. Learning how a PC works and how a Word Processor works requires a higher level skill than a typewriter.

I used to work for a law firm IT department. I was given a series of tasks to automate forms into electric forms that were ASP web based and use Crystal Reports to export to RTF, PDF, XLS format etc. I did my job and the people who used to do the reports by hand got fired. They got replaced with an web app that worked 24/7 for free and stores data on a MS-SQL Server database.

I felt really bad that what I wrote had cost jobs.

Consider web sites that work 24/7 selling items, they put retail stores to be closed and people who work those retail jobs to be fired. Macy's closed down stores near my house and fired people, and my wife orders her dresses from macys.com instead of going to a store now.

Now you might say you need to learn some IT skills to service and support websites and technical issues, but they offshore that work to India and China for cheaper labor. Anything needed on US soil they can hire H1B Visa Workers for cheaper than US citizens to work those jobs. So yes jobs are being created, but some of those jobs goes to foreign workers who can work for a lower cost of labor.

Yes we need a basic income and support it by taxing corporations who use automated programs, AI, and robots to do the jobs that human beings used to do. Also tax the companies that use foreign labor to save on costs. It is because those companies cost native jobs when they do that.

Unemployment only counts those on unemployment insurance, not those who lost unemployment insurance because it ran out or those who ended up on welfare or disability because they couldn't find work.

We have a lot of qualified IT workers with student loan debt who cannot find a job in this country. But they are refused to be hired for silly reasons, or considered overqualified to hire H1b Visa Workers instead.

dwiel• 11 years ago

how do you tax based on the use of automated programs, AI and robots? Robots are sort of the easiest, maybe you tax their purchase? Or some kind of yearly 'property' tax on them. What is a robot though? A fax machine? A dish washer?

Taxing automated programs and AI doesn't make any sense to me. You mention that they should be taxed on jobs they've replaced. But what if those jobs never excited in the first place? Should google pay taxes based on how many people it would take to browse the entire internet all the time and track the changes in websites they find?

I'm not completely opposed to the idea of some kind of tax, but I just don't see how it can be reasonably framed. Do you have any specific ideas?

JesperRavn8• 11 years ago

Current taxation (e.g. income tax) should be completely fine. The government needs money to redistribute to people who are not doing well financially for any reason. But there is no particular reason to be more generous to people whose poverty is due to technological advancement. As you say, having a job at a given time is a very poor rationale for deserving that job in the future.

We know that technological growth increases the total amount of wealth to go around. If it didn't, companies wouldn't adopt new technologies. The only problem is when technology widens wealth disparities, which is what taxation is there fore in the first place.

jwatte2• 11 years ago

Taxing the most efficient? Sound like Luddite thinking to me. Instead, figure out how to best harness the human power that is released!

analog31• 11 years ago

What I don't understand is where robots will get their jobs if nobody can afford the stuff that they make. Consumption by poor and middle class people is needed in order to spur development of the technologies that the rich enjoy. If there are only 1000 people who can afford an iPhone, or to drive cars on roads, there will be no way to finance the development of iPhones (plus infrastructure) or roads. This could be the Medieval economy, where the rich were really barely richer than the poor by today's standards. If the rich want sustainable wealth, in the long run, they have to figure out how to maintain consumption by the poor, either by coming up with new labor-intensive occupations, or providing basic income.

ams6110• 11 years ago

The whole driver of an economy is creation of value. Handing someone a basic income does not create any value, it just transfers it. It's unsustainable.

Retra• 11 years ago

Counterpoint:

The whole driver of an economy is the transfer of value.

(See, it's easy to say vapid things and not back them up.)

JesperRavn8• 11 years ago

While I support redistribution for its own sake, the idea that the economy is driven by consumption is false. Even Keynes would not have said so: it is only during recessions that Keynes (correctly) said that the economy needed to be stimulated.

If there are only 1000 people who can afford an iPhone, or to drive cars on roads, there will be no way to finance the development of iPhones (plus infrastructure) or roads.

This kind of verbal reasoning was replaced by mathematical models in economics. The most fundamental such model is called General Equilibrium Theory, which states that the economy is driven by the creation of value (see sibling post) and as long as the technology to create value increases, so will the total value of the economy. Keynes (who set the tone for all subsequent macroeconomics) pointed out a major deviation from General Equilibrium Theory can occur, where the economy produces less than its theoretical output. To remedy this, he recommended fiscal stimulus (e.g. "coming up with new labor-intensive occupations") but this was only a short term measure. In ordinary times, Keynes did not recommend fiscal (or monetary) stimulus.

Now in practice, zero redistribution of wealth would result in a really terrible society, and the negative externalities from poverty (and extreme wealth) would probably result in much lower economic growth. Wealth redistribution is not only ethical, but also makes a more stable and orderly society. Nonetheless, the fundamental reasoning that growth is drive by consumption per se, is wrong.

skybrian• 11 years ago

If you wanted to publish an economics paper then you'd need to come up with a mathematical model, but that doesn't mean all non-mathematical reasoning can be dismissed so easily.

We don't need to work out the model to realize that a world in which Apple only manufactured phones for millionaires would be quite different than today's world.

Animats• 11 years ago

"What I don't understand is where robots will get their jobs if nobody can afford the stuff that they make."

Exactly. In the US, there's plenty of capital, vast productive capacity, and a shortage of demand. The CEO of WalMart says that their customer base is spent out. One of Wal-Mart's metrics is same-store sales over the course of a month. By the end of the month, sales are down and are mostly basic necessities. That's what it looks like in mass-market retail.

There's a stable state where most of the population has a low income, can't buy much, and is barely participating in the economy. This is the normal condition in the parts of the world that have huge urban slums surrounding a rich city core. The US may be headed there. The "micro-houses" of today are the favelas of tomorrow.

More productivity only makes it worse. That's what's so frustrating.

RazvanPanda• 11 years ago

"What I don't understand is where robots will get their jobs if nobody can afford the stuff that they make."

Nobody = other robots?

jwatte2• 11 years ago

Society-wide, technology is a human output multiplier. Over time, people without jobs will find or create new jobs, and overall output increases. The question is not "how many jobs does technology destroy," but "how nimbly will this new resource of human time be harnessed?"

So About That Whole Tech-Eating-Jobs Thing

Related Stories