So, Where Are All Those Robots?(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
So, Where Are All Those Robots?
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/05/so-where-are-all-those-robots/528666/?single_page=true
63 comments
In the second last paragraph the author agrees what you argue in your comment is possible:
> Finally, it’s conceivable that the ostensibly tranquil and low-turbulence economy is masking something more disruptive underneath the surface. Ryan Avent, the author of The Wealth of Humans, has thought about this question deeply and offered a plausible explanation. In his telling, automation has created an abundance of labor, including machine labor and human labor. Just as rising supply typically leads to falling prices, the oversupply of labor has put a downward pressure on wages. Companies, seeing that they have access to cheap labor in a slowly growing economy, invest less in new risky technology, which leads to less productivity growth. High employment, low productivity, low wage growth, and automation can all live together in the same story.
> Finally, it’s conceivable that the ostensibly tranquil and low-turbulence economy is masking something more disruptive underneath the surface. Ryan Avent, the author of The Wealth of Humans, has thought about this question deeply and offered a plausible explanation. In his telling, automation has created an abundance of labor, including machine labor and human labor. Just as rising supply typically leads to falling prices, the oversupply of labor has put a downward pressure on wages. Companies, seeing that they have access to cheap labor in a slowly growing economy, invest less in new risky technology, which leads to less productivity growth. High employment, low productivity, low wage growth, and automation can all live together in the same story.
>But because we're Americans and we believe in the American dream, we need to force the labor market to provide incomes for hard-working Americans. Naturally, since many jobs amount to little more than token busy-work, we should then expect the labor market to become exceedingly boring and uneventful. After all, these are just fake jobs propped up by economic policy.
Or in short, work is ending, but instead of creating a post-work economy, we're creating bullshit jobs.
David Graeber did nothing wrong.
Or in short, work is ending, but instead of creating a post-work economy, we're creating bullshit jobs.
David Graeber did nothing wrong.
The whole point of the economy is to allocate our scarce resources in the way that maximises the benefit to society.
Automation is a way of reducing costs; it is a way of making our scarce resources go farther.
On the micro level, it is a Kaldor-Hicks improvement [0]. This means that there are winners (all of society because goods are cheaper) and losers (people who have lost their jobs) - but, overall, there is a net gain. We can tax some portion of this net gain (e.g, with income tax, or corporation tax if you are really worried about foreigners) and compensate the losers (with training so they can be employed in a different industry).
In many ways, the "arguments" people have against automation are similar to those against immigration, and are befallen by the same fallacies. The difference is that we don't have to give robots health care. We already have a nice case study on rapid automation (and how the sky didn't fall in) - just look at the Luddites.
My main concern with current levels of automation is that, with patents and network effects, we are creating a new generation of monopolies (Google, Facebook, Uber, AirBnB) with very little oversight.
[0] https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Kaldor–Hicks_efficiency
Automation is a way of reducing costs; it is a way of making our scarce resources go farther.
On the micro level, it is a Kaldor-Hicks improvement [0]. This means that there are winners (all of society because goods are cheaper) and losers (people who have lost their jobs) - but, overall, there is a net gain. We can tax some portion of this net gain (e.g, with income tax, or corporation tax if you are really worried about foreigners) and compensate the losers (with training so they can be employed in a different industry).
In many ways, the "arguments" people have against automation are similar to those against immigration, and are befallen by the same fallacies. The difference is that we don't have to give robots health care. We already have a nice case study on rapid automation (and how the sky didn't fall in) - just look at the Luddites.
My main concern with current levels of automation is that, with patents and network effects, we are creating a new generation of monopolies (Google, Facebook, Uber, AirBnB) with very little oversight.
[0] https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Kaldor–Hicks_efficiency
> The key thing that automation does is that it substitutes for labor thereby making labor less valuable.
I think you may have gotten this backwards.
If you replace four pipe bending guys with pipe bending robots and highly trained maintenance mechanic, do you really think the highly trained mechanic is going to get paid less than single pipe bending guy?
Automation should increase wages for those lucky enough to get employed.
>Globalization is automation.
Globalization predates automation by at least few centuries.
I think you may have gotten this backwards.
If you replace four pipe bending guys with pipe bending robots and highly trained maintenance mechanic, do you really think the highly trained mechanic is going to get paid less than single pipe bending guy?
Automation should increase wages for those lucky enough to get employed.
>Globalization is automation.
Globalization predates automation by at least few centuries.
But if a pipe-bending machine has a total cost of ownership of $100 per operating hour, your four pipe bending guys have a job as long as employing them costs less than $25/h. Where before they might be able get a higher wage, their wage is now capped and the cap is decreasing over time.
Of course there's other reasons to employ people (parent mentioned spending power, I would add political influence to the list). But the labor part of the employment decreases in value.
Of course there's other reasons to employ people (parent mentioned spending power, I would add political influence to the list). But the labor part of the employment decreases in value.
If labor part decreases in absolute value, then the bikes too get cheaper in healthy competition. So the net effect is just inflation.
Historically the period from inventing the assembly line to the large scale deployment of factory floor robots is roughly from 1920 to 1990. The same time period saw the highest wages/GDP ratio in US than ever before or ever since.
Historically the period from inventing the assembly line to the large scale deployment of factory floor robots is roughly from 1920 to 1990. The same time period saw the highest wages/GDP ratio in US than ever before or ever since.
1) That's not the real ratio, and we know it.
2) Those pipe-bending guys are now unemployed and willing to work for les thanks they did at their previous job.
2) Those pipe-bending guys are now unemployed and willing to work for les thanks they did at their previous job.
They won't necessarily look for pipe bending jobs either, they'll try to get any job they can get. So entirely unrelated and non-automated fields can become devalued due to the increased supply of labor.
...as if pipe bending was not already "any job they can get".
If we assume that the most mundane jobs get automated first (as has happened so far) the effect of automation should again be rising wages for those who get to keep their jobs.
If we assume that the most mundane jobs get automated first (as has happened so far) the effect of automation should again be rising wages for those who get to keep their jobs.
> If we assume that the most mundane jobs get automated first (as has happened so far) the effect of automation should again be rising wages for those who get to keep their jobs.
That seems intuitively correct, but can potentially be counteracted if (some significant share of) the jobs that aren't completely automated away are automated enough to reduce entry qualifications, such that (combined with displaced workers from fully automated jobs) there is an increased supply, relative to demand, of qualified labor, driving wages down.
Jobs that are neither automated away nor simplifies by automation such that the qualified labor supply is expanded should see higher wages, but that may be a very small share of pre-automation jobs, and may not even be the majority of post-automation jobs.
That seems intuitively correct, but can potentially be counteracted if (some significant share of) the jobs that aren't completely automated away are automated enough to reduce entry qualifications, such that (combined with displaced workers from fully automated jobs) there is an increased supply, relative to demand, of qualified labor, driving wages down.
Jobs that are neither automated away nor simplifies by automation such that the qualified labor supply is expanded should see higher wages, but that may be a very small share of pre-automation jobs, and may not even be the majority of post-automation jobs.
> For now, I think it’s hard to make the case that automation is even a tertiary concern for the 2017 labor market. But the next recession will tell us much more.
No one is claiming it is a concern for 2017, no? My understanding is that the debate is more what happens in the next 10-15 years and not about the short-term situation.
No one is claiming it is a concern for 2017, no? My understanding is that the debate is more what happens in the next 10-15 years and not about the short-term situation.
Exactly. Wait 10 years for the self driving cars to take over which will set 30% of all male workers without a job.
I'm with you on that concern, but on the other hand, it wouldn't be the first time society has seen a rapid mechanisation of significant parts of the economy (e.g., agrarian workers, textiles workers).
Yet every time it happens, there's a reorganisation, and eventually the people (or the kinds of people) who did those jobs are employed doing new things.
Is there some reason why everything is suddenly different this time?
Here's a couple of ways that spring to my mind, for how society could absorb the labor that would be freed up if driver automation happened:
- As increasing numbers of professional people around the world are becoming cash rich but time-poor, there is, and should continue to be, a growing demand for people to provide domestic services like cleaning, home maintenance, personal administration tasks, child-care, etc.
- As the number of machines continue to grow, there will be growing demand for people to work on the machines. Whether it's designing, programming, manufacturing, testing, transporting, fitting, servicing, cleaning, replacing, or disposing of the machines, there will be plenty of work for people of all kinds of aptitude.
Yet every time it happens, there's a reorganisation, and eventually the people (or the kinds of people) who did those jobs are employed doing new things.
Is there some reason why everything is suddenly different this time?
Here's a couple of ways that spring to my mind, for how society could absorb the labor that would be freed up if driver automation happened:
- As increasing numbers of professional people around the world are becoming cash rich but time-poor, there is, and should continue to be, a growing demand for people to provide domestic services like cleaning, home maintenance, personal administration tasks, child-care, etc.
- As the number of machines continue to grow, there will be growing demand for people to work on the machines. Whether it's designing, programming, manufacturing, testing, transporting, fitting, servicing, cleaning, replacing, or disposing of the machines, there will be plenty of work for people of all kinds of aptitude.
No and thats precisely what is worrying. Those massive switches in the past have come with all manner of social unrest, revolutions, war and changes to the basic fabric of daily life.
We are just now seeing the impact of the introduction of computers into the workforce and that is causing all manner of issues, but the response to that so far is the best case scenario when compared to say the industrial revolutions 300 years of massive change.
We are just now seeing the impact of the introduction of computers into the workforce and that is causing all manner of issues, but the response to that so far is the best case scenario when compared to say the industrial revolutions 300 years of massive change.
>come with all manner of social unrest, revolutions, war and changes to the basic fabric of daily life.
No need to be a Pollyanna. Unemployment rallies didn't lead to war, they were just unpleasant.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/081024-great-depressi...
Economies are constantly changing and retraining and job migration are our norm, not our exception. Regardless of the current political climate, the reality is that you're not entitled to keep a job in some dying industry. Change has always been here, as much as we try to deny it. Hence the admission that we can't keep this train running and things like UBI are becoming politically feasible.
No need to be a Pollyanna. Unemployment rallies didn't lead to war, they were just unpleasant.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/081024-great-depressi...
Economies are constantly changing and retraining and job migration are our norm, not our exception. Regardless of the current political climate, the reality is that you're not entitled to keep a job in some dying industry. Change has always been here, as much as we try to deny it. Hence the admission that we can't keep this train running and things like UBI are becoming politically feasible.
The thing people are worried about is not a particular industry dying or a market change like the Great Depression (though there are people that argue that the Great Depression, especially in a global context, was a major contributor to WWII) that corrects back into a similar economy.
They are worried about a systematic removal of jobs at a massive rate, across the spectrum. So for instance, if you look at agriculture workers in the US it took from 1910 to ~ 2000 to get from 30% of the economy employed in farm work to ~2% (which is likely the minimum). Along the way you saw the massive labor unrest, cities had to be completely re-engineered, civil rights and family restructuring, 2 World Wars, etc.
It is a reasonable fear that something like driver-less cars, which could impact a similar number of employees, could have just as big an impact, in a shorter time frame and that might not be all for the good.
Its also possible that it was other factors that led to all that turmoil, or that we are better at societal change now, or that there is some new technology around the bend that gets unleashed due to this that prevents similar problems this time around. All of those are reasonable reasons to be optimistic (Pollyanna-ish if you will), but they don't cancel out the reasonable reasons to be pessimistic.
They are worried about a systematic removal of jobs at a massive rate, across the spectrum. So for instance, if you look at agriculture workers in the US it took from 1910 to ~ 2000 to get from 30% of the economy employed in farm work to ~2% (which is likely the minimum). Along the way you saw the massive labor unrest, cities had to be completely re-engineered, civil rights and family restructuring, 2 World Wars, etc.
It is a reasonable fear that something like driver-less cars, which could impact a similar number of employees, could have just as big an impact, in a shorter time frame and that might not be all for the good.
Its also possible that it was other factors that led to all that turmoil, or that we are better at societal change now, or that there is some new technology around the bend that gets unleashed due to this that prevents similar problems this time around. All of those are reasonable reasons to be optimistic (Pollyanna-ish if you will), but they don't cancel out the reasonable reasons to be pessimistic.
The Great Depression also played a part in the rise of nazism and fascism, and the abject terror of communism on the part of the rest of the world. And the rise of socialism in many of them.
And the Great Depression wasn't an industrialization-related economic shift; it was more of a hiccup following the tectonic shifts in the nineteenth century part of the industrial revolution.
And the Great Depression wasn't an industrialization-related economic shift; it was more of a hiccup following the tectonic shifts in the nineteenth century part of the industrial revolution.
>And the Great Depression wasn't an industrialization-related economic shift;
Again, that's not my point. It was large amounts of unemployment up to 50% in urban areas. If the GP is correct it should have led to a civil war, but it didn't.
Again, that's not my point. It was large amounts of unemployment up to 50% in urban areas. If the GP is correct it should have led to a civil war, but it didn't.
> Unemployment rallies didn't lead to war, they were just unpleasant.
Yeah, that's why we call it "The Great Unpleasantness", and not something like "The Great Depression".
Yeah, that's why we call it "The Great Unpleasantness", and not something like "The Great Depression".
Did it result in civil war or WWIII? That's my point. A lot of people on HN see what's happening and assume it'll lead to WWIII. It won't and its silly to think so.
It'll continue the "rust belting" of America, where areas that can't compete, won't, and will be dependent on aid from the government. Again, this has been going on for a long time. Just because Millenials have only noticed this recently doesn't change a thing.
This is also why some think some kind of UBI is going to be in the works in the near future. Society can handle x amount of permanently impoverished areas, but when does x become too large? The whole point of things like job tax credits, welfare, unemployment, re-training, local investment, etc is to keep people from civil unrest. UBI is just those things without the pretense that you'll ever get a job. Truck drivers in their 50s who never went to college aren't going to become competitive software developers no matter how much "training" you throw at them.
It'll continue the "rust belting" of America, where areas that can't compete, won't, and will be dependent on aid from the government. Again, this has been going on for a long time. Just because Millenials have only noticed this recently doesn't change a thing.
This is also why some think some kind of UBI is going to be in the works in the near future. Society can handle x amount of permanently impoverished areas, but when does x become too large? The whole point of things like job tax credits, welfare, unemployment, re-training, local investment, etc is to keep people from civil unrest. UBI is just those things without the pretense that you'll ever get a job. Truck drivers in their 50s who never went to college aren't going to become competitive software developers no matter how much "training" you throw at them.
Didn't it? I mean, the equivalent of Great Depression across the pond was one of the primary (if not the primary) things that let Hitler rise to power in Germany and eventually to start WWII.
Something doesn't have to result in global thermonuclear war to be considered bad, and for us to want to avoid it. I don't want my kid to grow up in another depression.
And there's been all sort of arguments (that I'm not qualified to evaluate) that the US Civil War was a direct result of economic conflict, due to the North being a much more economically productive region than the South.
And there's been all sort of arguments (that I'm not qualified to evaluate) that the US Civil War was a direct result of economic conflict, due to the North being a much more economically productive region than the South.
Good ideas. My worry this time is that low level jobs are disappearing and they are not coming back. This differs from before as there has always been other low level jobs to switch to.
When all the truckers lose their jobs they will not all suddenly be able to be project managers or accountants.
When all the truckers lose their jobs they will not all suddenly be able to be project managers or accountants.
Agricultural mechanization was driven by a lack of labor. People moved to cities seeking better jobs in industry, not because there were no jobs on the farm.
There is a cycle. They reason they needed better jobs was the falling prices of agricultural products due to mechanization.
Many driving jobs are more than just operating a vehicle. For example, delivery people have driving jobs, but the person walking in to drop off the package is still necessary without the driving portion. It will certainly hurt, but not as much as that 30% seems to suggest. Not to mention that the vehicles are capital expenses, so we'll see a gradual rollout of the self-driving commercial vehicles as old vehicles are retired and replaced over time.
Even when only part of a system/process can be automated and it looks like the rest is too hard to automate, doesn't mean there wont be ways around it, or ways to cheat. Just look at how automation in factories has developed. Sometimes all it takes is to change the process slightly.
In the case of your delivery example, a person is not necessarily required to drop off the package. A system could be setup where you can request a delivery time frame for your package (e.g. between 7-9pm). When the autonomous delivery van arrives, it parks outside your house and notifies you of its arrival. You go down, scan your card and the van dispenses your package. The van then goes off to its next delivery.
In the case of your delivery example, a person is not necessarily required to drop off the package. A system could be setup where you can request a delivery time frame for your package (e.g. between 7-9pm). When the autonomous delivery van arrives, it parks outside your house and notifies you of its arrival. You go down, scan your card and the van dispenses your package. The van then goes off to its next delivery.
Or the van has a minimum-wage person with no driving skills who just has to be able to find the right package and say, "Here you go! Thank you for using Zap Delivery!"
+1
Korea is experimenting with delivery-box-in-convenient-stores and automated-delivery-box-attached-to-front-door/apartment-complex.
this is easily automatable.
this is easily automatable.
Mercedes vans with Starship drones may make delivery people obsolete too
https://qz.com/879605/mercedes-made-a-crazy-van-with-built-i...
https://qz.com/879605/mercedes-made-a-crazy-van-with-built-i...
>No one is claiming it is a concern for 2017, no?
Some are. If you look at recent-ish job growth you're only seeing part-time and retail growth, or other low paying jobs that have no upward mobility. The good jobs that lead to careers, decent wages, etc have been slowly been made more and more efficient. In the past you'd see a demand for more good jobs but now with all manner of automation its just not happening as much. A IT department just 10 years ago probably needed twice the staff as one does today. AWS/Azure/Whatever cuts out a lot of middle-men, and that's just one example of how things are moving. Every industry is being affected by automation and no, its not going to look like a sterotypical 1950s sci-fi robot.
I'd hate to be a recent grad without a super-marketable skill right now.
Some are. If you look at recent-ish job growth you're only seeing part-time and retail growth, or other low paying jobs that have no upward mobility. The good jobs that lead to careers, decent wages, etc have been slowly been made more and more efficient. In the past you'd see a demand for more good jobs but now with all manner of automation its just not happening as much. A IT department just 10 years ago probably needed twice the staff as one does today. AWS/Azure/Whatever cuts out a lot of middle-men, and that's just one example of how things are moving. Every industry is being affected by automation and no, its not going to look like a sterotypical 1950s sci-fi robot.
I'd hate to be a recent grad without a super-marketable skill right now.
Coming.
I work in public digitization and we're still a lot of years from implementing things like self driving cars. We're running tests of course, but a lot of places the road markings, or lack there off, aren't good enough for the current tech. Heck, in Denmark we also have a lot of specialized road sings that the AIs can't read yet.
Similarly RPA and machine learning are just in the trial stages with very few human resource available to make good use of it.
What we can tell from all these tests and proof-of-concepts though, is that the technology is going to be viable sometime in the future.
No one can predict exactly what will happen of course. As I've already mentioned it'll certainly create new jobs, but those jobs will require higher educations, and I think that's the challenge which worries us in politics. Because the people that are going to be replaced by self driving cars won't be easily reschooled for something else.
I work in public digitization and we're still a lot of years from implementing things like self driving cars. We're running tests of course, but a lot of places the road markings, or lack there off, aren't good enough for the current tech. Heck, in Denmark we also have a lot of specialized road sings that the AIs can't read yet.
Similarly RPA and machine learning are just in the trial stages with very few human resource available to make good use of it.
What we can tell from all these tests and proof-of-concepts though, is that the technology is going to be viable sometime in the future.
No one can predict exactly what will happen of course. As I've already mentioned it'll certainly create new jobs, but those jobs will require higher educations, and I think that's the challenge which worries us in politics. Because the people that are going to be replaced by self driving cars won't be easily reschooled for something else.
Good luck buying an industrial robot right now. Anecdotal maybe, but from my personal experience all top 3 players are experiencing supply shortages due to strong demand.
Well, how about that for irony.
Who are the top three?
I was curious too and found this list (sorry about the parent site):
https://roboticsandautomationnews.com/2015/07/21/top-8-indus...
1. Fanuc
2. Yaskawa
3. ABB
4. Kawasaki
The first one mostly has openings in Michigan, concerning machine vision and embedded NN -- from what I can tell.
https://roboticsandautomationnews.com/2015/07/21/top-8-indus...
1. Fanuc
2. Yaskawa
3. ABB
4. Kawasaki
The first one mostly has openings in Michigan, concerning machine vision and embedded NN -- from what I can tell.
Can confirm. We've been waiting half a year for one arm. It's not only production, training courses are packed and support technicians are hard to get hold of.
Calm before the storm.
Regarding point 2, can this be explained by the trend of turning CAPEX into OPEX by leasing and similar? I only heard about it in passing so maybe thats just a misunderstanding on my part.
Regarding point 2, can this be explained by the trend of turning CAPEX into OPEX by leasing and similar? I only heard about it in passing so maybe thats just a misunderstanding on my part.
Another article about productivity from an author who can't distinguish between measurable economic TFP and the common-use concept of productivity.
In fact, TFP (which is what they're charting) is the mystery factor that explains why earnings grows differently than its inputs, labor and capital.
It makes no sense to me to talk about TFP when moore's law is making devices cheaper and VCs / ad revenue are subsidizing omnipresent software.
The ATMs argument is tired -- even if it's right it's 30 years old.
Foxconn replaced 60k workers on their shenzhen campus with robots. How can this article not cite that?
Weak.
In fact, TFP (which is what they're charting) is the mystery factor that explains why earnings grows differently than its inputs, labor and capital.
It makes no sense to me to talk about TFP when moore's law is making devices cheaper and VCs / ad revenue are subsidizing omnipresent software.
The ATMs argument is tired -- even if it's right it's 30 years old.
Foxconn replaced 60k workers on their shenzhen campus with robots. How can this article not cite that?
Weak.
I'm a fervent watcher of the show "How it's Made" and it blows my mind how an enormous amount of manufacturing is still done by hand. Particularly any seamstress, weaving, buffing, sanding or carving.
The show generally covers North American manufactures where you would expect far greater automation but empirically I have observed the opposite.
For example the other day I watched a Canadian worker skillfully weave a hammock. It looked like it could have been automated but I lacked the mechanical mind to envision how.
So given that manufacturing is actually a small subset of the economy but probably the most viable for automation (ie robots) its sort of disturbing to see an almost regression particularly in North America (again my empirical observations).
Service based jobs like hospitality I would imagine to be far harder to automate (or maybe not).
The show generally covers North American manufactures where you would expect far greater automation but empirically I have observed the opposite.
For example the other day I watched a Canadian worker skillfully weave a hammock. It looked like it could have been automated but I lacked the mechanical mind to envision how.
So given that manufacturing is actually a small subset of the economy but probably the most viable for automation (ie robots) its sort of disturbing to see an almost regression particularly in North America (again my empirical observations).
Service based jobs like hospitality I would imagine to be far harder to automate (or maybe not).
I've also noticed on that show how specialized all the machinery is. Even changing the size of a part might require a whole new machine.
I have to imagine there are big wins waiting for by have more general manufacturing equipment that can itself be mass produced.
I have to imagine there are big wins waiting for by have more general manufacturing equipment that can itself be mass produced.
One thing the general media don't seem to understand is that the whole discussion about robots isn't so much about AI but mostly about automation. We don't need intelligent machines to get there, we're already automating jobs/tasks. In our industry for example bots are everywhere.
"Globalization is a much bigger deal than automation for work and wages."
I think this pretty much sums it up...
I think this pretty much sums it up...
The robotics market isn't coming for several more years, in my opinion, so I think the reason why there is a sounding of an alarm now is because by the time we realize it and it does get here it's too late for the labor market
Quick aside from the point of the article...the "Growth in labor productivity..." and "Capital Investment in IT..." graphs are one of those fudged to present a particular point of view stats.
Wow, so capital investment slowed from 2007-2016. I wonder if anything happened during that time period that may have deflated these growth rates.
Wow, so capital investment slowed from 2007-2016. I wonder if anything happened during that time period that may have deflated these growth rates.
So we are basically faster at creating new jobs than automating existing ones?
they're already here... but unfortunately these algorithms are becoming the masters, an increasing workforce relies on an app to tell them where to pick up customers or where to pick up amazon products.
Where too is the once promised paperless office ?
IMHO the robo jobpocalypse is as overhyped as the paperpocalypse was in the early 1980's
IMHO the robo jobpocalypse is as overhyped as the paperpocalypse was in the early 1980's
Were you making a joke perhaps? Paper disappeared from offices.
[deleted]
I agree, paper is absent from many offices, yet very many business still use some paper.
As the amount of businesses and transactions has increased by several orders of magnitude the overall effect is that more paper is being used than ever before.
As the amount of businesses and transactions has increased by several orders of magnitude the overall effect is that more paper is being used than ever before.
As a remote worker, the paperless office is here today (for me). I interact hundreds of times a day with colleagues around the world, and paper is involved perhaps only twice a year (to print plane tickets).
Same here. Not remote, but I've only handled paper forms on very few occassions, mostly when the law requires written form.
In the past 2 years the only things I was given in paper were, contract, insurance form and a ticket train. Now I have tickets on my phone.
Honestly, the fact that so many offices still rely on paper makes me even more concerned about the decline of job availability in the near future.
We already know how to create paperless offices that are successful and reduce labour requirements, and yet so many businesses still aren't taking full advantage of that. That's a lot of lost jobs before we even start considering new technology replacing people.
We already know how to create paperless offices that are successful and reduce labour requirements, and yet so many businesses still aren't taking full advantage of that. That's a lot of lost jobs before we even start considering new technology replacing people.
There are a lot less paper than there used to be or could be. But paper is still cheap and of course there are legal reasons for using paper for legal documents/etc.
But ask the people in the printing presses, wood mills, etc how "paper" is doing. Just because it isn't gone doesn't mean that there are headwinds for paper.
People used to say the same thing about pay phones. Cellular phones will never replace pay phones/etc. Look how quickly they disappeared.
But I agree, paper is going to be around for a while, but its usage is in decline.
But ask the people in the printing presses, wood mills, etc how "paper" is doing. Just because it isn't gone doesn't mean that there are headwinds for paper.
People used to say the same thing about pay phones. Cellular phones will never replace pay phones/etc. Look how quickly they disappeared.
But I agree, paper is going to be around for a while, but its usage is in decline.
In some applications paper will hold out for quite some time. Only recently screens with a resolution comparable to paper became practical, and it will take until the 2020s until they are widely deployed outside smartphones. And that screen technology still has problems with reading speed as compared to paper. And in terms of viewing multiple documents next to each other it might take one or two more decades for screens to catch up to paper in everyday use.
Then again in a lot of office applications that is irrelevant, meaning paper is of little use to them.
Then again in a lot of office applications that is irrelevant, meaning paper is of little use to them.
"widely deployed outside of smartphones" seems an odd qualification. "widely deployed outside of" the most common consumer electronic device in existence, which most people carry on them at all times?
I meant that more in terms of "widely deployed in sizes exceeding the most common paper size (A4/legal)". At the size of a smartphone you have to exceed the resolution of paper by a considerable margin to show the same amount of detail.
yeah where are them? https://m.imgur.com/ZiJ0n6Q
sheeesh of course robototization adoption is slowing, most manufacturing is already there and until the next tech generation comes we reached the optimum split between local automated vs cheap manual outsourced
sheeesh of course robototization adoption is slowing, most manufacturing is already there and until the next tech generation comes we reached the optimum split between local automated vs cheap manual outsourced
You seem to have a very skewed perspective on the state of automation in SMEs
If labor is less valuable, it doesn't have to mean fewer jobs. It doesn't even have to mean fewer hours worked. It can just mean less money going to labor (i.e. lower wages).
If our economy is operating below its productive capacity, which it is, then our levels of production are constrained by how much people can spend. And if consumers get their incomes from labor, then automation means consumers have less spending money.
If consumer incomes are constrained by wages, you'd therefore expect our level of production to decrease with increased levels of automation. And because economic policies are keeping the hours worked high, you'd expect the amount of production per man hour to decrease.
Hence...
"1. The U.S. economy is in a productivity recession."
Furthermore, if firms need to keep production levels low in order to clear markets, you'd expect that they wouldn't have much of a need to figure out ways to boost production.
Hence...
"2. Companies don’t seem to be investing in technology nearly as much as they used to."
Technology and automation allow the use of resources to be more efficient. One of those resources is labor. That means that in cases where we're actually using labor for production -- instead of, you know, just as an excuse to give people incomes -- we can get that labor really cheap.
"3. Globalization is a much bigger deal than automation for work and wages."
Globalization is automation.
But because we're Americans and we believe in the American dream, we need to force the labor market to provide incomes for hard-working Americans. Naturally, since many jobs amount to little more than token busy-work, we should then expect the labor market to become exceedingly boring and uneventful. After all, these are just fake jobs propped up by economic policy.
Hence...
"4. The U.S. economy’s creative-destruction engine is broken."
"This isn’t what the end of work was ever supposed to look like."
Yes it is. This is exactly what it's supposed to look like.