SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Should we believe headlines claiming nearly half of all jobs will be lost to robots and artificial intelligence? We think not, and in a newly released study we explain why.
Headlines trumpeting massive job losses have been in abundance for five or so years. Even The Conversation has had its had its share.
Most come from a common source. It is a single study, conducted in 2013 by Oxford University's Carl Benedict Frey and Michael Osborne. This study lies behind the claim that 47% of jobs in the United States were at "high risk" of automation over the next ten or so years. Google Scholar says it has been cited more than 4,300 times, a figure that doesn't count newspaper headlines.
The major predictions of job losses due to automation in Australia are based directly on its findings. Commentaries about the future of work in Australia have also drawn extensively on the study.
In Australia and elsewhere the study's predictions have led to calls for a Universal Basic Income and for a "work guarantee" that would allocate the smaller number of jobs fairly.
Our new research paper concludes the former study's predictions are not well-founded.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Saturday November 02 2019, @07:19AM (3 children)
How?
I am not opposed to fixing things quickly, but I don't see how that leads to further employment.
Those two won't be making more money, because competition from all the other out-of-work-ditch-diggeres-now-turned-machine-operators will push their income back down to the same level per hour. The guy paying for the sewer will still have more money in his pocket, but the ditch-diggers collectively will have less by the same amount.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by anubi on Saturday November 02 2019, @10:55PM (1 child)
I consider inefficiently done work a variant of the "broken window fallacy".
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Sunday November 03 2019, @07:47AM
There are arguments that the broken window fallacy does not always hold true, relating mostly to full utilization of resources and velocity of money.
https://www.debate.org/debates/The-broken-window-fallacy-always-hold-true/1/ [debate.org]
Regardless of that though, productivity has been steadily climbing since the industrial age began. It's about to take another big leap. The only reason we haven't had to deal with the 'problem' of under-employment before is that consumption has been rising at the same rate, and in the past working hours have decreased. Things are changing. Employers have dropped hours as far as they are going to, and are pushing for more hours per employee. (The only reason there are so many part-time jobs in America is the distorting effect of the health-care threshold.)
I think that the balance between productivity and consumption is about to change. You can only eat so much food, watch so many big-screen TVs, and drive so many cars. Robots will saturate the goods market. You can see an effect of this already in housing prices. Shelter (rent or buy) is taking an increasing proportion of peoples income, as it is still a scarce good.
A UBI* won't solve all the problems, but it will reduce the employee pool, raise wages, and keep the 0.1%'s heads on their shoulders for a bit longer.
*If UBI is too communist for you, call it a citizenship dividend.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday November 03 2019, @12:18AM
Working sewers have considerable value. Workers can do other things now that their labor isn't tied up in repairing sewers have considerable value. Both these shifts in economic activity create more jobs. Finally, the same technology that eliminates so many jobs, creates new job opportunities.