The Luddites Are Almost Always Wrong: Why Tech Doesn't Kill Jobs

Mystakaphoros writes "Mike Masnick of Techdirt argues that we can all put down our wooden shoes and take a chill pill: technology 'rarely destroys jobs.' For example, telephone operators have largely gone by the wayside, but a (brave) new world of telemarketing and call center support jobs have opened up because of advances in technology, not to mention the Internet. Masnick points out writing from Professor James Bessen that makes the same point: 'In other cases, technology creates offsetting job growth in different occupations or industry segments. For example, word processors and voice mail systems reduced the numbers of typists and switchboard operators, but these technologies also increased the number of more highly skilled secretaries and receptionists, offsetting the job losses. Similarly, Amazon may have eliminated jobs at Borders and other national book chains that relied on bestsellers, but the number of independent booksellers has been growing and with it, more jobs for sales clerks who can provide selections and advice that Amazon cannot easily match.' That said, I think it's worth asking: if machines are going to replace all our fast food workers, are we going to start paying our gourmet chefs minimum wage just because we can?"

Re:Lower Wages for Gourmet Chefs?

[Joining Yet Again]

What the hell are you talking about? It's called The Internationale for a reason.

The main difference between a socialist and a capitalist is that socialists think you shouldn't be rewarded for investment, only for work, IOW no reward for laziness.

What the Luddites were really rebelling against.

[wwwrench]

I really hate the way the term Luddite is used -- people should read a bit of history (here [smithsonianmag.com] for a start). The real Luddites were not anti-technology. They were highly skilled workers rebelling against the creation of textile sweatshops. It's a pity their rebellion was put down so violently -- we have a need for more Luddites in today's economy where our iPhones are produced by people who are effectively living in slavery.

Re:Sure, to lower paying jobs

[mhajicek]

Inflation should be measured by the cost of living. The only reason it isn't is to try to make people feel better.

Your Statement is Demonstrably False

[Nova Express]

Texas has added wages across all income levels. [willisms.com]

But no, you just keep quoting that 90% figure from the Institute for Numbers I Pulled Out of My Ass...

Re:Sure, to lower paying jobs

[smooth wombat]

Which is why we as a society need to come up with a way of offering training and education to those displaced workers, at no cost to the displaced workers.

We do. It's called job retraining and is touted, mainly, by the Republicans who offer it up every time the other side talks about shipping jobs overseas and what about the workers who won't have jobs. Guess what, it [cato.org] doesn't [nytimes.com] work [nytimes.com]. And still doesn't [wsj.com].

Re:Sure, to lower paying jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why we should stop talking about "jobs" as a unit of quantitative measurement. Closing a Boeing plant with 250 workers making $75,000 per year and opening a mall in its place with 300 part-time workers making $15,000 per year can be described as "creating 50 jobs," but it's bullshit. The community has lost 76% of the personal income that those Boeing workers were making. That's money that won't be spent at the grocery store, buying a new car, paying sales tax, and so on. The *real* impact of such a move could be captured by some measure that takes into account the pay difference. I suggest something like the dollar--hours FTE per capita. An mental shortcut to imagine this measurement is to figure what one person working full-time would earn if they received all of the pay. The Boeing plant had 9,014 dollar-hours worth of employment, but the mall only has 2,163 dollar-hours.

Re:Sure, to lower paying jobs

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Except that in the United States, core CPI [wikipedia.org] specifically excludes food and energy costs. Calculations of core inflation also specifically exclude food and energy costs. Of course, "core" CPI isn't really used [bls.gov] for anything important, allegedly. "The Man" doesn't hesitate to tell us that Social Security, federal retirement benefits, etc., are all calculated based on the CPI figure that does include food and energy costs. Of course, "The Man" doesn't go as far as to tell us what the "core" CPI is used for within government.