Now maybe the left can pay some attention to technological change....which has been out of style among Marxists since the 1970s....alas.
On 12/9/12, Eugene Coyle <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Thanks to Tom Walker for noting this. Krugman is clearly making a > transition from a single focus on the stimulus to ... well, he'll have to > end up advocating cutting working hours. If education won't reduce > inequality, which he acknowledges in this piece, and the stimulus won't > restore full employment -- which he doesn't quite get to yet -- then cutting > working hours must be in the policy mix. > > Two cheers for Krugman. > > Gene > > > http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/08/rise-of-the-robots/ > > > December 8, 2012, 8:37 am233 Comments > Rise of the Robots > Catherine Rampell and Nick Wingfield write about the growing evidence for > “reshoring” of manufacturing to the United States. They cite several > reasons: rising wages in Asia; lower energy costs here; higher > transportation costs. In afollowup piece, however, Rampell cites another > factor: robots. > > The most valuable part of each computer, a motherboard loaded with > microprocessors and memory, is already largely made with robots, according > to my colleague Quentin Hardy. People do things like fitting in batteries > and snapping on screens. > > As more robots are built, largely by other robots, “assembly can be done > here as well as anywhere else,” said Rob Enderle, an analyst based in San > Jose, Calif., who has been following the computer electronics industry for a > quarter-century. “That will replace most of the workers, though you will > need a few people to manage the robots.” > Robots mean that labor costs don’t matter much, so you might as well locate > in advanced countries with large markets and good infrastructure (which may > soon not include us, but that’s another issue). On the other hand, it’s not > good news for workers! > > This is an old concern in economics; it’s “capital-biased technological > change”, which tends to shift the distribution of income away from workers > to the owners of capital. > > Twenty years ago, when I was writing about globalization and inequality, > capital bias didn’t look like a big issue; the major changes in income > distribution had been among workers (when you include hedge fund managers > and CEOs among the workers), rather than between labor and capital. So the > academic literature focused almost exclusively on “skill bias”, supposedly > explaining the rising college premium. > > But the college premium hasn’t risen for a while. What has happened, on the > other hand, is a notable shift in income away from labor: > > > If this is the wave of the future, it makes nonsense of just about all the > conventional wisdom on reducing inequality. Better education won’t do much > to reduce inequality if the big rewards simply go to those with the most > assets. Creating an “opportunity society”, or whatever it is the likes of > Paul Ryan etc. are selling this week, won’t do much if the most important > asset you can have in life is, well, lots of assets inherited from your > parents. And so on. > > I think our eyes have been averted from the capital/labor dimension of > inequality, for several reasons. It didn’t seem crucial back in the 1990s, > and not enough people (me included!) have looked up to notice that things > have changed. It has echoes of old-fashioned Marxism — which shouldn’t be a > reason to ignore facts, but too often is. And it has really uncomfortable > implications. > > But I think we’d better start paying attention to those implications. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
