Should We Fear "the End of Work"?

" Here's perhaps the fundamental question about what's going on in the American economy as it struggles to recover from the Great Recession: "How is this recovery different from other recoveries?" Or is it?

To put it in economese , is the persistently high level of unemployment a result of cyclical factors (the traditional ups and downs of economic growth) or structural factors (new game-changing technologies, dramatic shifts in the global economy)? The NewsHour has covered this debate several times, including economists duking it out in one recent instance .

From one decades-long leading student of the American economy came a succinct one-liner in favor of cyclicality: "This isn't a jobless economic recovery as everyone insists on calling it; it's simply just not yet a recovery."

In other words, as painful as the waiting certainly is, the economy will heal -- and once again, create jobs -- in time. "

Machines require neither time off nor health insurance . Under the current paradigm that means they will be used whenever they can be . Clearly there must be a change in paradigm .

John,

I think similarly as what you implicated....Productivity 'can' be good if it means increased employment for us, but it 'always' good for business, which is why advanced technology will prevail, but I don't see how the current advancement of technology will mean increased employment.

I tend to disagree with the "leading student of American Economy" and see structural factors, rather than cyclical factors, as the culprit to ending economic provisions as we currently know them. Some human labor will always be necessary it would seem, but I don't know how we can compare the Digital and Robotic Age with the Industrial Revolution, do you...or anyone else?

Just for quick reference from Wiki:

The Industrial Revolution was the transition to new manufacturing processes in the period from about 1760 to some time between 1820 and 1840. This transition included going from hand production methods to machines , new chemical manufacturing and iron production processes , improved efficiency of water power , the increasing use of steam power and the development of machine tools . It also included the change from wood and other bio-fuels to coal. It began in Great Britain and within a few decades had spread to Western Europe and the United States.

The Industrial Revolution marks a major turning point in history; almost every aspect of daily life was influenced in some way . In particular, average income and population began to exhibit unprecedented sustained growth. In the words of Nobel Prize winner Robert E. Lucas, Jr. , "For the first time in history, the living standards of the masses of ordinary people have begun to undergo sustained growth... Nothing remotely like this economic behavior is mentioned by the classical economists, even as a theoretical possibility." ^{[ 2 ]}

The differences that resulted, those that I bolded, meant that *change* in resources, or improving resources, were necessary to create the new "machine" which lead to increased employment in harvesting or creating those resources.

With robotics 'some' human monitoring would be needed, but the future *changes* to the robotics industry would seem to be accomplished by the robotics themselves--not done by human labor. In other words, the 'resources' needed to improve robotics can be manufactured, harvested and implemented far more expeditiously and with efficacy that a human could never accomplish...

This is 'not' another Industrial Revolution, in my view.

Thank you Flame and Petey for stopping by, too.... I appreciate everyone's time and interest in contributing!

Good article Chloe,

Both flame and Petey make very good points, and I tend to agree with both of them.

Hi Kavika,

Thank you, and I agree with them, too. Increased productivity and saving in labor costs is what it's all about. I don't disagree with those goals...wasted energy isn't good for anyone. But, I want the goals to meet the peoples' needs just as much as the Industry's. I'm not referring to contracted work, but creating a 'need' for full-time employment.

One limiting factor may be : as people become unemployed their spending on unnecessary purchases drops precipitously . That results in even less demand for all of these non-essential goods .

EI,

First, thank you for contributing. I'm happy you noticed the article.

I agree that for measurement purposes, the methodology would be skewed due to the effects of Globalization, combined with foreign labor that is cheaper, as well as incorporating robotics that can get the job done faster, but also do a better job. For example, a plane might be built in the US but have an engine from India and labor, e.g. painting, performed by a robot.... yet, we measure 'our' economy by that combined combined production as you point out. Here's an example of how robotics in painting at a Seattle area Boeing plant not only improve expeditiously, but also the quality of the job=productivity, as I see it:

Boeing is using robots to help speed the production of its 777 commercial aircraft at an assembly plant in Washington state.

The Seattle Times reports that two robots now help paint Boeing 777 wings at the aerospace company's assembly plant in Everett, Wash. What normally takes a human team 4.5 hours to paint the first coat, the robots can complete in only 24 minutes.

It's a robotic system called the "Automated Spray Method" or ASM. Boeing says the robots take care of washing, priming and painting the wings, as the wings are horizontally held in place. Human employees still have to press a few buttons, as well as load/unload paint, mask the wings and service the robots.

mashable

__

In the case of Boeing, the report states they are still 90% manual, and robotics have not yet replaced human labor, just displaced it...there are still other areas for people, and there are still buttons to push, paint containers to fill, repair on the bots, etc. ...But my point with the Ind. Rev. is "change." ...That's where I see a correlation to what is happening now. Change is always necessary and the change always involves changing resources...even humans as a resource, which is what we are seeing now. Changing resources 'used' to mean 'more' human resource was necessary, now 'less' human resource is necessary.

I would imagine outsourcing will go by the wayside as more robotics are incorporated--less people and increased time/labor efficiency=productivity, as you pointed out...so, not only does that mean our economic measuring stick is skewed, but the whole world's measure would be off-kilter.

So back to my pointing to the Industrial Revolution and 'why' it meant " average income and population began to exhibit unprecedented sustained growth."

Because of the necessity of new resources when implementing 'future' changes... New resources for new machines used to require increased human labor. But, as I pointed out, I think machines will improve themselves, not people, for the reasons I mentioned here--increased efficacy and they do a better job. I think Boeing is going to increase their productivity in the near future after going to Munich, observing car manufacturing; I expect all industry to eventually go that direction. Human labor is obsolete...and we can't all be the 'Chief' -- what's the middle class going to do?

I agree it's a different kind of industrial revolution. That's exactly my point... we need the revolution to function like the old one did. Without the increased income...population growth will be affected...less population will reflect lower living standards...lower living standards will reflect a poor local economy. Who wins? Global Business and Governments.

'It all just works out in the end'. ...Yes, but for whom. It's predicted the middle class will disappear, resulting in a 70% low class and a 30% higher class, as there will only be so many of those positions necessary due to increased technology.

Is there anything to prevent what appears to be the inevitable?

Thanks for the great example ...

EI, Might their volume increase if they were able to provide a quality product at a cheaper price to their bidders, passing on their cost savings if they let go of a higher percentage of employees?

What if Boeing looked like this BMW plant in Germany? The people don't do the work...just a few employees 'monitor' the jobs the bots are doing. (You've probably seen this in person, but perhaps others here haven't.)

Thank you, Petey (if you were talking to me:).

Thank you for those insights. I don't have much knowledge of the industry. I don't know how easy it would be to take market share away Airbus, considering limited demand, so it seems their strategy would lean more towards looking for ways 'to keep their current market share and profits.' If the overall economy continues to tighten, then price might be a factor for others ordering new planes (or maybe not--just guessing). The fact that they were studying German car assembly automation, caused me to wonder if they want less human labor.

EI,

(most of the new purchases of airliners is actually a result not of normal replacement patterns, but regulatory changes

Interesting, I hadn't thought of regulations causing a need for new planes.

Regulation changes are causing airlines to replace their aircraft, which is good for business), and then Boeing/Airbus would base their product mix and production schedule on those needs.

It sure would be good for business. Someone once stated there is 'planned' obsolescence in mechanics; I wonder if changing regulations are any part of that, or if the reasons for change are for things like safety and pollution that wouldn't necessarily be planned?

This process is actually normal, what isn't normal is the acceleration of the process.

Food for thought for me..

There are a lot of good ideas I've read in this article. Thanks for having it Chloe.

I scanned several articles, with them all saying about the same thing... so I just picked one. The Atlantic:

Corporate profits have soared, in the last decade especially, particularly because of three things: Globalization has pushed down the cost of labor available to multinational corporations; technology has allowed companies to make more with fewer workers, in general; and Big Finance has gobbled up the economy, as the banks' share of total corporate profits has tripled to about one-third since the middle of the last century, according to Evan Soltas.

theatlantic

Thank you for stopping by and taking a look, Six!

Change is inevitable in the whole scenario being presented here, Chloe. Although you say these developments must be like the Industrial Revolution of the past in order to make for sustainable employment and living standards, we have to remember that many of the facets of this change is not exactly controllable by us, who created them. As EI states, nothing is "local" anymore, not even domestic. So the question remains - who is going to stem the tide? Can we do so at all? I frankly doubt it. And what it will mean decades from now, we shall find out then. Our engineering feats have altered the image of the world and its economy and boundaries and definitions of that change are still evolving.

Neetu, thank you for being here..

we have to remember that many of the facets of this change is not exactly controllable by us, who created them. As EI states, nothing is "local" anymore, not even domestic.

Yes, I agree, I commented on that, too, as a facet of the overall issue.

I think we as citizens shouldn't have to feel hopeless and helpless as a result, waiting for the inevitable end-goal of the current path. Several articles on different sites are all forecasting the same thing---the current path will lead to the removal of middle-class jobs because automation will be performing them, but they will still need a few people to push buttons, etc., but the better paid jobs will be fewer and far between. ..And how long before the bots will be pushing the buttons and servicing themselves. A projected 70/30 ratio for low income vs. higher income, nationally, is unacceptable to me.

I remember 5-10 years ago when many were saying we're on the path to becoming a third-world nation, economically. Many scoffed at them, calling them alarmists and Conspiracy Theorists. Well, it's here and staring us in the face...or is 'fate' a better word.

Generally, I don't like articles that just whine without offering a proposal or solution, so my intention in seeding this was to remind us of the powerful, positive effect the Industrial Revolution had and 'why'.

I do think that we should have machines to aid us, but not to replace us. ...Electric, gas, steam and other forms of powered equipment were a beneficial invention... and the equipment themselves. But, if a day comes that the farm equipment, or commercial heavy machinery for construction is run and operated by themselves (like cars are now capable of doing), then I think we will have done a grave injustice to mankind and his hopes for prosperity, all done in the name of 'profit' to benefit the minority, not those that contribute to the factors of a healthy economy for 'all.'

The program didn't save my edits...Well, I added a lot more and discussed my solutions, but I hate trying to repeat something previously stated...so, at least you know that I attempted to do more than just whine. LOL

as long as there are those to build a better mousetrap, there will be demand, andthose to work at its production

Very good point JoAnne!! It does seem to work that way, and if that continues, we should see some employment benefits... at least for a while, until production is handed over to another country or the bots.

Well, Chloe, the need for manpower is indeed decreasing and the population of the world has multiplied manifold since the Industrial Revolution. Resources are being stretched to the utmost and there are bound to be repercussions from all of the complexities of development. It is not a question of helplessness, at least I don't think so. It is a question of adapting to the innovations and the changes. The jobs of yesterday are gone and new training and expertise in areas of demand need to be part of the solution. Where is the demand? Part of that solution is to clearly understand that many parts of the world are still "growth" areas with potential for everyone. Demand for material goods, technology, infrastructure, energy, etc is still very high in other developing countries. We have been saturated with products we no longer need in the US and other developed countries; instead the demand is growing in the third world countries because of the pace of development and greater opportunities than here. Therefore, the solution does not lie in protectionism, rather, it lies in the globalization for mutual benefit.

I do not speak the language of economists and experts. I speak from an ordinary perspective of someone who see the shifting opportunities from a commonsense point of view. I do think the middle class is affected; however, this middle class is also the class that can provide the service in industries that serve the global community. They need to be educated and trained to meet those needs.

Therefore, the solution does not lie in protectionism, rather, it lies in the globalization for mutual benefit.

That thought was part of what I lost with the edit feature that wouldn't work. Personally, I tend to agree with that paragraph I quoted in the article I posted to EI's group. It was the site that proposed the reason why Globalism will never benefit 'all,' (but primarily the International banks and global investors...the reasons relating to Nato, Nafta et al---my thoughts).

I find I agree with your thinking/logic as to where opportunity exists...China and a few others see the opportunity as well, although I believe the inevitable and logical consequence that comes with growth is hitting them---price (due to wage increase to a degree, although I read they are getting into automation, so wages may be less of an issue in the near future). I was referencing your comment here:

Part of that solution is to clearly understand that many parts of the world are still "growth" areas with potential for everyone. Demand for material goods, technology, infrastructure, energy, etc is still very high in other developing countries.

I don't see the 'personal' benefit in regards to "potential for everyone." How does that help the average person find a job that aids 'our' economy...we can't just work, we need to put the product back into the economy...the product, that then increases the snowball-effect causing more 'need' when we use that product in our economy. Likewise, if we primarily buy the product from someone else, we aren't earning the income to buy it. I'm not an expert either, but I've reports that use common-sense on why it doesn't have a balancing effect... human nature, and the fact that we don't all 'want' the same things...products and from life in general.

We have been saturated with products we no longer need in the US and other developed countries;

Exactly...and as that quote I was mentioning stated - that's the inevitable for all nations, and then what after they are "saturated."

Just for reference, I'll quote that author's paragraph again (there was more to his statements--I only highlighted this part in the economics group's article):

" Economists have a theory that when all trade is free, countries will produce only what they are best able to produce. Since inefficiencies are purged from the marketplace, everybody becomes relatively industrious and prosperous. This will never happen in the real world, of course, as mother nature and human nature (meaning greed) will see to it that inefficiencies remain for a long time to come. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as global prosperity and there never will be, for if there was, it would lead to massive overproduction. This would cause an economic depression far more severe, and far more global, than the depression of the 1930's. The sad truth is that the world will always need "have-not" countries for this very reason. The question is, will we become one of these have-not countries due to the poorly written trade laws that the President and Congress keep getting us into? "

Btw, I not saying I think you are wrong or that either of us is right---just discussing.

I know. It is a discussion. We are living in an increasingly global world. If we don't accept that, it is at our own peril, is what I think. You cannot reverse the trend. The idea is to embrace it and collectively serve it.

This country reminds me of an automobile running much too rich on fuel and is sputtering instead of running smoothly. There's no real enthusiasm today as there has been in the past.

I think the motivation is slowly being taken away from everyday people to think of the rewards they could experience from their efforts.

Betterment of mankind has not been the motivation that has produced most of the improvements or even inventions in our lives. It has been the betterment of oneself. If you think the goodwill of man will produce innovations that change people's lives forever you may as well get yourself some roses and stand on the side of the road sell them for $10.00 a dozen.

The uncertainty of the future is not by accident. We are experiencing this uncertainty by design.

I was told several years ago we would be a Banana Republic in 3 years. Based on the experience of this individual from his birthplace, the place he spent most of his life and seeing what is happening here in the United States today I think he was right.

Well it has been over 3 years now. I don't think many know we are a Banana Republic already. We just haven't come to realization of it. And it isn't because we don't have the capacity to avoid this. It is the objective we are blind.

We can sit around the table and discuss the models as a way to change this scenario all day long, but unless we eliminate and stop ignoring the reason for these problems it will not make one bit of difference.

We're living in a dream world. We have 11 million people out of work and fruit rotting on the vines and trees because we have a society that thinks they are worth more than the pay they will receive, so they sit at home and just receive benefits paid to them by the government. We have over 100 million receiving food benefits.

Too many have given up on self responsibility in spite of the obstacles they must overcome. There's no reason to go out and build a better mousetrap when you didn't build that. What kind of motivation speech is that?

I was told one time a person will change in most cases when they have to change. We have too many safety nets that never go away and no reason to try and do better. Too many people are looking for a job and can't find one. This is the new age. They sit at home, send out a few resumes and sit back and wait to see if someone bites. Then they complain they can't find a job. If you really want something you will go and get it. But that line of thinking is despise by many today.

I know this is entirely different than anything else posted here, but the mood of this country isn't in drive, it's in neutral. And in neutral we aren't going anywhere real fast and since we need to be climbing up this hill we are actually rolling backward every day.

I think you're effectively running in the same direction as the article... (You know how you can be on an interstate, and there's a country road running along side? Well, you're the country road--it might take a little longer to get there--slower speed, more round-about instead of a bee-line path--but it still eventually gets there.)

You're proposing a ('the'?) solution, what needs to be done--self-motivation instead of giving in to the governments goals. I don't see any Conspiracy Theory in saying Globalism is meant to benefit other than the nations' best interests... I do believe it's about control and profit for the Hierarchy; they will own everything, so to speak--we will rent it from them through global taxes! No... that is not conspiracy--it's common sense.

Too many have given up on self responsibility in spite of the obstacles they must overcome. There's no reason to go out and build a better mousetrap when you didn't build that. What kind of motivation speech is that?

Good to mention that one again-- it's a mind controlling use of words to seed thought and produce a desired outcome, something I've brought up before under Neuro-linguistics programming. Essentially: " Sleight of Mouth is a persuasion skill, a vehicle for the reframing of beliefs. It is a system of 14 different patterns of response to a stated belief. A system that, once mastered, can allow you to always have a response that will effectively elucidate your position and help you to persuade rather than be persuaded. Simply put, it will help you win any argument, be verbally powerful and powerfully verbal." ..From Wiki.

An effective government helps the people of its own nation (and that of other nations) to help themselves, not force them to conform to a uniform standard that removes incentive and motivation. ...Better get down from that horse before I fall off. But I do believe the answer to our problems lies within ourselves, too.

Thank you for a nice comment. Definitely food for thought...