Harambe wrote:
Heartless wrote:
Opinions are like asssholes...
I’d say graduate-level econometrics grants me above Econ 101 status. Two masters degrees in quantitative reasoning-based subjects grants me a strong understanding of variables feeding a system.
A “link” from a guy that conveys what you are trying to say isn’t “data.”
It’s just common sense here. It’s all in the incentives being perpetuated. Looking the other way as companies use cheap/off books labor is altering the incentives of the entire economy in a negative manner. It is disincentivizing those very companies to innovate. It is disincentivizing low-skilled folks to take those jobs because unemployment or other grifting work pays same or more. Then politicians want to raise minimum wage for optics, knowing damn well that it incentivizes the competing-wage companies for low-skilled folks to automate them right out of the workforce.
This is all accelerating the move to full automation. Your manual labor comment is unbelievable. “Not manual labor”? It’s already been happening for 20 years! Go to an auto plant nowadays- they’ve automated production to the point that humans just move pieces into place- or make sure the ROBOTS put things in the right place- in many instances. McDonald’s could essentially operate like a giant snack machine if it wanted to within 10 years. Industrial engineers’ jobs are specifically to eliminate as much touch labor as possible. If you think it’s not going to happen in the agriculture industry real soon, you’re crazy.
I can’t believe someone is doubting that automation and AI is going to wreak havoc on the lower and middle class occupations in the coming years. Google that shiit, bruh.
The classic, "I'm reasonably smart and economics is just numbers. Therefore, my back of the napkin reasoning is just as good as dozens of studies suggesting otherwise." (in the link I posted)
Basically this:
https://xkcd.com/793/If you have 2 masters degrees you should understand the value of actually looking at the literature!
The manual labor line proves my point! We have hearing about the robot revolution since the 80s! It's not here yet! Auto companies in the 80s spent billions trying to automate and we still employ ~80% of the people in auto manufacturing as we did in 1994 (and this tracks manufacturing employment in general)! It's actually an excellent example of "robots taking all the jobs" that never happened!.
https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2019/april/us-auto-labor-market-naftaIf I google AI/automation taking jobs I see plenty pieces arguing both sides. Again, the US labor market has transformed several times in the last 250 years thanks to transformative technology that resulted in huge productivity gains. I am ready to believe the tried-and-true "this time it's different" when I get some actual data out of you :)
Thanks for exemplifying that people who cannot intelligently support their opinions become super-dependent on including links that align with their beliefs.
“It’s not here yet”? Jesus Christ- what are you talking about? I’m flabbergasted that I have to explain this to someone. I’m guessing you don’t know anyone that works in these industries? Take a look at the Tesla plant floor. Those robots are doing the jobs of hundreds of workers. This has been and will continue to happen across all manufacturing industries. Hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs were eliminated when plants were shifted to Mexico, China, etc. The plants that remain here require far less heads to operate and produce. This is the reality.
I work in program management in the engineering/manufacturing industry, so I’ve seen it happen first hand. Plants that survived that used to employ 2000 people 30 years ago now might employ 800... while producing the same or more output. Innovation/Automation is the reason. Yes, it’s a good thing. (No, the companies that make those robots don’t require 1500 heads to produce the robots.)
Our economy has been shifting away from being a manual-labor economy for decades. Manufacturing sector GDP as a percent of our economy has gone from 25% to just 11% over the last 50 years, and manufacturing payrolls as percent of the economy has gone from 30% to 8%. 20M jobs in the 60s to maybe 12M now? This isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
But, if the jobs replacing these manufacturing jobs are still low-skilled, low-wage, and maybe “gig” (temp/crappy pay/no benefits) in nature, waves of people competing for those jobs does in fact keep wages low. This is an indisputable fact. We need immigration policies that ensure a proportionate BALANCE across the economic / class spectrum. How is this even up for debate is beyond me.