As technology continues to advance production in economies across the world, in the United States this is having a negative impact on workers in certain industries. Businesses are becoming more and more automated each year, replacing manual labor with various types of artificial intelligence. Because of this, the job market is becoming significantly more competitive and workers without a college degree are being pushed into the lower skill, lower production industries. Now not only are workers being pushed into new industries, but their wages remain low as well. Really, what automation has done is divide the American workforce into two parts. At the top, there is a small group of individuals who are highly educated and make good money at top firms such as Intel. However, a majority of workers find themselves on the other side of this equation; stuck in places such as the service industry, where wages remain low and have shown limited growth.
An interesting point raised in the article is the economic paradox that comes from automation and technological advancement; overall productivity and growth have remained low. It appears that now when someone enters the workforce they will have to look at the lower production side of the economy, as someone's chances of landing at the top remain relatively small.
Moving forward, I am interested to see how jobs in industries such as social services and health care are impacted, not only in the number of jobs but in wages too. As technology continues to push forward and drive workers out of their jobs, will their wages ever be able to catch up?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/04/business/economy/productivity-inequality-wages.html
4 comments:
Technological advances in industries would always have pros of increasing productivity with more efficiency (for the most part), and the cons would be laying off some workers because machines or better tech would reduce the needs of having lots of employees. Unless they are receiving higher education for different technologies or some other field, the cycle will continue. The government should work on some of the industries that have such issues by providing workers who are behind technology. Otherwise, they could also start up something that could provide people with jobs, such as construction and development in certain areas. It's an inevitable phenomenon that follows the technological advances, but it can be ameliorated with such methods.
Very interesting article Jack, as it seems most people accept technological advances with open arms. Although those same people may not see this side of the spectrum, the fact that those advances are leading to losses of jobs. As Professor Skosples said in class, minimum wage is a hot topic right now when in reality it only affects such a small percentage of people. As we've discussed, in capitalism it seems that these issues will always linger, just in different forms. Those who are less educated tend to be put into tough positions as technology advances. In the coming years I only see this affecting more people.
Jack, I am curious as to how you are defining "top". While it is true that technology is fostering a more automated process within the economy, are those that are unskilled and uneducated deserving of a "top" spot? Surely there must be some sort of separation between those who have put in the extra time, effort, and money to obtain more desirable skills to land that "top" spot. Even then, we see individuals who are more educated and more skilled unable to obtain such a high status. The argument arises, however, that low income individuals do not have the money to invest in their skill set. However, there are many ways around this which doesn't necessarily have to involve the more "traditional" way of education, i.e. a 4 year university. Overall, the market will continue to advance with technology and people need to keep up or be left behind.
Jack, your article and synopsis really showcases the economic dilemma between searching for efficiency and maintaining equity. You mentioned that there seem to be some big winners, though few in number that are at the top while many others remain at the bottom with stagnant wages. I am curious, as Duncan mentioned, whether these few at the top have greater human capital and skills that merit their success or if there are some other factors at play. Moving forward, I too wonder if the stagnant wages of these workers will increase or if they will be forced to find other employment. In an economy that is always looking for the newest and most innovative, I wonder what lengths these executives at the 'top' will go to in order to achieve success - will the stakeholders be totally looked over or will they create environments that bring all workers together to create a corporate culture in order to preserve expertise and intelligence within the firm?
Post a Comment