Auto workers sixty years ago didn't turn into robotics engineers either. And, largely, they didn't have to. They moved to the niches the robots weren't yet appropriate for, until they retired.
It was subsequent generations that simply didn't have the same wrench-turning job the older generation started at. What I've observed, over my years in Detroit, is that as automation pushes into the process, complexity grows, and jobs to support that complexity push out to smaller employers. GM doesn't have a million wrench turners, but a thousand CAD/CAM shops now exist.
Many of those shops are producing parts that didn't exist before automation made the more-complex, more-specialized, more-numerous designs feasible. Before the demand for precisely-designed/machined components existed.
Are there net fewer jobs? Not that I've ever seen or read. [1]
Similarly with the journalism example in the article. Thousands of dead-tree newspaper jobs are definitely going away. But how many thousands of online news jobs were created? How many people make their living blogging? Is the overall industry of bringing written information to the masses contracting? That's another argument I'd need to see employment studies on to believe.
Lastly, current unemployment isn't structural. Despite appeals to 'what we all know', there is no data to suggest that it's caused by job types going away or job seekers having skills that no-one needs anymore. All the evidence suggests that employers simply don't need many workers right now. That is: current unemployment is just a symptom of the lack of demand.
If this time is truly going to be different, it will have to be due to factors not outlined in the article.
[1] Detroit's overall labor situation might appear a counter-argument, but that has more to do with the industry decentralizing -- away from Detroit and away from the Big Three.
Auto workers sixty years ago didn't turn into robotics engineers either. And, largely, they didn't have to. They moved to the niches the robots weren't yet appropriate for, until they retired.
It was subsequent generations that simply didn't have the same wrench-turning job the older generation started at. What I've observed, over my years in Detroit, is that as automation pushes into the process, complexity grows, and jobs to support that complexity push out to smaller employers. GM doesn't have a million wrench turners, but a thousand CAD/CAM shops now exist.
Many of those shops are producing parts that didn't exist before automation made the more-complex, more-specialized, more-numerous designs feasible. Before the demand for precisely-designed/machined components existed.
Are there net fewer jobs? Not that I've ever seen or read. [1]
Similarly with the journalism example in the article. Thousands of dead-tree newspaper jobs are definitely going away. But how many thousands of online news jobs were created? How many people make their living blogging? Is the overall industry of bringing written information to the masses contracting? That's another argument I'd need to see employment studies on to believe.
Lastly, current unemployment isn't structural. Despite appeals to 'what we all know', there is no data to suggest that it's caused by job types going away or job seekers having skills that no-one needs anymore. All the evidence suggests that employers simply don't need many workers right now. That is: current unemployment is just a symptom of the lack of demand.
If this time is truly going to be different, it will have to be due to factors not outlined in the article.
[1] Detroit's overall labor situation might appear a counter-argument, but that has more to do with the industry decentralizing -- away from Detroit and away from the Big Three.