Workers are not deprived of work even if technology evolves and mechanization advances
While the variety of work is mechanized to increase productivity, the fact that some people lose their jobs due to "person reduction" due to rationalization is said to be the fundamental cause of the unemployment problem in modern society,The more scholars who declare that the evolution of technology deprives the work from manis. However, there is an opinion that it straightly argued to this, mechanization according to technology evolution does not deprive of the job and does not destroy employment.
Stop Saying Robots Are Destroying Jobs - They Are not | MIT Technology Review
Just recently Mr. David Rottmann technical investigator at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) wrote a paper entitled "How technology is destroying employment". It shows a common opinion that employment that this title itself is sluggish is caused by mechanization. However, Robert David Atkinson, an American economist and representative of think-tank information technology innovation foundation, completely denies this general view. According to him "Technology (technological innovation) never destroy employment macroscopically, and it will never change"apparently.
Mr. Atkinson said that many of the views that "workers are deprived of jobs by mechanization" are co-authored by MIT's economist Eric Bringinger and Dr. Andrew McAfee "Competition with machineryAlthough it is the basis of the argument, he insists that analysis of data which is the basis for deriving conclusions in this book is incorrect in the first place.
"Competition with machinery", statistical data that employment suddenly went out despite the steadily increasing productivity due to mechanization as a result of technological innovation since the 2000s "is not related to economic growth and loss of employment It is what it indicates. " But Mr. Atkinson says this understanding is incorrect. Mr. Atkinson's argument is that data indicates "there is no relevance to productivity and employment".
This is a graph showing the relationship between productivity in the United States and employment.
Mr. Atkinson describes herself as a model of two countries with the same economic growth rate of 2%. The two countries are country A modeled on Japan and country B modeled in the United States. In A country there are many people who retire and the number of people who retire, so the labor force is declining but the unemployment rate is low In the country B, the labor force is growing but the unemployment rate is high because the production population and immigrants have increased. In other words, if you look at the current situation in Japan and the United States, it is clear that high productivity is feasible regardless of whether employment rate is high or low, "it is unrelated" that the increase in productivity and the decrease in employment are unrelated " I assert that.
Mr. Atkinson concludes that the employment growth slowed since 2000 has been a demographic issue of the retirement of the baby boomers generation and the increase of women's social advancement. And while pointing out that the productivity of the year 2000-2008 when the unemployment rate was extremely low was growing at an annual rate of 2.8%, productivity of 2008 to 2012 is only 1.8% per year "Improvement of productivity by mechanization is not related to unemployment problemWe conclude that.
Mr. Atkinson pointed out that it is a cause of mistakes that Dr. Bryn Jilson and Dr. McAfee refer to the fact that machinery is replaced by workers as a one-sided fact of mere reduction of persons in "Competition with machines" To do. According to Mr. Atkinson, it is assumed that different effects will occur when workers are replaced by machines. that is,The cost saved by mechanization is reduced to the whole economy,something like. For example, economic effects such as a decrease in commodity prices due to mechanization, an increase in purchasing power, an increase in profits by companies to make other commodity services easier, higher wages to be paid to remaining workers As a result, demand is stimulated, other companies become a trend to secure more workers, and as a result it will not be a simple person reduction.
In the short term, there is a research result that the improvement in productivity due to mechanization affects the unemployment rate. At the same time, improvement in productivity has little influence on the employment situation in the long term or many studies It is obvious from Mr. Atkinson.
According to Mr. Atkinson, "believers" in the view that "workers are deprived of jobs by mechanization", "technology like the Internet automates many routine work and many workers are deprived of jobs Despite the claim that this information asserts that advances in information technology (eg nursing home, police and fire) and services that require human work ( It is said that it can not be said that it is correct as it is overlooking that there is a manager service for example).
Mr. Atkinson said even if miraculously improved productivity by 5% in one year (the highest productivity improvement rate in the US in history is 3%), it means that the income of the people as a whole increased by 5% Suppose we are going to eat at a restaurant, only take a more holiday, buy a car or a house, spend money on education and buy 3D television only. And, in this "happy world", workers are still necessary to provide goods and services, and even if the production and service of goods are automated by machines, the money generated by improving productivity We will use other products and services at the same time, and according to that we will explain that new work will be created.
Mr. Atkinson argues that as the productivity gains by mechanization, the economy gets moist and the demand for new services increases, job opportunities are created, and there are services that machines can not replace I will. However, when a robot that can do the same work as human beings appears, the story seems to change a lot.
in Note, Posted by darkhorse_log