This will probably result in very few jobs. The number will decline as the technology gets better, too. The USPS's first machine sorting system had tens of thousands of people keying in the ZIP codes as envelopes went by. Then that was automated for machine-addressed mail with specific fonts. Then for all typed and printed ZIP codes. Then for all typed and printed full addresses. Then for clearer handwritten addresses. Now there's just one national center where a few people look at images of illegible addresses.[1]
Right, but in industries that are not replaced (like mail), you're forgetting about the effect increased efficiency will have on demand. A counterexample would be when looms increased employment in textiles. Less people were needed per item, but it was so much cheaper to make textiles that the increased demand ended up employing more people in textile mills than ever.
This is fascinating. Can you please point me somewhere I can learn more about automation increasing employment? When I google it I just get a bunch of highly political pieces about robots stealing jobs.
There's a classic book from almost a century ago, "Chapters on Machinery and Labor", which lists the three usual outcomes from mechanization. It's still relevant.
The "good case" was typesetting. The introduction of the Linotype enormously increased the volume of material printed and created more printing and typesetting jobs.
The "medium case" was bottle making. Hand-made bottles were expensive, taking a trained group of about five people to blow a bottle. Machine-made made bottles were cheaper, and required far fewer people to make. Cheaper bottles increased demand for bottles, but, overall, employment in bottle making was about the same or less. Also, much of the labor was now low-skill machine tending - putting in sand, taking out bottles. Only a small number of bottle-making machine experts were needed.
The "bad case" was the stone planer. Brick buildings used to have stone lintels over doors and windows, and there was an industry of big guys with chisels hammering out those things. The stone planer was simply a big steam powered planer for stone slabs. This required far fewer people. But it didn't increase demand for stone lintels, because they were a minor building component, not significant enough in cost to increase demand for brick buildings.
> So anyways, my next post will explain why this is all a lie and you’re actually maybe doomed to lose your job to automation. If you’ve found the problem with this analysis already, feel free to leave it in the comments.
Any computer person who has automated their jobs to the point fires aren't flaring up every day and their bosses and coworkers wonder what they do all day has felt the reality of automation killing jobs.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/04/us/where-mail-with-illegi...