December 10, 2012

IT'S A WEALTH DISTRIBUTION QUESTION, NOT A JOBS CRISIS:

Robots and Robber Barons (Paul Krugman, 12/09/12, New York Times)

[T]here's no question that in some high-profile industries, technology is displacing workers of all, or almost all, kinds. For example, one of the reasons some high-technology manufacturing has lately been moving back to the United States is that these days the most valuable piece of a computer, the motherboard, is basically made by robots, so cheap Asian labor is no longer a reason to produce them abroad.

In a recent book, "Race Against the Machine," M.I.T.'s Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee argue that similar stories are playing out in many fields, including services like translation and legal research. What's striking about their examples is that many of the jobs being displaced are high-skill and high-wage; the downside of technology isn't limited to menial workers.

Still, can innovation and progress really hurt large numbers of workers, maybe even workers in general? I often encounter assertions that this can't happen. But the truth is that it can, and serious economists have been aware of this possibility for almost two centuries. The early-19th-century economist David Ricardo is best known for the theory of comparative advantage, which makes the case for free trade; but the same 1817 book in which he presented that theory also included a chapter on how the new, capital-intensive technologies of the Industrial Revolution could actually make workers worse off, at least for a while -- which modern scholarship suggests may indeed have happened for several decades.


Posted by at December 10, 2012 5:37 AM
  
blog comments powered by Disqus
« BACK TO COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATISM: | Main | THE DISCIPLINE OF DEMOCRACY: »