Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It occurred to me today that the current economic process of automation, offshoring, etc. is very similar in effect to the enclosure movement in Europe. The loss of access to assets impoverished a whole class of people. On the up side, it cleared peasants off the land and made modern agriculture possible, while concentrating wealth in the hands of a small number of powerful people.
I don't think most people understand the massive changes that the automation movement will make in society.
It occurred to me today that the current economic process of automation, offshoring, etc. is very similar in effect to the enclosure movement in Europe. The loss of access to assets impoverished a whole class of people. On the up side, it cleared peasants off the land and made modern agriculture possible, while concentrating wealth in the hands of a small number of powerful people.
I don't think most people understand the massive changes that the automation movement will make in society.
I don't think "movement" is the right word. It's a steady process that has been going on since the 1700's when the Industrial Revolution got going.
I don't think "movement" is the right word. It's a steady process that has been going on since the 1700's when the Industrial Revolution got going.
No, the process has been going on for about 50 years. Norbert Weiner didn't even invent cybernetics until 1946, and the initial implementations were pretty crude. The industrial revolution replaced muscle power with machine power, but created more jobs than it destroyed. Modern automation, OTOH, destroys far more jobs than it creates.
Automation is a little different than mechanization.
Mechanization has been occurring for a very, very long time, really kicking off with the industrial revolution. It certainly existed before that, however. Simple hand tools, for example. If you look at the affect of mechanization, it had an amazing effect. It basically completely turned jobs on their head. It starts with agriculture, where 70% of the workforce used to toil. Today that's about 2-3%. But it went beyond that.
Automation is just a progression of that. Mechanization affected my job very little. It was largely done the same from the 1700s up to about 1980. Prior to that, you had probably about two secretarial positions. Now adays it's pretty unheard of to have your own secretary, and you're lucky if the ratio is 2:1. Computers do the lion's share of the work. In something like what my mom does (laboratory technician), the productivity is probably more like ten times rather than three times. In both of our cases, however, the amount of work has more than expanded to offset that. At the lower skill level, however, people are less needed. There's fewer lab assistants and specimen processors today. The machines are highly automated and do a lot of that lower level work automatically.
The economy changes so fast these days, it's hard to say. I don't really know that low-skilled workers are going to be all that needed. Eventually it's very possible there will be another leap in computing and my job will be replaced, or at least drastically altered. While you'll still need computer operators for a long time to come, I could see computers in my lifespan being able to do about 80% of the work that people still do (on top of ~1/2 or 2/3rds they already do). I could maybe survive on half my income, but I don't see making it on 20%.
Automation is a little different than mechanization.
Mechanization has been occurring for a very, very long time, really kicking off with the industrial revolution. It certainly existed before that, however. Simple hand tools, for example. If you look at the affect of mechanization, it had an amazing effect. It basically completely turned jobs on their head. It starts with agriculture, where 70% of the workforce used to tool. Today that's about 2-3%. But it went beyond that.
Automation is just a progression of that. Mechanization affected my job very little. It was largely done the same from the 1700s up to about 1980. Prior to that, you had probably about two secretarial positions. Now adays it's pretty unheard of to have your own secretary, and you're lucky if the ratio is 2:1. Computers do the lion's share of the work. In something like what my mom does (laboratory technician), the productivity is probably more like ten times rather than three times. In both of our cases, however, the amount of work has more than expanded to offset that. At the lower skill level, however, people are less needed. There's fewer lab assistants and specimen processors today. The machines are highly automated and do a lot of that lower level work automatically.
How can you not consider a shift from (for instance) hand-washing clothes to machine-washing to be a form of automation?
from dictionary.com:
automatic
[aw-tuh-mat-ik] Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
adjective
1.
having the capability of starting, operating, moving, etc., independently:
an automatic sprinkler system; an automatic car wash.
Early washing machines didn't really have any capability of starting, operating, moving, etc, independently. It really wasn't until they became automatic that they gained popularity very rapidly. Back when you had to manually put the water and soap in, run each article of clothing through the wringer one by one, manually drain the soapy water out, manually refill the water, manually run each article of clothing through the wringer again... that's a lot of work. If you're talking about the pre-electric ones, they were even more work as you manually had to churn it as well.
Today washing machines are much more automated than they were in the 1920s. The actual mechanics of them are pretty similar, really. I mean, they're way more sophisticated today but the basic concept is the same aside from replacing wringers with a spin cycle.
Washing machines are a marginal example of automation. You still have to put the clothes in, take them out and dry them somehow, fold them and put them away. Only the actual washing process is automatic. The automation I am talking about takes feed stock in one end and pushes a finished product out the other, like automobiles. Factories that used to employ a thousand workers now get by with a few dozen, who don't actually do anything but watch the machines and intervene if the automation screws up somehow. There is a Walmart automated warehouse not far from me. It covers 15 acres. There are a few employees, but all the warehouse work is done by a computerized conveyor system. No one actually works on the warehouse floor.
There has been a qualitative shift. Mechanization just put a mechanical tool in the worker's hand. Automation eliminates the worker.
The economy changes so fast these days, it's hard to say. I don't really know that low-skilled workers are going to be all that needed. Eventually it's very possible there will be another leap in computing and my job will be replaced, or at least drastically altered. While you'll still need computer operators for a long time to come, I could see computers in my lifespan being able to do about 80% of the work that people still do (on top of ~1/2 or 2/3rds they already do). I could maybe survive on half my income, but I don't see making it on 20%.
Yep. Been also studied out some decades back.
In general, one of the easiest "fixes" is to just let everyone who is working -- work less.
While even keeping their total wages the same, or better.
In application -- If automation or production gains result in 10% surplus labor . . . . then letting the 90% who are still working . . . work 10% less, while maintaining their 100% wages, and filling in the new surplus labor -- the system level is maintained.
As those not working are truly not doing so for "free" on a system level, there is no real additional cost -- a Man-Day (or Person-Day) is still a Day.
The Work Week drops from 40 (or so) hours to 36. Everyone is still "needed," and everyone benefits.
This would also stop the wealth from accumulating to the upper end. Oh, I just figured out who would not like this.
It occurred to me today that the current economic process of automation, offshoring, etc. is very similar in effect to the enclosure movement in Europe.
How ethnocentric.
I guess you think the other 5 continents are merely illusions.
Did you know that in Burkina Faso, the average household spends 23.5 hours per week getting water?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip T
The Work Week drops from 40 (or so) hours to 36. Everyone is still "needed," and everyone benefits.
That was invented in Europe, by governments that feared losing power due to perennially high unemployment rates.
It's called Job-Sharing.
It's a propaganda tool to make UE Rate data look better than it really is.
The underlying problem that caused the unemployment is not solved.....it's merely covered up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip T
This would also stop the wealth from accumulating to the upper end.
That's impossible.
You need to learn the difference between Income and Wealth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric
Automation is a little different than mechanization.
Correct.
Technology has always displaced workers since time immemorial.
I develop the two-prong stick to put two holes in the ground to plant seeds faster, and you're out of a job.
What now?
That depends on what Capital is available.
If additional land is available for use, you can farm that, or if oceans, lakes or rivers are available you can fish, or you can hunt if hunting land is available.
If not....then you can watch grass grow or something.
Effectively, that's what is happening now.
Actually, there's lots of Capital available, but it isn't in America, it's in developing- and emerging-States.
Much of the Capital that you do have in the US is grotesquely misused and abused by government, so that it is wasted creating a drag on your economy.
In general, one of the easiest "fixes" is to just let everyone who is working -- work less.
While even keeping their total wages the same, or better.
In application -- If automation or production gains result in 10% surplus labor . . . . then letting the 90% who are still working . . . work 10% less, while maintaining their 100% wages, and filling in the new surplus labor -- the system level is maintained.
As those not working are truly not doing so for "free" on a system level, there is no real additional cost -- a Man-Day (or Person-Day) is still a Day.
The Work Week drops from 40 (or so) hours to 36. Everyone is still "needed," and everyone benefits.
This would also stop the wealth from accumulating to the upper end. Oh, I just figured out who would not like this.
Except that automation is always costly to implement. It involves capital cost and new employees. For example, if you computerize you have to buy computers. You have to train people to use computers. You have to have an IT department to keep the computers running. Computers and software is constantly improving because people are willing to spend money on them to improve productivity.
So great, you improve productivity by 10%. Say you spend $10 million on labor of you production workers. Great, now you can produce the same amount for $9 million. Of course you spent $100,000 on computer hardware, another $150,000 on software, $100,000 on training people to use the computers, and you had to add another IT person to keep it running who costs you $100,000/yr. You still come out ahead but not by the $1 million you saved.
But then you didn't save that because you unfortunately live in a communist country and the people who set the wages just told you you'd have to now pay all the workers for 40 hours of work but they'd only be working 36 hours. Now all your competition that chose not to innovate is laughing their ass off as you're driven out of business. And likewise everyone is worse of because if you'd been allowed to innovate without being penalized for it because some labor party loon doesn't like progress, then you could have grabbed market share by using your competitive advantage to offer lower prices.
Instead you'll go out of business. The companies that drive innovation, in this case computer companies, will start massive layoffs because now nobody wants improvement. They'd rather operate less efficiently and not make investments to improve the company since they'll just be penalized for doing so. The library will quickly get rid of the costly computer system and go back to those dorky little cards they used to use since the computers cost money.
GM will move all its manufacturing to Mexico since it can't afford to pay five times the number of workers $70,000 a year and compete with BMW who pays one person $70,000 and uses automation heavily. Boeing will go bankrupt and Airbus will buy it out and move all the American manufacturing abroad.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
