Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Brave New World
A week or so back we were discussing the implications of America’s declining birth rate. Amongst other points, I wrote this in response to Ross Douthat’s argument that we needed relatively youthful, growing populations to keep the show on the road:
We live in an age in which production relies ever more on technology and ever less on a large workforce. And when it does still need the latter those factories have a nasty habit of migrating abroad.
The traditional idea that (per capita) economic growth relied on population growth has been looking a little tired for quite some time, and the increase in the numbers of the elderly depending on social security does not alter that fact: the unemployed are not going to be able to pay for the pensions of the retired.
Given that, these comments from Paul Krugman (I know, I know) and the Daily Telegraph’s Jeremy Warner are worth noting.
Consider for a moment a sort of fantasy technology scenario, in which we could produce intelligent robots able to do everything a person can do. Clearly, such a technology would remove all limits on per capita GDP, as long as you don’t count robots among the capitas. All you need to do is keep raising the ratio of robots to humans, and you get whatever GDP you want.
Now, that’s not happening — and in fact, as I understand it, not that much progress has been made in producing machines that think the way we do. But it turns out that there are other ways of producing very smart machines. In particular, Big Data — the use of huge databases of things like spoken conversations — apparently makes it possible for machines to perform tasks that even a few years ago were really only possible for people…
And this means that in a sense we are moving toward something like my intelligent-robots world; many, many tasks are becoming machine-friendly. This in turn means that Gordon is probably wrong about diminishing returns to technology.
Ah, you ask, but what about the people? Very good question. Smart machines may make higher GDP possible, but also reduce the demand for people — including smart people. So we could be looking at a society that grows ever richer, but in which all the gains in wealth accrue to whoever owns the robots.
On the positive side, robots ought to progressively free people from the need for human labour. They also have the potential to create unlimited economic growth, since the more robots you have, the more they can produce. On the negative side, they also have the potential to create massive unemployment. We’ve already seen this in action across a wide range of industries as they move from labour to capital intensive. For instance, it no longer takes nearly as many people to make a car as it used to. Vast numbers of white collar jobs have already been disintermediated by the IT revolution. Eventually this will spread to basic manual and service work as the robots move progressively into the workforce.
Again, this doesn’t necessarily matter if the rewards of this revolution are spread equitably through society, but it obviously matters a lot if the owners of the robots – or the capital – monopolise all the wealth that they create.
Indeed, it can reasonably be argued that this is already happening, with inequality steeply on the rise in both advanced and developing economies.
And if you think about it, that’s actually what did occur in the early stages of the industrial revolution, when an extreme divide developed between capital and labour.
None the less, society eventually managed to get through it, and the spoils of these productivity revolutions became more widely shared. Capitalism has repeatedly adapted to survive, and it will do so again. When societies don’t, their leaders tend to be quite swiftly dispatched to the guillotine.
From the Luddites onwards, every technological breakthrough has always produced the same hand-wringing about the effect on jobs and wealth distribution, but in the end, each one creating far more jobs than it has destroyed – generally in more rewarding and less health hazardous forms of work – and greatly raised living standards in the round.
True, so far. And even if history does repeat itself in that happy way, are we going to have to go through a 1917 or two before we get there?
Remind me again why we still need rising populations. I must be missing something.
Published in General
While rising inequality may have something to do with automation, I think it has much more to do with the insane increase in credentialism and the simultaneous collapse of much of the public school system.
And why do you think that happened?
My take is that students realized entire fields of work and academic study would lead to poverty if pursued, thanks to foreign competition and vast immigration. So people directed their efforts elsewhere, including by pursuing rather useless but “credentialed” degrees in grievance-studies and whatnot, figuring that this would be rewarded with a nice well-paying secure job in the bureaucracy. Noticing this, the educational establishment was more than happy to comply with the demand for useless credentials. Win-win. Not.
The problem I see is that for creative destruction to be a positive force for any given country the jobs created must be in that country and not elsewhere.
…
I do not believe this has been the case for the US of late.
For example, when mining employment in the Keewenaw Peninsula of Michigan declined when innovations such as a mining drill that could be operated by only one miner appeared many of the displaced miners went to work in the new auto industry of Detroit.
Today, US workers with jobs lost through creative destruction find that the new jobs they may have obtained in an earlier era are not in the US but China or Mexico or elsewhere.
This may be a great thing for humanity overall but it has created an ugly political problem for the United States. England used troops against Luddites- and I’m sure drove many of them to emigrate to America.
Where can Americans emigrate? And why should I think this a positive?
Xennady…”And why do you think that (insane focus on credentialism) happened?”
I think it’s largely because of the way higher education has been marketed: neither “learn stuff because learning stuff is interesting for its own sake” nor “learn stuff representing specific skills you will need for your career,” but rather “get a DEGREE and you’ll get a good high-paying job.” It’s all about the piece of paper.
There seems to be a lot of optimism that “innovation” will allow us to continue to survive creative destruction. I’m not convinced.
While no one can know the next Big Thing (e.g internal combustion engine, invention of the transistor, indoor plumbing), it’s hard to see anything on the horizon that will provide employment for a lot of people (millions and millions around the world) with abilities all along the bell curve.
I read an article the other day contemplating that the increase on living standards over the last couple of centuries was a bubble with the trend reverting to the average over the last thousand years. Not sure I agree but it’s worth thinking about.
#24: Mark Steyn’s point is that we’ve created entitlements that rely on a growing number of people to stick with the bill. The plagues of the Dark Ages may well have wiped out millions but no one was relying on Social Security.
Man needs a job, because he needs to work.
·25 minutes ago
Some do. Some don’t. ·5 hours ago
This is so true! When I lived out in Africa, the Black men used to laugh at the White men and ask why they worked so hard. The Black men were used to cutting down trees and clearing a patch of land for the women to cultivate. Then the men relaxed in the shadow of the trees, under the warm sun, drank beer and enjoyed life. In the villages, there was always lots of food. A house could be built by a team of men in a short time, all having a party as they did this. Lovely life! Why do we work so hard?
I am a born workaholic, so I know the answer to that question. I simply want to do so and enjoy doing so.
If they can add to that the avarice of the Medici they can run for congress.
[Remind me again why we still need rising populations.]
Consumption.
I think winter has something to do with it : – )
A house could be built by a team of men in a short time, all having a party as they did this. Lovely life! Why do we work so hard?
If they can add to that the avarice of the Medici they can run for congress. ·57 minutes ago
All three have one thing in common, essential to their survival, which is secrecy, (and the second one, which may actually be the first, is that each is all but impossible to eradicate)!
Hang On: “There is no such sudden collapse of population or of civilization on the horizon.”
One of the things coming out of the Black Death was a loss of artisans. There were skill sets that were lost, as the remaining people could not do what their predecessors had been able to do. The equipment was recoverable, but the means of doing it was lost for quite a while. People of insight were required to look at something and ferret out how it had been done, before attempting to do it again.
The skill sets involved in our technological age are immensely further along than the skill sets lost during the European plague. Imagine the loss of electrical power, of clean water at the tap, of food being grown and transported to where we are, of easy access to medical services. Imagine the loss of computers and servers. I believe that should such losses befall us, we’ll face a similar fate to Europe during the Black Death. We’ll die where we are, unable to save ourselves. It will just be a different kind of rat that passed its fleas on to bite us.
2. The EMP from a single 3rd world nuke over Kansas takes us back to 1850 in an instant. ·9 hours ago
1. True.
2. False. There would be a severe shortage of skills needed in such a world. Unfortunately, after all of the starvation and the political upheaval, we’d be a lot closer to 1050.
As for the Mark Steyn stuff, it’s simply ridiculous. There have been periods when over half the population of Europe were wiped out by combinations of bad harvests, the plague, and war over a period of a few years. Europe survived. There is no such sudden collapse of population or of civilization on the horizon. ·
I think this is a bit…abbreviated. Yes, Europe survived. But Europeans died by the millions. Technological advancement was very slow, with most fields at levels lower than the Romans achieved for half a millennium after Rome was sacked. And for most of history, women popped a kid out every couple of years from puberty through early death.
There’s a wide gulf between the kind of survival Europeans endured in the Middle Ages, and anything I’d want my offspring to have to face.
Back in the 1980’s, Isaac Asimov wrote his Robot novels. All you have to read is “Robots and Empire”, which discusses what happens to humans when they become reliant on robots. Boredom, stagnation, decay, and …gone. I have to say, I re-read that one at least once a year, and it never gets old.
@Donald Todd;
We very much agree with your conclusions, but must correct what we believe to be a misreading of history. The Black Death, aka: Plague, was around 1350. It did not cause the loss of the advancement of civilization. It was the result of what was lost 800 or more years prior when Rome rotted out and fell and was replaced by uncivilization, the Vandals and Goths.
The great plague was around the time of the beginning of the awakening from the loss which had happened those many years before.
I am not well-versed when it comes to economics, but I think often about population questions, especially in regards to natural means of fertility regulation. (The term “birth control” really deserves the same fate as the obsolete and rightly scorned term “eugenics.”)As a traditional Catholic who agrees with and follows the teaching of the Church in these matters (as best I can, however poorly that may be), I have come to recognize that to even have a chance of successfully practicing periodic continence when necessary to avoid pregnancy, I have had to completely change my mindset about everything, so that my center of gravity is now all about the meaning and value of human persons.Thus, even to ask why we “need” rising populations sounds a bit brutish and coarse to my ears. The proper question should be: “Isn’t rising population something we naturally desire in and of itself , as human beings are more precious and valuable to us than any ‘commodity’ or comfort?” It seems to me if the answer is really “no” for most people, than the questions of economics of robots is so far down the list as to be ridiculously irrelevant.Culture indeed.
Cause we’ll need people to fight the robots when they inevitably turn on us.
A few comments have nudged up against an important point. Increasing population isn’t some sort of mechanical economic asset, it reflects a cultural attitude. When people have a bountiful brood, at least when they do it voluntarily, they express an ambition to spread their influence, to recreate the world in their own image. When people limit their offspring, they project diffidence, as if they are trying to tread lightly on the world to avoid damaging it.
We can see the contrast between Mitt Romney, an ambitious man who has created many things, not the least a happy clan of children and grandchildren who will be at his side when he finally leaves this world. And his confidence would have been expressed in his projection of American influence in the world, had the election turned out differently. Barack Obama has politely stopped after two girls on whom he apparently dotes, seemingly reflecting the progressive etiquette that one must not take more than one’s share of space in the world. Not surprisingly, his foreign policy seems designed to embrace American decline.
(Pardon me if I let my Rerum Novarum show.) Beyond the mere economics, Work is more than an “item” in the economic calculus. It dictates how human beings interact with one another. Work shapes man, disciplines him, and forces him to cooperate. If you remove his need, you remove his motive.
Man needs a job, because he needs to work.
Capitalism has always compensated for the job loss caused by improved productivity by creating new products, and that’s where the new jobs come from. The “revolutions” were not only propelled by better productivity per worker … they were also propelled by new products to compensate. New jobs replaced old jobs. But without new products, then technology simply removes jobs. Sure, we might supply goods for him to consume to continue his existence, but that doesn’t solve the “work” problem.
Besides, why innovate, or take risks, if you’re going to receive the same amount anyway?
The articles above simply assume that new goods will arise from somewhere. Hey, they always have, right? But … if your “plan” rests on the hope that something unpredictable will happen, that’s not really a plan, is it?
the insane increase in credentialism
And why do you think that happened?
Credentialism is the natural result of people realizing that they can limit competition by using government to restrict access to the marketplace. And so doctors and lawyers, and then plumbers and hairdressers and teachers all “required” credentials.
It all stands and falls on the notion that people cannot judge the value of a service they receive for themselves. Once we accept that people are stupid, government exists to save them.
Raycon and Lindacon: The Black Death, aka: Plague, was around 1350. It did not cause the loss of the advancement of civilization.
I will take a moment to disagree with your position. The fall of Rome, and later Constantinople, meant the end of the Roman civilization. It meant the end of the kind of order that Rome was responsible for; of much (but not all) of learning; of the transmission of art for art’s sake; and of a great deal of commerce and common currency (“give Me a coin. Whose head is on it?”)
But 800 years later things are recovering. Differing parts of the European world are reconnecting, and information and goods are being moved along. A common religion, at least in most of Europe, is the glue between these people and the primary source of their education. It is also responsible for some of the science that is being studied “to the greater glory of God.”
What was gravely harmed at the Black Plague was not the Roman civil civilization and culture, but the civilization and culture being driven by the Roman Church, which is not the same thing.
Lots of good stuff here, the thing that struck me the most when reading the post initially was the lack of attention to the value of the human person. The world was created for man and that in itself is a reason to continue to populate it. While advancements in technology seem to be mostly heralded as a good thing, it has its limits, to my mind. We are social and need others around. If robots increase and we decrease it will be a stunted world. We need to keep people employed and useful, or we do them a disservice, just look at how things are going now. Creativity seems to be ignored in many conversations and I agree with comments above and we keep our society healthy by continually creating in all ways. It is a moral statement.
cuppajoe: the thing that struck me the most when reading the post initially was the lack of attention to the value of the human person.
Well said. We aren’t born alone, we are born to others and if we are sane, we should desire to pass the gift of life on.
Thanks cuppajoe.
dt
It all stands and falls on the notion that people cannot judge the value of a service they receive for themselves. Once we accept that people are stupid, government exists to save them.
I take your point- to an extent- but I’m not sure I can judge the competency of the surgeon who happens to be on duty when I show up at the emergency room needing an appendectomy.
I think it’s largely because of the way higher education has been marketed:
I also take your point, to an extent. But I don’t think marketing alone is sufficient to explain why people are willing to go deeply into debt to obtain degrees that teach them essentially nothing. I think they are reacting to a long term dynamic in the US that informs people that there are many trades/jobs/fields of study that are quite likely to be offshored or filled by immigrants legal or otherwise. Hence they attempt as best they can to make a living by obtaining a credential that they hope will enable them to get a job that can’t be filled by an immigrant or sent overseas.
We can see the contrast between Mitt Romney, an ambitious man who has created many things, not the least a happy clan of children and grandchildren who will be at his side when he finally leaves this world.
Mitt Romney is a Mormon, as everyone knows. It seems to me that Mormons have a religion uniquely suited to survive the collapse of the welfare state, as from what I’ve heard they are required to contribute their personal time as well as money to the church, and keep food on hand in case of disaster. And they have a high birthrate. Demographically, Mormons are succeeding.
Compare and contrast with mainline Episcopalians. It seems to me that they have a religion uniquely positioned to completely disappear, almost immediately. I say that because for at least ten years I was getting the publication of that church, thanks to the prior owner of my house. I looked through it occasionally. It was nothing more than a lobbying pamphlet for the welfare state. And I strongly doubt the intended recipient was still a member the church, because- again, I was getting the newsletter, not the supposed member of the church.
…
A house could be built by a team of men in a short time, all having a party as they did this. Lovely life! Why do we work so hard?
Hey, Zafar, I know that argument, but it is only winter for part of the year. :-)
Demographically, mainline Episcopalians are racing to extinction, as everyone knows.
I note this because 1) I feel bad because I went of topic a bit in responding to David Foster (who also writes for the very good site chicagoboyz.net, which everyone here should read) and 2) the future belongs to those who show up for it, as Mark Steyn says.
On that note, one of the reasons Christianity became the religion of the Roman empire was courtesy of sheer demographics. I read a book about about that subject, a while ago. The relevant point here is that Christians had both a higher birthrate and a higher survival rate for disease than non-Christian, thanks to Christian doctrine. That really matters, futurewise.
This is beside the point, I suppose, but I remember a documentary made a few years back by an heir to the Johnson & Johnson fortune. He was an idealistic young guy who wanted to show how the young rich lived and how wealth perpetuates itself. He did a lot of interviews until word trickled up to the older folks. The curtain came down fast on his work: nobody would talk to him anymore. One of those putting the word around to clam up was lovable old Warren Buffett.
It is a mandate from God if you are a Christian or a Jew and I am not being sarcastic. God did say be fruitful and multiple. No where in the bible does it ever say not have kids because you can’t afford it or your life would be easier. It always talks about kids being a blessing.
Not that I am catholic and think birth control is a sin (only abortion).
Seriously even if there would be no good economic arguments, have lots of kids. I love kids and I think kids are important for a culture and society. Plus life would be boring with-out families and kids and be some sort of Hell. Now why we need population growth? Society does not know how to deal with population declines with-out huge disruptions (granted population declines were always from distastes or wars in the pass not choice so maybe we can handle it if we get rid of socialistic safety nets). Now big families better than small ones who cares about a culture or nations growth when it is your family.
Brian Clendinen: re 59 Not that I am catholic and think birth control is a sin (only abortion).
Contraception is the attempt to keep a child from being conceived. Abortion is the attempt to kill a child in utero. Infanticide is the attempt to kill a child born.
All three recognize the desire to avoid a child and all three serve the same purpose: No child.
If God is the Author of life, which side of this argument is the right side?
To be exact, I wasn’t a Catholic before this revelation, and it was one of those (many) items that caused me to look at Catholicism and finally embrace it. The Catholics were right where I had been either wrong or on the fence.