“I believe the calls to “destroy the machines” reflect a broader transformation of American culture and values—from honoring risk-taking and tenacity to prioritizing comfort and codling.”
Good and accurate observation. Niall Ferguson blames institutions, but culture is more the culprit.
“I believe the calls to “destroy the machines” reflect a broader transformation of American culture and values—from honoring risk-taking and tenacity to prioritizing comfort and codling.”
Good and accurate observation. Niall Ferguson blames institutions, but culture is more the culprit.
Mr. Atkinson, can you tell me when worker displacement support system wasn't terrible? It was always either terrible or even more terrible. Being laid off in the middle of your career because your job became obsolete was always an irreversible disaster. Even if it meant that your descendants would eventually do better, for you it was the end of the road. And no, retraining never worked. I hope you're not into the bullshit that laid-off miners should learn to code. Of course you are not into that bullshit. You're into even worse bullshit that laid-off miners should accept being collateral damage to this wonderful economic progress.
If ruined lives are the necessary price for automation, I say no to automation.
If saying no to automation is the necessary prerequisite for not ruining lives, I say yes to not ruining lives.
You are obviously the type of person who believe that in order to make an omelette you have to break a few eggs. And if some people are these eggs, you basicaly say them to put up wit it.
It is clear that for you, Mr. Atkinson, the lives ruined by the process of automation are merely a colateral damage of progress. A ruined life is an acceptable price for progress. The ruined lives of 50% of workers? Perfectly acceptable, if it leads to progress. Am I wrong in my assumptions, or am I right?
For my part, I have always found the question in Dostoevsky’s novel “The Brothers Karamazov” – whether it is acceptable to kill a child in order to achieve world peace – to be utterly insane. And the only acceptable answer to that question is a categorical no. I assume you would answer a categorical yes.
I am sorry, but your article is precisely why economic growth mindset is deeply problematic and, frankly, deeply disturbing.
again, what is your alternative. You still want gas station clerks? The data shows the vast majority of dislocated workers get jobs fairly quickly. Their life is not ruined.
Can you present me "data that shows the vast majority of dislocated workers get jobs fairly quickly?" As far as I know, in case of telephone switchboard operators who were laid off because of automation, their fate was quite bleak.
As study of James Feigenbaum and Daniel P. Gross revealed, during the period between 1920 and 1940, the effect of massive layoffs on incumbent operators was to dispossess many of their jobs and careers: telephone operators in cities with cutovers were less likely to be in the same job the next decade, less likely to be working at all, and conditional on working were more likely to be in lower-paying occupations.
In contrast, however, automation did not reduce employment rates in subsequent cohorts of young women, who found work in other sectors—including jobs with similar demographics and wages (such as typists and secretaries), and some with lower wages (such as food service workers). So let’s say hooray: The affected switchboard operators whose lives were ruined were just a side effect of the progress. A colateral damage.
Mr Atkinson, can you present me any data that contradict these facts?
Blanca, you said that "nobody’s crying over the loss of telephone switchboard operators". Well, except for the telephone switchboard operators. For them, it was basically ruined life.
As study of James Feigenbaum and Daniel P. Gross revealed, during the period between 1920 and 1940, the effect of massive layoffs on incumbent operators was to dispossess many of their jobs and careers: telephone operators in cities with cutovers were less likely to be in the same job the next decade, less likely to be working at all, and conditional on working were more likely to be in lower-paying occupations.
In contrast, however, automation did not reduce employment rates in subsequent cohorts of young women, who found work in other sectors—including jobs with similar demographics and wages (such as typists and secretaries), and some with lower wages (such as food service workers). So let’s say hooray: The affected switchboard operators whose lives were destroyed were just a side effect of the progress. A colateral damage.
People forget that most jobs didn’t exist 100 years ago,so why are we acting like today’s jobs are sacred? Nobody’s crying over the loss of telephone switchboard operators or elevator attendants. We moved on.
But here’s the part that always gets missed: it’s not that people hate automation, it’s that they don’t trust they’ll be taken care of when it happens. If getting laid off meant you had a real shot at retraining and landing something better, people wouldn’t be so scared. But right now? Good luck getting through a broken system that offers a few months of bad online courses and a pat on the back.
So yeah, let the machines take the boring stuff. But unless we fix how we help people land on their feet, we’ll just keep getting the same pushback every time.
“I believe the calls to “destroy the machines” reflect a broader transformation of American culture and values—from honoring risk-taking and tenacity to prioritizing comfort and codling.”
Good and accurate observation. Niall Ferguson blames institutions, but culture is more the culprit.
“I believe the calls to “destroy the machines” reflect a broader transformation of American culture and values—from honoring risk-taking and tenacity to prioritizing comfort and codling.”
Good and accurate observation. Niall Ferguson blames institutions, but culture is more the culprit.
Hunter, thanks for comment. Since I hear these views from many many folks I talk to in DC, it seems like culture is pretty key.
Couldnt agree more. Our worker displacement support system is terrible. The AI Luddites should spend their political capital on fixing that
Mr. Atkinson, can you tell me when worker displacement support system wasn't terrible? It was always either terrible or even more terrible. Being laid off in the middle of your career because your job became obsolete was always an irreversible disaster. Even if it meant that your descendants would eventually do better, for you it was the end of the road. And no, retraining never worked. I hope you're not into the bullshit that laid-off miners should learn to code. Of course you are not into that bullshit. You're into even worse bullshit that laid-off miners should accept being collateral damage to this wonderful economic progress.
and your alternative is what? no more automation?
If ruined lives are the necessary price for automation, I say no to automation.
If saying no to automation is the necessary prerequisite for not ruining lives, I say yes to not ruining lives.
You are obviously the type of person who believe that in order to make an omelette you have to break a few eggs. And if some people are these eggs, you basicaly say them to put up wit it.
It is clear that for you, Mr. Atkinson, the lives ruined by the process of automation are merely a colateral damage of progress. A ruined life is an acceptable price for progress. The ruined lives of 50% of workers? Perfectly acceptable, if it leads to progress. Am I wrong in my assumptions, or am I right?
For my part, I have always found the question in Dostoevsky’s novel “The Brothers Karamazov” – whether it is acceptable to kill a child in order to achieve world peace – to be utterly insane. And the only acceptable answer to that question is a categorical no. I assume you would answer a categorical yes.
I am sorry, but your article is precisely why economic growth mindset is deeply problematic and, frankly, deeply disturbing.
again, what is your alternative. You still want gas station clerks? The data shows the vast majority of dislocated workers get jobs fairly quickly. Their life is not ruined.
Can you present me "data that shows the vast majority of dislocated workers get jobs fairly quickly?" As far as I know, in case of telephone switchboard operators who were laid off because of automation, their fate was quite bleak.
As study of James Feigenbaum and Daniel P. Gross revealed, during the period between 1920 and 1940, the effect of massive layoffs on incumbent operators was to dispossess many of their jobs and careers: telephone operators in cities with cutovers were less likely to be in the same job the next decade, less likely to be working at all, and conditional on working were more likely to be in lower-paying occupations.
In contrast, however, automation did not reduce employment rates in subsequent cohorts of young women, who found work in other sectors—including jobs with similar demographics and wages (such as typists and secretaries), and some with lower wages (such as food service workers). So let’s say hooray: The affected switchboard operators whose lives were ruined were just a side effect of the progress. A colateral damage.
Mr Atkinson, can you present me any data that contradict these facts?
Blanca, you said that "nobody’s crying over the loss of telephone switchboard operators". Well, except for the telephone switchboard operators. For them, it was basically ruined life.
As study of James Feigenbaum and Daniel P. Gross revealed, during the period between 1920 and 1940, the effect of massive layoffs on incumbent operators was to dispossess many of their jobs and careers: telephone operators in cities with cutovers were less likely to be in the same job the next decade, less likely to be working at all, and conditional on working were more likely to be in lower-paying occupations.
In contrast, however, automation did not reduce employment rates in subsequent cohorts of young women, who found work in other sectors—including jobs with similar demographics and wages (such as typists and secretaries), and some with lower wages (such as food service workers). So let’s say hooray: The affected switchboard operators whose lives were destroyed were just a side effect of the progress. A colateral damage.
As always during the process of automation.
People forget that most jobs didn’t exist 100 years ago,so why are we acting like today’s jobs are sacred? Nobody’s crying over the loss of telephone switchboard operators or elevator attendants. We moved on.
But here’s the part that always gets missed: it’s not that people hate automation, it’s that they don’t trust they’ll be taken care of when it happens. If getting laid off meant you had a real shot at retraining and landing something better, people wouldn’t be so scared. But right now? Good luck getting through a broken system that offers a few months of bad online courses and a pat on the back.
So yeah, let the machines take the boring stuff. But unless we fix how we help people land on their feet, we’ll just keep getting the same pushback every time.
Blanca, I agree. good points