General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"AP IMPACT: Recession, tech kill middle-class jobs" at Yahoo
AP IMPACT: Recession, tech kill middle-class jobsat Yahoo
By BERNARD CONDON and PAUL WISEMAN | Associated Press
http://news.yahoo.com/ap-impact-recession-tech-kill-middle-class-jobs-051306434--finance.html
"SNIP..............................................
Most of the jobs will never return, and millions more are likely to vanish as well, say experts who study the labor market. What's more, these jobs aren't just being lost to China and other developing countries, and they aren't just factory work. Increasingly, jobs are disappearing in the service sector, home to two-thirds of all workers.
They're being obliterated by technology.
Year after year, the software that runs computers and an array of other machines and devices becomes more sophisticated and powerful and capable of doing more efficiently tasks that humans have always done. For decades, science fiction warned of a future when we would be architects of our own obsolescence, replaced by our machines; an Associated Press analysis finds that the future has arrived.
___
EDITOR'S NOTE: First in a three-part series on the loss of middle-class jobs in the wake of the Great Recession, and the role of technology.
............................................SNIP"
maggiesfarmer
(297 posts)take away: engineering is a really good choice for college majors
Interesting to see where DU conversation on this topic goes
BeyondGeography
(39,375 posts)Technology is not expanding opportunity, and human nature and science (Moore's Law) mean the same kind of exponential changes we've seen will only compound. Intuitive jobs will not be a hell of a lot safer than repetitive jobs soon enough. I don't know what the answer is.
maggiesfarmer
(297 posts)Given the current state of technology and population, are there 200M jobs in the US? are there 4B in the world? or can all the goods and services provided with far less?
this assumes that for a job to exist, it economically "makes sense".
I think another factor is economy of scale. As the population grows, the amount of labor needed to provide those goods and servies doesn't grow at the same rate.
applegrove
(118,696 posts)are you going to distribute the wealth?
maggiesfarmer
(297 posts)The problem, as noted by the authors, is that the middle class is shrinking.
fair warning, i'm not an economist, but i like pretending. assume that 50M American workers can supply all the goods and services that American's consume, leaving 150M unemployed who could be. assume for purposes of this a net zero trade balance.
- supply and demand suggests that eventually, the cost of labor drops below the price of automation and this represents the "bottom". I suspect this is part of the model, but not the whole story.
- however, this results in an increasing larger of percent of the population unemployed as we find this bottom.
- some will devise new creative services that cater to the rich, but I doubt that has enough potential to offset the jobs lost to technology
- without significant reform to our current economic model, or break my assumption and find a US export which drives jobs as well as revenue (and pushes the problem onto another country), I don't see any way to avoid this. I'm sure the socialist leaning members of DU like this conclusion but I'm interested in opinions of those who have rationale counter points. I'm really interested in hearing from any members with an econ background.
In the meanwhile, change your major to engineering. or finance.
applegrove
(118,696 posts)not be as rich. I'm not a socialist but I am an occupier. I'm very interested in reducing inequality.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)at Occupy Los Angeles from Oct 1-Nov. 30, 2011).
applegrove
(118,696 posts)snooper2
(30,151 posts)Not a whole lot of good resumes yet though...
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Only capitalism fools leftists into believing in the "dignity of labor." Today, many leftists are even fooled into pining nostalgically for factory work, which was of course the very form of labor most hated by everyone forced to engage in it for long periods! We want manufacturing back, they scream, forgetting the fights of their forebears in the class struggle, who hated the factories with all their might. The goal is indeed to reduce labor, but that also means that you need to remove profit and move towards post-scarcity sharing. The point is not to make more work (dig holes to fill them in again), but to disentangle human welfare from work as such.
BeyondGeography
(39,375 posts)alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Now people pass the Lordstown assembly plant and thank goodness that there's still manufacturing in Ohio. Back then, the young guys looking at thirty years on the line and nothing but speed ups coming down from the main office wanted no part of that. What many on the left don't want to acknowledge today: the class struggle meant fighting against factory work as such, against its boredom, its lack of control over work process, its grinding redundancy. It is precisely the struggle they are now waging in the new factory centers of the periphery.
http://www.prole.info/texts/heartofheart.html
From the giant Mirafiore Fiat plants in the northern industrial valleys of Italy, to the hilly stretches of northeast Ohio, the verdict was the same: fuck work, fuck factory work, fuck the collusion of the unions with management and the politicians. Fuck their manufacturing and fuck their wars. This was the class struggle. The fact that we now pine for "manufacturing" is a symbol of how badly the reactionaries have defeated us for 40 years.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)were socialized and people did whatever kind of work they were most suited by their talents, and all were decently provided for.
A 21st Century service-based economy would suit most people just fine if only there were genuine social security, but that would require a more democratic allocation of the proceeds of banks and corporations - which would probably also require a restructuring of them into smaller, competing entities.
RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)Technology enables us to produce more with less work, and yet only a tiny fraction of the population reaps (and hoards) the benefits.
Ah capitalism.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)How do you earn profits from unemployed people? Robots don't buy soap.
maggiesfarmer
(297 posts)RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)You don't think the uber wealthy are hoarding wealth? You don't think they're benefiting from said wealth?
I honestly have nothing to say to that.
Please note that I, in no way, implied that their free market model is in any way sustainable or ethical / good for humanity as a whole.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)And it occurred to me that workers are also consumers. Robots are not. So the whole capitalistic system seems anachronistic in such a world.
As for the hoarders? The hoarders are not the spenders. If you have no one to consume, there are no profits. At some point they will need to hire people to dig holes and fill them in again, so Walmart can sell cheap robot made goods to someone who wants them.
It seems this is a natural limitation of the capitalist system and the key to its ultimate demise.
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)It is a LIE that technology is the reason the jobs are gone. After all, we who are old enough remember this song-and-dance for decades.
Just like it is a LIE that workers don't have the "skills" for the jobs that remain.
I can't believe anybody swallows this neoliberal bullshit.
It's anything to divert attention and the blame for what and who are responsible for the shitty economy.
Look no further than D.C. politicians and the financial elites they serve.
fujiyama
(15,185 posts)Mechanization changed the way agriculture was practiced, and what was once a much more agricultural society (and world for that matter) shifted ways to urbanization.
Automation will give way to other new and exciting industries. Someone will have to design and engineer better robots. Someone will also have to build them (or at least build the robots/tooling needed to build them). Someone will have to service and maintain them. Someone will have to sell them.
There's a lot of possibilities out there. I'm wondering what's up with all the recent gloom and doom, "the robots are stealing our jobs" articles out there recently. It's like the "Luddites Strike Back". It's sort of amusing.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Without the comparative data, it strikes me that this is a red herring to get Americans to quit focusing on the corporations that are shipping our jobs overseas where slave labor is available.
pampango
(24,692 posts)in China, due to automation, so it is at least a significant factor just about everywhere. But how the relative impact of automation compared to that of outsourcing in terms of manufacturing employment in the US would be a good study to see the results of. Of course and findings coming out of such an investigation would likely be rejected by conservatives if it did not not fit their worldview. (Facts having a liberal bias, as we all know.)