New Technologies and the Job Losses which may/may not follow

[swansont]

Imagine 3D printing clothes. You'll do that at home from your own printer. An entire part of the existing industry will collapse. Especially if you can recycle your gel-clothe and make a new design from the old material.

 

I guess we should step in and save the whip and buggy makers from competition from those upstart automobiles. And the photo industry from digital competition. And the video tape rental people from digital downloads. Western Union from text messaging.

 

IOW, so what?

[EdEarl]

Imagine 3D printing clothes. You'll do that at home from your own printer. An entire part of the existing industry will collapse. Especially if you can recycle your gel-clothe and make a new design from the old material.

 

In the construction sector the recent technology that I am aware of is still about 2D printing. For the production of large tiles (1meterX3 meters) that are scanned images of overpriced Calacatta marble or other material.

Yes, the world is changing; jobs are disappearing because of 3D printers and robots. We will have to adapt politically and culturally.

[michel123456]

Yes, the world is changing; jobs are disappearing because of 3D printers and robots. We will have to adapt politically and culturally.

You surely mean: someone else will have to adapt. A lot of them.

[michel123456]

I guess we should step in and save the whip and buggy makers from competition from those upstart automobiles. And the photo industry from digital competition. And the video tape rental people from digital downloads. Western Union from text messaging.

 

IOW, so what?

Not "so what?".

 

All technological advance make less and less people having jobs. It is already a huge problem for occidental societies.

[swansont]

Not "so what?".

 

All technological advance make less and less people having jobs. It is already a huge problem for occidental societies.

 

And yet we've done pretty well despite this. New technologies also create new jobs. In the US, for example, there are more people with jobs these days than the total population in 1940. And while exporting jobs to occidental countries. That issue has much more to do with politics than technology.

 

Not everyone will have a 3D printer, even if they become an ubiquitous as personal computers. Not every item can be 3D printed, and not all items that you can print will be cost-effective to print.

[EdEarl]

Between 2008 and 2012 the number of jobs in the US decreased by about 2 million, a decrease of 500,000 per year. The population between 2000 and 2010 increased by about 73 million, an increase of 7.3 million per year. Unemployment statistics do not report on people who have given up looking for work, and resort to crime or begging to feed themselves.

[swansont]

Between 2008 and 2012 the number of jobs in the US decreased by about 2 million, a decrease of 500,000 per year. The population between 2000 and 2010 increased by about 73 million, an increase of 7.3 million per year. Unemployment statistics do not report on people who have given up looking for work, and resort to crime or begging to feed themselves.

 

I'm not sure what the point is — that job loss was due to a recession, not because someone invented a new technology that drove people into unemployment. And unemployment is not the right metric here, IMO, it's the number of people with jobs.

 

Also, if technology reduced the requirement for people to work (i.e. labor-saving devices actually saved labor) then it's a socio-political issue to deal with that. New technology isn't the reason that the US minimum wage has stagnated at below-poverty levels. If people made a living wage, there would be the ability to employ more people overall, since there would be a reduced need to work two jobs — someone else can fill that position. But this is still not an issue of new technology.

 

In the broader picture, if you want to stall technology, you will stall other progress. Medicine, for example, is also the result of technological advancement.

[EdEarl]

 

I'm not sure what the point is — that job loss was due to a recession, not because someone invented a new technology that drove people into unemployment. And unemployment is not the right metric here, IMO, it's the number of people with jobs.

 

Also, if technology reduced the requirement for people to work (i.e. labor-saving devices actually saved labor) then it's a socio-political issue to deal with that. New technology isn't the reason that the US minimum wage has stagnated at below-poverty levels. If people made a living wage, there would be the ability to employ more people overall, since there would be a reduced need to work two jobs — someone else can fill that position. But this is still not an issue of new technology.

 

In the broader picture, if you want to stall technology, you will stall other progress. Medicine, for example, is also the result of technological advancement.

The 2008 recession ended June 2009, yet employment fell or remained stable all those years, there was a very slight increase in 2010. GNP grew every year from 1948 till 2012, except 1949 and 2009; thus, some of the economy was robust during that recession. It's beyond me to explain it. My point is that jobs are falling and population expanding, which means more and more people do not have jobs. There are a myriad of reasons, some of them improved productivity via automation and some due to the recession; there is too much complexity to identify precise causes and effects, in many cases. In the long run, it doesn't matter why people do not have jobs. I think many of our social problems are related, but again, the issues are complex and difficult to identify causes and effects.

[swansont]

The 2008 recession ended June 2009, yet employment fell or remained stable all those years, there was a very slight increase in 2010. GNP grew every year from 1948 till 2012, except 1949 and 2009; thus, some of the economy was robust during that recession. It's beyond me to explain it. My point is that jobs are falling and population expanding, which means more and more people do not have jobs. There are a myriad of reasons, some of them improved productivity via automation and some due to the recession; there is too much complexity to identify precise causes and effects, in many cases. In the long run, it doesn't matter why people do not have jobs. I think many of our social problems are related, but again, the issues are complex and difficult to identify causes and effects.

 

For the topic under discussion I think it's very relevant why people lost jobs. Is there a technology that was introduced that caused it? Or was it the cascading effect of the economy initiated by the banking-related collapse? I don't think credit default swaps count as a new technology, nor do I think that a million state government jobs (many of them teaching-related) were a matter of the work being handed off to new technology. Also, this stimulus was not about putting people to work in jobs that were being taken over by new technology.

 

If you are right, what was the technology that put these people out of work? The smart phone?

[EdEarl]

 

For the topic under discussion I think it's very relevant why people lost jobs. Is there a technology that was introduced that caused it? Or was it the cascading effect of the economy initiated by the banking-related collapse? I don't think credit default swaps count as a new technology, nor do I think that a million state government jobs (many of them teaching-related) were a matter of the work being handed off to new technology. Also, this stimulus was not about putting people to work in jobs that were being taken over by new technology.

 

If you are right, what was the technology that put these people out of work? The smart phone?

I agree that it is relevant to the discussion, but a person who has lost their job is less likely to search for why they lost their job than look for another. In this sense, it is not extremely important why they lost their job; it is more important to create a job or make it unnecessary for them to need a job.

 

Moreover, at this time penetration of 3D printing into manufacturing is low (I think), which means few jobs can be displaced by the technology just now. IMO automation will replace more and more human workers, but the idea is not mine, for example: http://www.futuretech.ox.ac.uk/news-release-oxford-martin-school-study-shows-nearly-half-us-jobs-could-be-risk-computerisation

[swansont]

I agree that it is relevant to the discussion, but a person who has lost their job is less likely to search for why they lost their job than look for another. In this sense, it is not extremely important why they lost their job; it is more important to create a job or make it unnecessary for them to need a job.

 

 

If their job loss is unrelated to technology than it's moot. Regardless, we have had more jobs created in the last several years than were lost as a result of the downturn, so the argument that technology is costing people jobs seems to not hold water. Whatever has become obsolete, other jobs have appeared. Just as has been happening for hundreds of years.

[EdEarl]

 

If their job loss is unrelated to technology than it's moot. Regardless, we have had more jobs created in the last several years than were lost as a result of the downturn, so the argument that technology is costing people jobs seems to not hold water. Whatever has become obsolete, other jobs have appeared. Just as has been happening for hundreds of years.

I don't believe the job losses are a moot point, and I do believe more and more jobs are being lost to technology. Furthermore, I believe in the limit automation will be able to do almost all jobs; the only question is how quickly. Moreover, historically technology changes have occurred faster than people expect. Time will tell.

[swansont]

I don't believe the job losses are a moot point, and I do believe more and more jobs are being lost to technology. Furthermore, I believe in the limit automation will be able to do almost all jobs; the only question is how quickly. Moreover, historically technology changes have occurred faster than people expect. Time will tell.

 

So tell me the technologies that cost those jobs, in such a short time - it must have been quite a notorious advance - and where the new jobs have come from.

[EdEarl]

There were numerous events and decisions that led to that downturn and loss of jobs.I think more automation will cut deeply into jobs recovery, especially AI, e.g., driverless vehicles. Manufacturing will not be the only affected industry. In some cases large programming projects are needed before automation takes over jobs. We do not know when and what software is nearly ready, and cannot estimate how quickly jobs will be lost. Only time will tell.

[swansont]

There were numerous events and decisions that led to that downturn and loss of jobs.I think more automation will cut deeply into jobs recovery, especially AI, e.g., driverless vehicles. Manufacturing will not be the only affected industry. In some cases large programming projects are needed before automation takes over jobs. We do not know when and what software is nearly ready, and cannot estimate how quickly jobs will be lost. Only time will tell.

 

So you have no actual example to give?

 

Driverless cars are not yet being used as anything but a demo, and are a few years out — we have to wait for technology and the law to catch up. Meanwhile, the development of driverless cars have added actual jobs. Once we do get Johnny-Cab, yes, there will be fewer cab-driver jobs. Just like there are fewer Blockbuster clerk jobs these days than there were 20 years ago.

 

How many smart-phone app designers were there 10 years ago? (hint: it's zero)

 

History shows that technology creates jobs. Why will it be different with 3D printing, or driverless vehicles? What is different now that will prevent new technology from also creating new jobs? Do you (or michel, or chicken little) have any concrete evidence to show that the sky is falling?

[EdEarl]

 

So you have no actual example to give?

 

Driverless cars are not yet being used as anything but a demo, and are a few years out — we have to wait for technology and the law to catch up. Meanwhile, the development of driverless cars have added actual jobs. Once we do get Johnny-Cab, yes, there will be fewer cab-driver jobs. Just like there are fewer Blockbuster clerk jobs these days than there were 20 years ago.

 

How many smart-phone app designers were there 10 years ago? (hint: it's zero)

 

History shows that technology creates jobs. Why will it be different with 3D printing, or driverless vehicles? What is different now that will prevent new technology from also creating new jobs? Do you (or michel, or chicken little) have any concrete evidence to show that the sky is falling?

I'm not sure what you expect as an example, but let's consider brick making and brick laying. At one time bricks were made by hand, and building the Great Wall of China required millions of people. We now have automated brick making factories and brick roadway printing machines and mechanical mason. If someone funded another great wall, the combination of earth moving equipment and brick making/laying machines would allow it to be build with hundreds or thousands of workers instead of millions.

 

The tunnel boring machines used today have significantly reduced the number of workers needed to dig tunnels.

 

Automated car manufacturing is used today and United Auto Workers membership has dropped significantly. Of course, there are auto workers who are non-union. Nonetheless, I suggest that if there are more auto workers today than ones used to build early Ford cars is due to increased market penetration and additional automobile complexity instead of "automation creates jobs," which seems contrary to common sense.

 

Perhaps you would like to provide an example of how automation creates jobs.

[swansont]

I'm not sure what you expect as an example, but let's consider brick making and brick laying. At one time bricks were made by hand, and building the Great Wall of China required millions of people. We now have automated brick making factories and brick roadway printing machines and mechanical mason. If someone funded another great wall, the combination of earth moving equipment and brick making/laying machines would allow it to be build with hundreds or thousands of workers instead of millions.

 

The tunnel boring machines used today have significantly reduced the number of workers needed to dig tunnels.

 

Automated car manufacturing is used today and United Auto Workers membership has dropped significantly. Of course, there are auto workers who are non-union. Nonetheless, I suggest that if there are more auto workers today than ones used to build early Ford cars is due to increased market penetration and additional automobile complexity instead of "automation creates jobs," which seems contrary to common sense.

 

Perhaps you would like to provide an example of how automation creates jobs.

 

Automation is not the only example of new technology. That's moving the goalposts. Besides, manufacturing isn't the only sector that employs people.

 

I already gave you the evidence that there are more jobs in existence today despite all of the advances in technology. The existence of computers, for example, allows work to be done faster and reduces the need for people top do a specific job, but jobs that were simply unthinkable before computers can now be done. There are a lot of computer programmers today as a result, plus people to make new ones and maintain networks. Scientific research that simply could not have been done in the past is now possible, and we have more scientists now than ever before.

 

Tech jobs have a higher multiplier — they create more jobs in other areas (3x more than a manufacturing job)

http://www.bayareacouncil.org/community_engagement/new-study-for-every-new-high-tech-job-four-more-created/

 

Even with automation, there isn't always a job loss. As you point out, penetration increases when you can drop the cost of a product, which is a motivation for automation. Despite ATMs, there are more bank tellers these days — more bank branches exist, because they are cheaper to run with fewer tellers. But the increase in penetration results in more overall jobs.

 

Technology will take jobs when people stop coming up with new ideas for goods and services.

[MigL]

At one time I was gainfully employed as a pyramid builder, I was paid two meals a day and all the lashes of a whip that I wanted.

I lost that job to new technology.

I demand we return to those 'better times'.

 

Other than the heavy sarcasm there are several points I'm making.

[Phi for All]

There were numerous events and decisions that led to that downturn and loss of jobs.I think more automation will cut deeply into jobs recovery, especially AI, e.g., driverless vehicles. Manufacturing will not be the only affected industry. In some cases large programming projects are needed before automation takes over jobs. We do not know when and what software is nearly ready, and cannot estimate how quickly jobs will be lost. Only time will tell.

 

I think you're focusing on the jobs lost and ignoring the jobs gained. I don't think it's so much about people losing jobs as people changing jobs. Also, most things that improve tend to bring dividends we don't always expect. The car I use when I'm racking up miles is a 17 year-old Honda, and probably cost a few mechanic jobs because it just hardly ever needed to go into the shop for repairs the whole time I've owned it. But I helped the economy by spending the money I saved on car repair on other things. It worked out just fine, and I'd like to think my money worked more efficiently for me. I bought products that employed others because I didn't have to fix my Honda.

 

If we learn any lessons from the most recent recession, I hope those at the top will realize that people need to make a decent wage if you expect them to be able to buy your stuff. And automation should help productivity, which should be more closely tied to wages.

[EdEarl]

Well, I'm having difficulty finding accurate information. I used http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServletto get the number of jobs added and lost from 1964 through 2014, and summed their data to find that 82,685,000 jobs have been added to the US job market. Elsewhere I found the population for 1964 and 2014 to be 191.9 million and 319.3 million, which is a change of 127.4 million. Thus, jobs are trailing population gain by (127.4-82.7) by 44.7 million. Thus, the percentage of people working in 1964 was higher than the percentage working in 2014 (assuming the statistics are correct). If the same percentage of people want work now as 1964, and that is effective job loss regardless of there being more total jobs. The reason it is an effective loss of jobs is that it no longer takes as many jobs per capita to produce goods and services for the population as it once did. I think it is at least partly due to automation.

Edited December 22, 2014 by EdEarl

[swansont]

Well, I'm having difficulty finding accurate information. I used http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServletto get the number of jobs added and lost from 1964 through 2014, and summed their data to find that 82,685,000 jobs have been added to the US job market. Elsewhere I found the population for 1964 and 2014 to be 191.9 million and 319.3 million, which is a change of 127.4 million. Thus, jobs are trailing population gain by (127.4-82.7) by 44.7 million. Thus, the percentage of people working in 1964 was higher than the percentage working in 2014 (assuming the statistics are correct). If the same percentage of people want work now as 1964, and that is effective job loss regardless of there being more total jobs. The reason it is an effective loss of jobs is that it no longer takes as many jobs per capita to produce goods and services for the population as it once did. I think it is at least partly due to automation.

 

That doesn't jibe with this

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/EMRATIO_Max_630_378.png

 

Also interesting how job losses correlate with recessions. Unless there was some technology that happened to be introduced coincident with those economic downturns.

[Acme]

Well, I'm having difficulty finding accurate information. I used http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServletto get the number of jobs added and lost from 1964 through 2014, and summed their data to find that 82,685,000 jobs have been added to the US job market. Elsewhere I found the population for 1964 and 2014 to be 191.9 million and 319.3 million, which is a change of 127.4 million. Thus, jobs are trailing population gain by (127.4-82.7) by 44.7 million. Thus, the percentage of people working in 1964 was higher than the percentage working in 2014 (assuming the statistics are correct). If the same percentage of people want work now as 1964, and that is effective job loss regardless of there being more total jobs. The reason it is an effective loss of jobs is that it no longer takes as many jobs per capita to produce goods and services for the population as it once did. I think it is at least partly due to automation.

I get an error message from that link; data not available.

 

Anyway, unless one takes into account how many in that population rise retire and how many are too young to work, your simplistic calculation is invalid.

[EdEarl]

 

That doesn't jibe with this

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/EMRATIO_Max_630_378.png

 

Also interesting how job losses correlate with recessions. Unless there was some technology that happened to be introduced coincident with those economic downturns.

All I did is add month to month and year by year data. I wouldn't be surprised if various BLS data is not in agreement, because powerful people want favorable reports or collecting accurate data is difficult.

[Delta1212]

I think it's also worth looking at the quality of jobs replaced with those that replace them.

 

If the economy loses 10 jobs working in a coal mine and gains 9 desk jobs, is that a good thing or a bad thing?

[Dekan]

I used to serve in a statistical department of the UK Civil Service. The statistics we were required to produce, were to put it mildly, not always entirely scientifically based.

Edited December 22, 2014 by Dekan