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
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
Re:History and technology (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