That's not talking about automation:
"routine task-intensive activities" is exactly what is being automated in the IT sector. The article you posted is about technology impact, not automation.We juxtapose the effects of trade and technology on employment in US local labour markets between 1980 and 2007. Labour markets whose initial industry composition exposes them to rising Chinese import competition experience significant falls in employment, particularly in manufac- turing and among non-college workers. Labour markets susceptible to computerisation due to specialisation in routine task-intensive activities instead experience occupational polarisation within manufacturing and non-manufacturing but do not experience a net employment decline. Trade impacts rise in the 2000s as imports accelerate, while the effect of technology appears to shift from automation of production activities in manufacturing towards computerisation of information- processing tasks in non-manufacturing.
- - - Updated - - -
No, a loss of a job is a loss of a job. I have yet to see how losing a job to automation, not computerization, is helping your point. The journal isn't talking about manufacturing being replaced by automation, but by specialization in routine computing. That's not what automation is... it's not someone behind a computer, replacing someone on a production line.
Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi
The part that you chose to emphasize is talking about the change in trends in disruption by technology (Also, separating the effects of technology and automation is murkying the waters, specially when the 80s and 90s;mostly 90s, most disruption came in the form of robots rather than complementary techonology to workers) in the manufacturing sector (automation) to other sectors in the economy.
If you read a little bit belowe you would realize that the paper is effectively talking about automation:
- - - Updated - - -Using data on CZs from 1980 to 2007, we assess the effects of exposure to import
competition and initial specialisation in routine tasks on overall employment,
unemployment, and non-participation, on job polarisation in manufacturing and
non-manufacturing, and on the time path of adjustment overall and by sector. The
analysis produces three new sets of results on the causal effects of advancing
automation and rising low-wage country imports on local labour-market outcomes.
Presuming? They find work.
INB4 Acemoglu and Restrepo
Last edited by NED funded; 2017-05-25 at 05:03 AM.
It's not murky waters, it's just not the point of the journal. It talks about technological advances from 1980 to 2007, not exclusively towards automation, but including the IT boom of the late 90s. That's why there is even a debate for them to be compared. Because if you remove technological advances, from automation, you are left with indistinguishable results.
I did and it's not talking about automation, but technological advances. Instead of needing a network manager in the late 90s, due to the technological boom, automation does not create jobs in new industry. That's why you cannot answer what jobs will replace existing with automation, but wouldn't with outsourcing. Imagine the same article, but not including job creation of new technology, but automation. That's why the bold highlights, it's literally talking about a shift from automation to IT in 2000s. Automation is not including a shift... there is no volume increase that boomed industrialization shift to mass production and there is no birth of a new industry to take the sport of jobs lost in computerization.If you read a little bit belowe you would realize that the paper is effectively talking about automation:
That article is not talking about automation, which why you think it's murky when it interchanges it with computerization. It covers both and computerization is the part that replaced those jobs. Automation is not doing that...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/28/u...jobs.html?_r=0Presuming? They find work.
INB4 Acemoglu and Restrepo
The paper adds to the evidence that automation, more than other factors like trade and offshoring that President Trump campaigned on, has been the bigger long-term threat to blue-collar jobs. The researchers said the findings — “large and robust negative effects of robots on employment and wages” — remained strong even after controlling for imports, offshoring, software that displaces jobs, worker demographics and the type of industry.
Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi
Before I write an answer later tonight I want to clarify some stuff so I'm not misreading.
a) Do you think the technological impact in the 80s and 90s is automation or computerization? The article you linked seems to think it is, so I want tp clarify it.
b) What do you think are the differences in outcomes (employment) between automation and computerization?
c)To add the paper does express concern in automation of computarized tasks a la Polanyi's paradox. Do you think this leads to permanent unemployment?
Last edited by NED funded; 2017-05-25 at 02:35 PM. Reason: Better formatting
Just opened an air conditioner manufacturing plant just west of Houston, pretty big one too. When it gets going full steam it is going to employ 5,000 people.
The PotUS had nothing to do with it's opening I imagine.
There is zero chance Trump was involved. His time in office is not nearly long enough for a corporation to put those sorts of plans into motion. Which is why many of Trump's claims about jobs is actually pretty obviously taking credit for stuff he had no influence over. Corporate America, especially large corporations usually take years to plan these sorts of things.
Last edited by Allybeboba; 2017-05-26 at 09:21 PM.
You see, you didn't state anything like that when you first posted your bullshit statement. @Lenonis did. He mentioned that it took years to plan and build the building.
Your last part of the statement "The PotUS had nothing to do with it's opening I imagine." sounded sarcastic enough that people thought you were trying to say that Trump had something to do with this. Nothing, and I mean literally NOTHING, Trump has done has effected anything for the economy, except that the stock market is unstable because of his Russia investigation and Comey firing.
No one made you think I meant the current PotUS but you. It is simply a product of your own thought process. My original statement made no mention of time other than it 'just opened'.
- - - Updated - - -
It wasn't typed incorrectly. I typed exactly what I wanted. You just automatically presumed I was making a statement about current PotUS because that is what you would do. I can't make you think your own thoughts only you can.
You people are obsessed with him.
Last edited by Allybeboba; 2017-05-26 at 09:37 PM.
If the only one who understands what you meant is you then the fault doesn't lie with everyone else for how you chose to phrase it. Next time use your words better.
Or, you know, don't engage in dog whistles.
- - - Updated - - -
Then don't be surprised if everyone challenges you because you didn't state things correctly.
If you want to say the world if round don't type "the world is flat".
It's a raw deal, If i was president id get my money back, sue the shit out of Carrier for trying to outsource, and use every presidential power to burn their company to the ground. Carrier made a deal to keep jobs inside America, failing that deal means they shouldn't get shit.
It wasn't federal money I don't believe.
You'd not only lose the lawsuit but it would be tossed out by the courts before it even got to opening arguments.sue the shit out of Carrier for trying to outsource
So...you are ok with the federal government intentionally trying to bankrupt companies that don't comply with their agenda? And you get upset when you get called Fascist?use every presidential power to burn their company to the ground.
They are still keeping jobs inside America. It's not their fault you don't understand the deal that was actually made.Carrier made a deal to keep jobs inside America, failing that deal means they shouldn't get shit.
they need to keep all of their jobs inside America, not just 10% or less. Outsourcing is just a piece of shit tactic that only saves companies a few dollars at the expensive of jobs in America. These companies are still making tons of profits so they can't claim they are barely breaking even.
When companies would rather put 1000 people out of work or Outsource to save a few bucks theres something wrong with the company. Cal me any name you like if i was able to save or create jobs in my country i honestly wouldn't care