Me:
My historical perspective on the computer revolution is that it pails in comparison to the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution took a long time to take place (its really two industrial revolutions the one between 1750 and the 1830s and the second Henry ford industrial revolution). Almost immediately after the start of the industrial revolution massive, legal and intellectual change started. It also completely and utterly changed the way that the whole world lived, created new sorts of jobs etc. Most importantly it created lots of new jobs in terms of the real number of jobs.
The tech revolution is sort of an industrial revolution in reverse. It makes moving the remaining industrial jobs around easier and it makes computer operated production easier. But rather than creating new things for humans to do, it destroys huge numbers of jobs, and creates a few very very elite jobs in the western world. We see it as a boon here in the U.S. for now at least. But when the reality sets in, that we can't all be internet makers. (I mean seriously how many applications do we need. I saw a start-up on angel list that helped people shop for bras. Just bras.) Most of these internet inventions are just distractions, not value adders.
The only real rejoinder I can think of is that the tech-revolution might be "greener" than the industrial revolution. Of course as arguments go this isn't a very strong one. Especially since environemental movement (no the nascent movement of John Muir and National Parks) didn't really exist until the late 1960's.
EP:
Yeah, it's hard to disagree that that is possible. Currently we still see huge wage premiums for finance, doctors, and lawyers, but a lot of what they do could arguably be better performed by robots and algorithms as well. To the extent they have so far been insulated by the effects of globalization and share a similar mindset with the elites that drive policy, when they begin to feel real pain is maybe when we will fully consider the broad affects automation has on the economy.
I realize lawyers are hurting now, but that's currently largely an oversupply story. It's really easy to sit there and argue for free labor and capital flow when it doesn't increase the labor supply in your own industry. Likewise, just asserting that "high value" jobs will always be in demand just because yours currently is will become a lot more difficult. If it is the case that many more "high skill" jobs start going away, I think we could see more of a backlash, as the wealthy largely dictate policy. Then the only way left to get rich (if you're not already born into privilege) will be finance, in the hopes you can get skim enough off the already wealthy to join their ranks.
Comments