Evan Horowitz has
succeeded in usurping the spotlight of fame by making it to the front
page (the entire page, not shared) of the May 7th
2017 Boston Globe's Business Section. Leslie Becker gets credit for
graphics, depicting a conveyor line throwing products and workers to
a heap of trash.
Every new industrial robot
costs between 3 and 6 human jobs, says the MIT, Yale alum report. I
get it. I'd better believe that industrial robots are not good for
America, stunting economic growth and stranding six workers per robot
in under employment situations. However, there are assumptions,
conclusions, and facts. Let's see how they match up.
Contention 1: ...robots
are failing to boost output or make the economy more productive.
The
author has leapt over the devious chasm of cause and effect. There
are hundreds of causes of low and cyclic output, the most basic
cause being supply and demand. Manufacturers don't produce widgets
they can't sell. The effect of robots on the American economy
cannot be measured except by taking millions of factors into
account.
Contention 2: ...when
an auto manufacturer installs cutting edge robotic arms...the company
is supposed to become more efficient allowing consumers everywhere to
reap the benefit of less-expensive, robot-welded cars.
Industrial
robots almost always make the car making process more efficient. Auto
manufacturers serve their shareholders by increasing company
value. Manufacturers make a choice whether to (a) reduce prices
and sell higher quantities of cars or (b) keep prices the same and
sell the same number of cars, reaping more per-unit profit.
Company
value goes up either way,
but consumers benefit from lower prices only if the price of cars
goes down (a). Shareholder equity goes up in both (a) and (b).
Contention 3: ...while
they might lay off some assembly line workers, in theory those
workers could move into high-demand jobs in other fields, like health
care.
Without
a myriad of other factors, the theory works. But, other factors are
dominant, like the cost of re- education and who pays, the
temptation to stay at home collecting unemployment benefits, a
scarcity of jobs readily available with hourly rates of $45/hour
and 12 weeks paid vacation, family leave provisions, retirement
contributions, medical insurance, proximity of home to work, sick
pay, etc. These factors count as reasons not to scramble to quickly
get a new job after being laid off. If high-demand jobs like health
care were easy, tempting, and available, workers would have jumped
the assembly line ship already.
Contention 4: ...our
increasingly robot-driven world isn't living up to the great
techno-utopian promise, namely when machines do the work, humans will
reap the rewards.
Ask
any CEO: would you invest shareholders' equity in robots if someone
could not reap the rewards? He'd laugh at you. Of course someone
reaps the rewards. Rewards go to the bold and the hard working
citizens always trying to do better and be better. Otherwise an
enterprise would simply be a charity.
Contention
5: ...recent economic research suggests the harm robots are
causing human workers is real...nobody in the local community really
gains from the arrival of robots: not managers, not college grads,
not even those with advanced degrees.
There's
someone who is not being harmed: the shareholder investors and the
company maintenance technicians who service the robots.
Hook,
line, and sinker: MIT economist Daron Acemoglu and Yale collegue
Pascual Restrepo packed chicken and noodle theories and over cooked
assumptions into this Boston Globe takedown of corporate America
without telling the rest of the story. The rest of the story is that
corporate America is not made up of buffoons. Everything affects
everything else in a free market economy. Using some survey
statistics and stifling others unbalances any conclusions toward the
leanings of the authors, who have shown themselves to be agenda
driven. So, what can we do? (from Apricot Pie that first bite,
2014) ...listen to every voice and consider how every lesson can
increase the quality of your life. Hopefully, your goals will ratchet
upward in tune with every need to adapt to the world as it changes
(and change is inevitable.)
image robots.com
11 comments:
This Globe article suggests a robot tax, where workers and owners could share in the economic gain. Who would hold the tax money? How would the money be distributed? I can see through the smoke this idea is producing.
Buying stock in those automation companies is a good idea. Share that way.
Memo to Boston Globe: publish your real mission.
Adapt. Tatoo it on your arm.
I thought the Globe Business page is one of the best on the East coast. I'd say it got the job done. Imagine if lots of these bespectacled CEOs and CFOs (the cigar boys) took this to heart. Imagine if they had a heart. Don't ever use the word charity in the same sentence with mention of a Globe piece.
We've been monitoring this and we have questions
Los secretos están aquí hablan suavemente
Cerrar la cara de piña
Real Journalists Real Journalism. These are the watchwords of the Boston Globe. I like it. If you don't like something have the courtesy to keep your opinions kindly and respectful. Journalists don't have access to every bit of historical information or survey, but they do whatever makes sense. I think editorial supervision is excellent at the Globe, and they have my respect.
Boston Globe ayuda a todos escribiendo sobre temas importantes para todas las personas. Gracias.
Rub some stool softener into your hard feelings. Get a freakin' life. You'll wear yourself out leading the gullible to the weeping place. People in America get what they earn and they don't like being kept down. Let's see some positive attitudes for a change.
Post a Comment