Dean Baker's reply to this article is excellent, as is a comment by George Sai-Halasz
Dean: Robots Don't Cost Jobs, Bad Economic Policy Does [image: Print]<http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/robots-dont-cost-jobs-bad-economic-policy-does/print> Sunday, 19 August 2012 06:55 The NYT had an interesting piece<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/business/new-wave-of-adept-robots-is-changing-global-industry.html?ref=business>on how a new generation of robots is able to do far more sophisticated tasks in factories and warehouses than earlier generations of robots. The piece repeatedly warns that this new technology could cost large numbers of jobs. While one outcome of the introduction of this new technology could be the loss of jobs in the economy, that would be due to inept economic policy. What the article is describing is productivity growth. This is exactly what we should want. It allows us to be richer if we work the same number of hours or to be as rich and work fewer hours. We had very rapid productivity growth in the three decades following World War II. It did not lead to unemployment, but rather to rapidly rising living standards for the bulk of the population. In the last three decades the government has pursued policies that have the effect of redistributing income upward so that the gains from growth are not broadly shared. These policies include a high dollar policy that makes U.S. manufacturing goods less competitive domestically and internationally, a policy of selective protectionism that largely protects the most highly educated professionals (e.g. doctors and lawyers) from foreign competition, and a policy of shifting tens of billions of dollars each year to Wall Street banks through "too big to fail" insurance provided at zero cost by the government. If this new generation of robots ends up making large segments of the population worse off, it will be the result of deliberate policies. It is not the fault of the robots. George Sai-Halasz: Economist were way too slow to wake up to reality. They have been indoctrinated in the “lump of labor fallacy” fallacy. For people who were actually in the trenches working to create the computer power allowing today’s developments, like myself, the writing has long been visible on the wall. See my letter to the NYT of more than 19 years ago: http://www.nytimes.com/1993/02/28/business/l-don-t-cut-jobs-cut-working-... On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Louis Proyect <[email protected]> wrote: > Marx, V. 1 of Capital, chapter 15: > --- > > NY Times August 18, 2012 > Skilled Work, Without the Worker > By JOHN MARKOFF > > -- Cheers, Tom Walker (Sandwichman)
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
