by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Wednesday December 03, 2014 @04:53PM (#48517365)
Gladwell: I'm a skeptic. We've been replacing human labor with machines for getting on to 200 years now. Someone needs to convince me why the current automation revolution is any different from the numerous automation revolutions that have come before. A lot of the scare mongering that occurs over this issue seems to me to come from people who aren't reading their history.
I think he shouldn't rely on history so much - although, skepticism is warranted.
Technology changes history and historical patterns - computers, anyone?. Looking back on history and thinking the exact same thing will happen the same way is an over simplification of the complexities of economics and society. It is just as silly as the folks who say automation is going to replace all workers.
In the past in regards to automation, there were plenty of industries that were growing and needed human labor at all levels and more than compensated for the loss of jobs in the newly automated industry. The trouble with today is that automation is affecting all industries at all levels of employment. And new industries are automating as much as they can - and also many new industries are just not as labor intensive as old ones: for example, comparing manufacturing with social media. The Internet industry just doesn't need that many people to generate revenues as say the autmotive industry - even with their robots.
It has been estimated that to do the same amount of business that Amazon does with Mom&Pop stores would require 1 million or more people. Amazon does it with a little more than 30,000 - mostly temps.
The affects of automation is quite a complex issue and brushing it off as "nonsense! Look at the Industrial revolution!" or "The robots will make labor obsolete!" are both hyperbolic and do not reflect reality and what is actually happening in our economy.
Technology changes history and historical patterns - computers, anyone?
Computers, what? Computers automated the jobs of thousands of transcriptionists, accountants, and filing clerks. Many of the displaced found work in programming, desktop publishing, and web design, and the automation allowed massive increases in productivity. It's not fundamentally any different than displacing thousands of cotton pickers with tractors, or thousands of stevedores with container handlers.
The issue is not the degree of automation in any absolute sense, but whether or not automation is displacing jobs faster than the labour market can adjust. It's a valid question - there's no reason to think that this iteration of automation will be different than past ones, but also no reason to think it won't.
It's not just a question of automation speed vs. speed of labor market adjustment, but also a question of what people with lower skills can contribute economically. Before the Industrial Revolution, there was always work as a farm hand. During the Industrial Revolution, there was always factory work. Nowadays, the equivalent seems to be in the service sector, which doesn't seem to have the same opportunities as factory worker, and we're seeing low-level service jobs being automated. I'm also not sure w
Dealing with the problem of pure staff accumulation,
all our researches ... point to an average increase of 5.75% per year.
-- C.N. Parkinson
History and technology (Score:3, Interesting)
Gladwell: I'm a skeptic. We've been replacing human labor with machines for getting on to 200 years now. Someone needs to convince me why the current automation revolution is any different from the numerous automation revolutions that have come before. A lot of the scare mongering that occurs over this issue seems to me to come from people who aren't reading their history.
I think he shouldn't rely on history so much - although, skepticism is warranted.
Technology changes history and historical patterns - computers, anyone?. Looking back on history and thinking the exact same thing will happen the same way is an over simplification of the complexities of economics and society. It is just as silly as the folks who say automation is going to replace all workers.
In the past in regards to automation, there were plenty of industries that were growing and needed human labor at all levels and more than compensated for the loss of jobs in the newly automated industry. The trouble with today is that automation is affecting all industries at all levels of employment. And new industries are automating as much as they can - and also many new industries are just not as labor intensive as old ones: for example, comparing manufacturing with social media. The Internet industry just doesn't need that many people to generate revenues as say the autmotive industry - even with their robots.
It has been estimated that to do the same amount of business that Amazon does with Mom&Pop stores would require 1 million or more people. Amazon does it with a little more than 30,000 - mostly temps.
The affects of automation is quite a complex issue and brushing it off as "nonsense! Look at the Industrial revolution!" or "The robots will make labor obsolete!" are both hyperbolic and do not reflect reality and what is actually happening in our economy.
Anyway, see here. [technologyreview.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Technology changes history and historical patterns - computers, anyone?
Computers, what? Computers automated the jobs of thousands of transcriptionists, accountants, and filing clerks. Many of the displaced found work in programming, desktop publishing, and web design, and the automation allowed massive increases in productivity. It's not fundamentally any different than displacing thousands of cotton pickers with tractors, or thousands of stevedores with container handlers.
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is not the degree of automation in any absolute sense, but whether or not automation is displacing jobs faster than the labour market can adjust. It's a valid question - there's no reason to think that this iteration of automation will be different than past ones, but also no reason to think it won't.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just a question of automation speed vs. speed of labor market adjustment, but also a question of what people with lower skills can contribute economically. Before the Industrial Revolution, there was always work as a farm hand. During the Industrial Revolution, there was always factory work. Nowadays, the equivalent seems to be in the service sector, which doesn't seem to have the same opportunities as factory worker, and we're seeing low-level service jobs being automated. I'm also not sure w