# Why do people insist that the market will produce new jobs? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 15, 2008, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-insist-that-the-market-will-produce-new-jobs/477216 "2008-12-15T06:17:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Hellestal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3ab097/32.png) [@Hellestal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hellestal)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2008, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-insist-that-the-market-will-produce-new-jobs/477216/121 "2008-12-16T22:45:20Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > But this was happening when profits were up and the economy was supposedly good. It came from the mindset we see in this thread. Remember how the conservatives kept complaining that Bush wasn’t getting credit for the great economy, and how we responded that the economy wasn’t all that great for most people? This would actually be a great topic to discuss. Real wages have been stagnant for large segments of the workforce for damn near three decades. The problem isn’t that our economy can’t create new jobs. Our economy does create new jobs (when it’s healthy). The problem lies in the quality of the new jobs that are created. American workers have seen large productivity gains, but the increase in output wasn’t shared across the whole population. It was given to the richest among us, and exactly as you say, everyone else was asked why they couldn’t appreciate how awesome the economy was when they weren’t being given the fruits of that productivity. My problem with the OP’s statements is that they don’t deal with any of those facts. They come from a fantasy world, and that’s a tragic digression from the actual problems that we were facing even during good times. **gaffa** ’s arguments couldn’t be more intellectually bankrupt if they’d been thought up by Wall Street bankers. And I just don’t see how it’s possible to have a reasonable discussion about the facts in the same place that we have this blind defense of utter nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2008, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-insist-that-the-market-will-produce-new-jobs/477216/122 "2008-12-16T22:46:06Z")
> [@gaffa](#): > > I can only assume you haven’t been paying very close attention then. > > Some areas of medicine are essentially performed by robotics right now…you just apparently don’t think of them as such. For instance, if you’re in an intensive care ward, all your vital signs are monitored by automated processes - heart rate, blood pressure, respiration, etc. 50 years ago, that required doctors and nurses to manually perform each check. Now, a small number of nurses can constantly monitor a whole ward full of seriously ill people. Again, a good thing resulting in better patient care and improved outcomes, but also requiring a substantially smaller number of caregivers per patient. So why hasn’t this automation in health care resulted in the collapse of demand for nurses? Why has the demand for nurses skyrocketed in the last few decades? > [@](#): > > Some types of surgery are heavily robotized, like Lasik. Once the physician has peeled back the outer layer of the eye, the actual lens is reshaped by computer controlled laser. The patient is awake and the eye is not immobilized, and [the computer system tracks the position of the eye 4000 times a second](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LASIK#Laser_remodeling). The doctor obviously makes the decisions of how the eye will be re-shaped, but the actual shaping is accomplished with an accuracy and speed beyond any human hand. > > Robotic surgery is being used today for [prostate, gynecologic, urologic and cardiothoracic procedures](http://www.davincisurgery.com/index.aspx). Boy, and weren’t things better back in the old days when LASIK surgery was done by hand? Kids today, with their computer controlled LASIK surgery, putting honest LASIK eye surgeons out of work! You honestly can’t understand how these advances are GOOD things? Automating health care processes doesn’t put health care workers out on the street, it allows us to have higher levels of health care at the same price. Take a look at employment in the health care sector. According to you all these automated advances and outsourced diagostics should have led to the collapse of the job market in health care. If you would take a second to try to figure out why there are more jobs than ever in health care, you’d have figured out why everyone else in this thread disagrees with you. ---
**Author:** ![gaffa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e68b1a/32.png) [@gaffa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gaffa)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2008, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-insist-that-the-market-will-produce-new-jobs/477216/123 "2008-12-16T23:23:30Z")
> [@sailor](#): > > You know, this is pointless, you are just not listening and you are just not getting it. I have evidence on my side, while you seem to have only belief. > [@](#): > > Look for any economic predictions from the 70s. How many predicted the boom which would be caused by the internet, online shopping, google, Amazon, etc. Zero. Nobody could have predicted that. But no one predicted catastrophe. A stock bubble? Hell, [P.T. Barnum could have predicted that](http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/26640) and he’s been dead for years. Or do you mean increasing automation and on-line ordering? [Phillip .K. Dick](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_Pot-Healer), [E.M. Forster](http://brighton.ncsa.uiuc.edu/prajlich/forster.html)? > [@](#): > > The fact is that when humens have their present needs met and they have free time they find other things to do and other needs and that creates jobs. that you ask for particular descriptions of the particular jobs is just silly and a childish approach. It’s like asking a waitress why she knows she will get some tips if she cannot name the exact amount beforehand. Call me silly and childish if it makes you feel better. I suppose it is easier than answering even my most recent request, which was: Name some new product categories invented in the **last five years** that are not created with with automation or outsourcing. Name some that are employing significant amounts of labor. Not prognostication, just find some new, sizable industry that is currently employing large numbers of employees. > [@](#): > > To say there will be no jobs is just silly and makes no sense. Oh dear, you’ve fallen to that level already? Misstating my argument and hoping that nobody will notice? Point out where in my original post I said that. > [@](#): > > Is there a need to be fulfilled? Then there is a job to be done. Are all our needs satisfied? Then, what is the problem? Are all the needs of the entire world satisfied? They never will be because people always want more. Two hundred years ago (and indeed today in parts of the world) all you could hope for was to be fed and clothed. That is all people aspired to. And yet when those needs were filled they found other needs they could have not imagined. Even people who have a lot of money and have plenty of time find things to do like play golf or travel or sail boats which require other people to provide them with services. Do I have to explain basic economics to you? In order to play golf or travel or buy boats, one needs money. In order to earn money, one has to work. And, as I explained, a huge percentage of jobs are either going to be automated out of existence, or outsourced. So where is the money to purchase this leisure going to come from for the masses automated or outsourced out of employment? [Digression about Spain deleted] > [@](#): > > Insisting on naming and describing in detail what the future will be like just shows a very immature level of comprehension. We do not have and we do not need that level of detail to know in general terms how we will develop. I’m not asking for that, and you know it. I’m asking for very general predictions of what industries will arise that will employ large number of people. I can only conclude that you are avoiding the question because you can’t think of any and don’t wish to admit it. > [@](#): > > Ask yourself: How many university professors or economic experts think like you? The answer is zero. Cite? Please, I really want to see a poll of every university professor and ecomonic expert on this question. Otherwise, act like a grown-up and admit to hyperbole. > [@](#): > > Then ask yourself why that might be and the answer is that you are looking at the problem the wrong way. If I need to know what I am going to eat every day before I decide to travel to China then I cannot travel to China. > > The future will create plenty of jobs. The fact that we cannot say exactly where does not detract from this just like Microsoft, Google, yahoo, Amazon, Intel, etc were created and with them millions of jobs in spite of nobody being able to predict such a thing in 1978. As I pointed out in my OP, Amazon is a perfect example of my thesis. They provide a bookstore larger and far more complete than any physical bookstore on the planet. And they have one of [the most highly automated order-filling systems on the planet](http://images.businessweek.com/ss/05/12/amazon/index_01.htm). No need to ship products to bookstores, stock the store, return unsold product. Each order placed by Amazon’s web site is an order not placed at a bookstore or other retailer. Amazon and other web retailers will eventually have the same effect on physical retailers as iTunes has had on physical record stores like Tower. I can break the rest of your list down if you like, but the gist of it is that most high tech firms and electronic retail has causes a net loss of jobs in the areas where they compete. I’ll grant that most people didn’t have a personal computer and Net connection in 1978, but if considered as the interface to electronic retailing, I believe the combination has cost more jobs than it has created. By the way, I’m typing this on a Japanese computer built in Malaysia, so it’s not as if it created very many US jobs. > [@](#): > > You are not finding the solution to your question because you are stubbornly insisting on asking the wrong question. This is like just insisting on saying Zeno was correct in his analysis and the hare can never overcome the tortoise. If you insist in looking at it that way then the conclusion may be that it is impossible and yet that is the wrong answer. You need to look at the problem in a different way and just being pigheaded and demanding an answer to the question when the question is wrong just takes us nowhere. So, you can’t answer it? ---
**Author:** ![gaffa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e68b1a/32.png) [@gaffa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gaffa)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2008, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-insist-that-the-market-will-produce-new-jobs/477216/124 "2008-12-16T23:44:49Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > It seems to me that the OP is seeing doom and gloom in automation, as people have done for the past 200 years. However, most of those responding to him seem to say it won’t be a problem this time since it has never been a problem in the past, which doesn’t reassure me very much. And these side discussions on how the OP is wrong wrong wrong so long as one guy in Santa Clara is still designing processors is just silly. Thank you. > [@](#): > > The history of automation has been moving jobs up the skill chain. Farm automation moved people from grunt labor in the fields to somewhat more skilled labor in factories. Farming is high tech now, but it didn’t used to be. Factory automation moved people into design and engineering and support of more complex tools. We automated the hands, and made the brain more valuable, which improved the standard of living since brains are very productive. But the only place to go when we automate (or outsource) brain jobs is to service jobs which at the moment can’t be automated. These don’t increase productivity like brain jobs do, so they don’t come with big paychecks. (Except for jobs like doctors and lawyers.) Don’t have much to add to this, other than it’s nice to reply to someone who is actually thinking about the subject instead of reciting dogma. The problem I see with increasing the necessary skill level of jobs is that, like it or not, some folks just plain aren’t suited for high skill jobs. The local Wendy’s employs a kid with Down’s Syndrome to keep the dining room clean. He does a great job and does not seem to be bored with the simple work. When, not if, Wendy’s deploys a robot to handle the job of keeping the dining room clean, what work will he be suited for? Presumably he’s getting at least minimum wage, unless there is some program that allows Wendy’s to employ him at a lower one. > [@](#): > > The problem isn’t really productivity, since automation and finding low cost suppliers improves productivity. The problem is how to funnel the benefits of productivity to the average consumer. That’s what the current administration didn’t do, and what Obama is clearly intending in his evil “income redistribution” plan. > Maybe Mack Reynolds had it right. If we stop calling it welfare, and give everyone stock paying dividends, the conservatives will be happy. Perhaps we should send the collected work of Mack Reynolds to Congress. Reynolds, for you non-sfers, was a socialist who the right wing John Campbell loved. Many of his stories were set in a society where many jobs were automated out of existence. I’ll have to read his stuff. Is it still in print? The world we’re discussing can wind up as either a utopia or a distopia. I hope for the former, but I fear the latter. If we “follow the money”, I see no reason to believe that business owners have any interest in either employing any more than the bare minimum number of people, or making life better for anyone but themselves. ---
**Author:** ![gaffa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e68b1a/32.png) [@gaffa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gaffa)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-insist-that-the-market-will-produce-new-jobs/477216/125 "2008-12-17T01:32:10Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > So why hasn’t this automation in health care resulted in the collapse of demand for nurses? Why has the demand for nurses skyrocketed in the last few decades? Skyrocketed? [The data seems to say otherwise](http://bhpr.hrsa.gov/healthworkforce/reports/nursing/samplesurvey00/chapter2.htm): During this period, the number of RNs employed in nursing grew by an average annual rate of only one percent, the lowest of any four year interval between surveys. There is a lot of advertising for nurses because of two factors: [ol] [li]An aging population of baby boomers[/li][li]A very high burnout rate for nurses[/li][/ol] Nurses leave the profession because of understaffing. You might claim that this is because there are not enough nurses, but the nurses themselves claim that they are [expected to care for far too many patients at once](http://www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp?id=14338). Would a cite for any of your claims kill you? > [@](#): > > Boy, and weren’t things better back in the old days when LASIK surgery was done by hand? Kids today, with their computer controlled LASIK surgery, putting honest LASIK eye surgeons out of work! More snark. Wow. I suppose it’s easier than thinking. Eye surgery to correct nearsightedness had previously been RK, which had dramatically worse outcomes, more patient complications, required much more surgeon and nurse time and patient recovery. I know a bit about this area because I have created 3D animations of LASIK and RK for a leading eye clinic. I’ve looked at outcomes data, and have some idea just how efficiently one surgeon can handle a large number of patients. > [@](#): > > You honestly can’t understand how these advances are GOOD things? Strawman. Argue against what I actually said, please. I’ve never denied that health care has improved, or that, in general, products and services get better. What I’m saying is that the modern business practice are unlikely to produce new jobs to replace the jobs they have eliminated. > [@](#): > > Automating health care processes doesn’t put health care workers out on the street, it allows us to have higher levels of health care at the same price. In some, limited areas. For most Americans, health care has gotten more expensive, rather than less. If you have contrary data, I’d like to see it. > [@](#): > > Take a look at employment in the health care sector. According to you all these automated advances and outsourced diagostics should have led to the collapse of the job market in health care. Eventually, it will. Japan and the UK are [deploying robotic systems throughout the health care field](http://www.kineticconsulting.co.uk/robots-healthcare.html). The main factor limiting deployment is not ability, but legal liability. But the Lasik system has proven to have better outcomes than hand operations. The da Vinci system should prove to have better outcomes as well. > [@](#): > > If you would take a second to try to figure out why there are more jobs than ever in health care, you’d have figured out why everyone else in this thread disagrees with you. Based on the familiar names in this thread, most are hard-right cheerleaders for whom Adam Smith’s invisible hand can do no wrong. I’ve been looking at this area closely for several years, and my conclusions are based on observations and collecting data. Try it. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-insist-that-the-market-will-produce-new-jobs/477216/126 "2008-12-17T02:43:12Z")
> [@gaffa](#): > > Skyrocketed? [The data seems to say otherwise](http://bhpr.hrsa.gov/healthworkforce/reports/nursing/samplesurvey00/chapter2.htm): > During this period, the number of RNs employed in nursing grew by an average annual rate of only one percent, the lowest of any four year interval between surveys. But…but… **your own cite** has a nice chart right at the beginning showing a steady increase in nurses while the unemployment line has been statistically flat. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-insist-that-the-market-will-produce-new-jobs/477216/127 "2008-12-17T03:18:16Z")
> [@gaffa](#): > > Based on the familiar names in this thread, most are hard-right cheerleaders for whom Adam Smith’s invisible hand can do no wrong. I’ve been looking at this area closely for several years, and my conclusions are based on observations and collecting data. Try it. So when do you think this mass unemployment will take hold? Because I’d like to make a little wager. ---
**Author:** ![gaffa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e68b1a/32.png) [@gaffa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gaffa)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-insist-that-the-market-will-produce-new-jobs/477216/128 "2008-12-17T03:19:06Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > But…but… **your own cite** has a nice chart right at the beginning showing a steady increase in nurses while the unemployment line has been statistically flat. Read the text in addition to looking at the chart: The years between 1996 and 2000 marked the slowest growth in the RN population over the 20-year period between 1980 and 2000. On average, the RN population grew only about 1.3 percent each year between 1996 and 2000 compared with average annual increases of 2-3 percent in earlier years. This slow down in growth reflects fewer new entrants to the nurse population coupled with a larger volume of losses from the nurse population than in earlier years. I don’t know what counts as a “skyrocket”, but 1.3% growth is not it. 44% of hospital administrators say they have trouble recruiting nurses. Reading through nurse discussion forums, burnout from overwork seems to be the main reason they leave the profession. Which would be the fault of the hospital administrators. ---
**Author:** ![gaffa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e68b1a/32.png) [@gaffa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gaffa)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-insist-that-the-market-will-produce-new-jobs/477216/129 "2008-12-17T03:23:14Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > So when do you think this mass unemployment will take hold? Because I’d like to make a little wager. I don’t gamble, but I’ll consider it if you answer the challenge I posted earlier: Name some new product categories invented in the last five years that are not created with with automation or outsourcing. Name some that are employing significant amounts of labor. Not prognostication, just find some new, sizable industry that is currently employing large numbers of employees. ---
**Author:** ![gaffa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e68b1a/32.png) [@gaffa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gaffa)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-insist-that-the-market-will-produce-new-jobs/477216/130 "2008-12-17T03:35:11Z")
> [@Kendall Jackson](#): > > Real wages have been stagnant for large segments of the workforce for damn near three decades. The problem isn’t that our economy can’t create new jobs. Our economy does create new jobs (when it’s healthy). The problem lies in the quality of the new jobs that are created. American workers have seen large productivity gains, but the increase in output wasn’t shared across the whole population. It was given to the richest among us, and exactly as you say, everyone else was asked why they couldn’t appreciate how awesome the economy was when they weren’t being given the fruits of that productivity. Agreed. But where we disagree is that a considerable cause of that increase in productivity is increased automation. > [@](#): > > My problem with the OP’s statements is that they don’t deal with any of those facts. Different discussion. A worthy one, but a different one. > [@](#): > > They come from a fantasy world, and that’s a tragic digression from the actual problems that we were facing even during good times. **gaffa** ’s arguments couldn’t be more intellectually bankrupt if they’d been thought up by Wall Street bankers. Please elaborate. My argument is a simple extrapolation of existing trends. Don’t just say I’m wrong, show me that these trends are not going to continue. > [@](#): > > And I just don’t see how it’s possible to have a reasonable discussion about the facts in the same place that we have this blind defense of utter nonsense. I genuinely can’t reconcile your two paragraphs. We both agree the American worker is getting screwed, we just disagree how? Actually, I agree that they are not sharing the result of increased productivity, so we’re together there. But, for the life of me, I don’t see why you so violently reject the idea that automation will continue to the point where it causes considerable unemployment. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-insist-that-the-market-will-produce-new-jobs/477216/131 "2008-12-17T04:45:50Z")
> [@gaffa](#): > > Read the text in addition to looking at the chart: > > The years between 1996 and 2000 marked the slowest growth in the RN population over the 20-year period between 1980 and 2000. On average, the RN population grew only about 1.3 percent each year between 1996 and 2000 compared with average annual increases of 2-3 percent in earlier years. This slow down in growth reflects fewer new entrants to the nurse population coupled with a larger volume of losses from the nurse population than in earlier years. > I don’t know what counts as a “skyrocket”, but 1.3% growth is not it. It doesn’t matter if growth is “only” 1.3% on a slow year. The **fact** that the **total number** of nurses **increases** every year utterly refutes your example about nurses being replaced by automation. Farther down in **your cite** is a chart showing average salaries adjusted for inflation. It’s steadily going up. If nurses were being thrown out of work because machines are taking their place then wouldn’t you expect their wages to be going _down_? ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-insist-that-the-market-will-produce-new-jobs/477216/132 "2008-12-17T04:49:41Z")
> [@gaffa](#): > > [indent]Name some new product categories invented in the last five years that are not created with with automation or outsourcing. Define “automation.” Is anything made with any sort of machine an automated manufacturing process? Define “outsourcing” - what constitutes outsourcing, and how is that different from merely purchasing inputs? I suspect that no matter what example I provide, you’ll claim “Automation” or “outsourcing.” But define your terms and we’ll see. ---
**Author:** ![gaffa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e68b1a/32.png) [@gaffa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gaffa)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-insist-that-the-market-will-produce-new-jobs/477216/133 "2008-12-17T05:37:03Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > It doesn’t matter if growth is “only” 1.3% on a slow year. The **fact** that the **total number** of nurses **increases** every year utterly refutes your example about nurses being replaced by automation. Slow year? The quote you included mentioned the years 1996 through 2000. That is not a year. That’s five years. Again, this whole side discussion is about another poster’s description of the number of nurses “skyrocketing”. They are not. > [@](#): > > Farther down in **your cite** is a chart showing average salaries adjusted for inflation. It’s steadily going up. If nurses were being thrown out of work because machines are taking their place then wouldn’t you expect their wages to be going _down_? No. Why would it? If you expect fewer employees to do more work, in the case of nurses having to care for an ever growing number of patients (made possible via automated monitoring), a shrinking pool of new entrants into the field and 44% of hospital administrators reporting difficulty recruiting nurses…of course the older, more experienced nurses are going to get paid more. Which will increase, not decrease, the drive towards automation. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 8:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-insist-that-the-market-will-produce-new-jobs/477216/134 "2008-12-17T08:24:42Z")
> [@gaffa](#): > > 44% of hospital administrators say they have trouble recruiting nurses. Reading through nurse discussion forums, burnout from overwork seems to be the main reason they leave the profession. Which would be the fault of the hospital administrators. if they have trouble recruiting nurses it seems to follow there is a shortage of nurses and people could find jobs as nurses which seems to contradict your position. The fact is that America has steadily been importing nurses from other countries due to a shortage of American nurses. It has also been importing farm laborers, restaurant dishwashers, etc. Maybe it’s just that there are certain jobs which Americans would prefer not to do. ---
**Author:** ![Hellestal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3ab097/32.png) [@Hellestal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hellestal)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 9:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-insist-that-the-market-will-produce-new-jobs/477216/135 "2008-12-17T09:40:51Z")
> [@gaffa](#): > > But where we disagree is that a considerable cause of that increase in productivity is increased automation. I have not expressed any facts or opinions about the underlying causes behind the increase in productivity from American workers. You cannot possibly know “where we disagree” on this topic, because I have said nothing about it. > [@gaffa](#): > > My argument is a simple extrapolation of existing trends. Don’t just say I’m wrong, show me that these trends are not going to continue. No, your argument is not a simple extrapolation of existing trends. Your “trends” do not, at present, exist. To make the obvious, though perhaps trivial point, the reality right now is recession. A simple extrapolation of recession is depression. There is rising unemployment, but it’s not because factories are shutting down in the US and opening in China, or that corporations are replacing vast swathes of workers with robots. It’s because factories (and other businesses) are simply shutting down and not reopening anywhere. But in addition to that basic note about the state of our present economy, your argument is not an extrapolation of times before the recession. _Automation and outsourcing have existed for a very long time._ And yet we were at full employment before the recession. To use one large example: Wal-Mart has been pressuring its suppliers to lower prices for decades now. The big wave of outsourcing, the one that swamped the news, started in the 1980s. And yet despite this displacement of American industry to foreign shores that has been happening in headline-catching ways for oh-so-long now, we still managed to stay at full employment (whenever we weren’t stuck in recession, that is). Suffice it to say, you are not extrapolating from past or present experience. Quite to the contrary, you are claiming that our entire past history will be the opposite of our future. You are claiming that the coming trend, the one we haven’t seen yet, will be a sudden and dramatic reversal from everything we’ve seen to this point. And you’ve given no evidence of this sudden and dramatic reversal expect to cite two forces that you claim will become overpowering, despite the fact that these two forces have long been a part of our economy, and that our economy has always been able to attain full employment even given the long presence of these two forces. I’m trying to be mostly nice here, but I need an accurate way to describe the quality of your argument. I’m going to stick with “poor” right now, with the option to double down on stronger terminology for your argument if you continue to blindly defend it. > [@gaffa](#): > > I genuinely can’t reconcile your two paragraphs. We both agree the American worker is getting screwed, we just disagree how? Essentially, yes. I wouldn’t use the word “screwed”, at least not without specific examples of shafting, but I would say that many workers aren’t receiving what’s due them. This is the main source of my frustration from this thread. You are distracting attention from genuine problems, and drawing attention to figments of your imagination. If we continue your discussion, we could maybe fix the economy that exists in your head, but we would do nothing for the real problems of real workers and real families, who are my primary concern. > [@gaffa](#): > > Actually, I agree that they are not sharing the result of increased productivity, so we’re together there. But, for the life of me, I don’t see why you so violently reject the idea that automation will continue to the point where it causes considerable unemployment. I violently reject the idea because it makes not a lick of sense. There’s no reason to believe that the processes by which industrialized and industrializing economies have consistently functioned for centuries have mysteriously changed overnight. It is certainly possible that one day machines will be able to take over almost all of our work. But that’s a recipe for a robo-commie paradise, not a world of misery. If that miraculous technology ever appears, I’ll be a happy pinko in a productive wonderland as I rely on harder drugs and more fornication to pass my days. But until then, I’ll continue to believe that the economy works pretty much as it has worked in the past. And in the meantime, I’ll be investigating the stagnation in real wages while pondering the possible causes and solutions of excessive income inequality. These are problems that happen to actually exist, and as such, they deserve more of my attention. I don’t want to cause any major hijack to your thread, but to give a short start: I think it’s quite likely that this income disparity has been fueled in part by globalization. My concern, then, is how to begin balancing out the situation without dampering the productive powers of the economy as a whole. There just might be a way that we can spread the fruits of our productivity gains to all segments of our population while not creating disincentives to create more innovation and production. Unfortunately, we won’t be able to untangle any of these real world issues if we spend all our time fighting phantoms. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-insist-that-the-market-will-produce-new-jobs/477216/136 "2008-12-17T16:02:00Z")
There’s an interesting parallel here. I remember some business leaders and stock analysts, during the height of the tech stock bubble, saying that with the new increases in information technology and productivity, we’d never suffer an economic slowdown again. They were wrong, of course, and for the same reason predictions of doom because of outsourcing and automation are wrong–assuming our current time is special. The details may differ, but the fundamentals have not changed. The economy always adapts to new technologies and circumstances. No boom or bust is eternal. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-insist-that-the-market-will-produce-new-jobs/477216/137 "2008-12-17T16:25:50Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > Definitely. But when I hear “automation/outsourcing is the future to fear”, in my mind I picture everything being a commodity, because the less something is a commodity, the less incentive there is to automate and outsource it because the possible gains are dubious at best. Some things lend themselves to being a commodity, like a microprocessor. Other things, like software, go both ways. If we can take a commodity like a microprocessor and have millions of groups customize it in millions of ways, sure, it’s a “service”-oriented direction, but that’s probably not what anyone thinks of, they think of retail and fixing/installing equipment and etc. > Sorry, I wasn’t trying to nitpick an absolute, but counter a generality with a generality. 🙂 > But that’s a rather trite example, isn’t it? I mean, that’s like a tiger print for your Guitar Hero controller. I’m thinking of the company I work for, who sells ~50 instruments a year. We cannot be replaced easily, as there’s only so many knowledgeable people in the world to do this stuff (well, I can be replaced, but anyway), and yet there’s never going to be enough demand to take advantage of scale at all. We’re 13 people fulfilling a genuine, but limited, need. We’re not going to be running some massively automated process. Can I imagine some fancy future where this company and companies like it are run by one mastermind and a touchscreen? Sure. But that reality is so different we could draw almost any conclusion. > > So when I think of logical conclusions, this is what I imagine, less factories churning out identical widgets and more small businesses adding value to an otherwise faceless mass of widgets. All the stuff you’re talking about shows the difference between creativity, which is going to be usually customized and designed for niche markets, and production, which is going to use mass production techniques for small lots. We have processors for which runs of a million are considered low volume, but we also have FPGAs. As designs these are lot size 1 (or a few) but used a mass produced platform. At the highest level design will never be automated (though it is already outsourced) but lots of the highly skilled stages of the design process have gone away. When I started people drew schematics and wrote netlists, now it is all high level design languages, and I know good designers who have never even read a netlist. Your processor example works also, since the stuff done by plunking a processor into a washing machine and doing some programming used to be done by one-off hardware design. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-insist-that-the-market-will-produce-new-jobs/477216/138 "2008-12-17T16:36:54Z")
> [@gaffa](#): > > The problem I see with increasing the necessary skill level of jobs is that, like it or not, some folks just plain aren’t suited for high skill jobs. The local Wendy’s employs a kid with Down’s Syndrome to keep the dining room clean. He does a great job and does not seem to be bored with the simple work. When, not if, Wendy’s deploys a robot to handle the job of keeping the dining room clean, what work will he be suited for? Presumably he’s getting at least minimum wage, unless there is some program that allows Wendy’s to employ him at a lower one. That guy’s job is probably safe. My wife worked in a vegetable cannery, and they hired lots of people for the line who did things like put bits of bacon into the beans. These were really nice people, and making a decent wage, but were not waiting for their graduate school application to clear. Those are the people at risk today. > [@](#): > > I’ll have to read his stuff. Is it still in print? I just checked on Amazon, and they have a bunch of stuff, mostly used. I have a big collection of his stuff in Ace doubles and as Analog serials. Amazon even is selling a paper on the economic and social philosophy in his work. IIRC, Mack was a red diaper baby, and traveled widely, so his background was a lot different from the average Analog writer. ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-insist-that-the-market-will-produce-new-jobs/477216/139 "2008-12-17T19:15:10Z")
> [@gaffa](#): > > Whenever the subject comes up of how automation is eliminating blue collar jobs, and has eliminated a huge number of pink and white collar ones as well, inevitably someone claims that “the market” will produce new jobs. > > …The problem is, this belief has no basis in fact and is unsupported by any hard evidence… I’ve slogged through this whole thread, and I have to say that I am amazed at how otherwise intelligent people can come to hold completely unsupported conclusions and beliefs. The OP’s beliefs are reminiscent of the belief in communism, which on the face of it (“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” per Marx’s slogan) sounds good, but is completely unworkable in practice for any group larger than a few people. (Whereas capitalism sounds like a recipe for disaster, but generally works very well.) > [@gaffa](#): > > …Do I have to explain basic economics to you? I agree that someone certainly needs basic economics explained to them. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![gaffa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e68b1a/32.png) [@gaffa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gaffa)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-insist-that-the-market-will-produce-new-jobs/477216/140 "2008-12-17T20:44:16Z")
> [@sailor](#): > > The fact is that America has steadily been importing nurses from other countries due to a shortage of American nurses. It has also been importing farm laborers, restaurant dishwashers, etc. Maybe it’s just that there are certain jobs which Americans would prefer not to do. America has been importing farm laborers because it is legally permissible to pay farm laborers **less** than minimum wage. To claim that Americans just “would prefer not to do” those jobs for less than minimum wage indicates an astonishing level of at best, obliviousness, at worst disingenuousness. I suspect there is work available for you at Fox News as a commentator. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-insist-that-the-market-will-produce-new-jobs/477216.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-insist-that-the-market-will-produce-new-jobs/477216.md?page=8)