Robots Help Manufacturing Recover Without Adding Jobs 559
kkleiner writes "For the last 30 years, automation has enabled U.S. manufacturing output to increase and lift profits without having to add any traditional jobs. Now, in the last decade, nearly a third of manufacturing jobs are gone. As manufacturing goes the way of agriculture, the job market must shift into new types of work lest mass technological unemployment and civil unrest overtake these beneficial gains."
What year is this? (Score:5, Informative)
These exact same fears were written about in 1980. There was a famous BBC TV programme about how robots and microprocessors would replace everyone.
We already know the outcome.
Re:mass unemployment due to policies, not automati (Score:5, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What year is this? (Score:2, Informative)
These exact same fears were written about in 1880.
Even earlier: The Luddites [wikipedia.org] were most active in the 1810s.
Every wave of automation works the same way
And every wave of automation creates the same fears from people that don't understand economics. If you believe the lump of labor fallacy [wikipedia.org], as most people do, then it is obvious that robots will displace humans. Of course, real economies don't work that way, but neo-Luddites and economic illiterates will continue to believe that poverty is caused by improvements in productivity.
Re:What year is this? (Score:3, Informative)
This chart indicates productivity has increased, but the gains have gone to the 1% at the top:
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/09/04/opinion/04reich-graphic.html?ref=sunday [nytimes.com]
Re:What year is this? (Score:5, Informative)
But incomes went up.
Yes, but for whom? [motherjones.com]
It does not matter (Score:4, Informative)
Even if automation does increase unemployment without creating new opportunities, that is no reason to stop. The correct response is not "lets halt science and engineering so that everybody can continue doing work that humans no longer need to do." That makes no sense.
The correct response is, "now that fewer humans need to work, we can establish new socialist policies to meet their needs anyway."
That, however, rubs red-blooded Americans the wrong way, meaning that the actual response is (and will continue to be):
"Automate away! Anyone who can't adapt and find new work can conveniently starve to death or turn to crime and wind up in jail, where taxpayer dollars will provide for all their needs but breeding will not be an option, resulting in an eventual die-off of all non-essential humans."
That's just how people do things around here, for better or for worse.
Re:Increased leisure time (Score:4, Informative)
Most people spend their extra money on basic essentials: rent and food and health care, things that existed in the 1970s. Get outside of the sheltered bubble and look around at all the poor people in other neighborhoods. Sure they may have cell phones (usually not smart ones) but those are often a necessity of life also if you want to find and keep a job.
Re:What year is this? (Score:4, Informative)
How will the common man pay for these, if the common man doesn't have a job? That's the real problem: at some point the service industry has to connect to manufacturing industry for manufactured goods to flow. And the less manufacturing jobs are left, the less weddings or home theaters the people working them require.
I suppose the absolute best outcome of this would be a huge upsurge of cultural production (entertainment), but that would require a huge cultural change and lots of re-education as well.